Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ai
September 05, 1998 - October 20, 1998
Richard,
I was just browsing your page and was very pleased to find the section
on the corvair( this is what I intend to use in my piet). I am not
sure if this is new or not ( i thought I had browsed through pretty
thoroughly before), but I had a thought that a section on your drop
down list of "what's new" would be nice..
Just a thought- mostly what I wanted to say is thank you for archiving
this information for us- It really has been an indispensable resource!
Keep it up!
paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | pilot00(at)earthlink.net |
stay with the origional piet. do not use the gn-1 plans. there are many
faults.
>Hello list,
>On other small item about the GN-1. I have talked with Mr. Grega on
>several occasions and felt that he is a fine gentleman. I don't believe
>that he is trying to dupe anybody. If you look at the price he is
>charging for plans (which are very well drawn) he is certainly not getting
>rich.
>Regards - Bob Bailey
>
>> >I am thinking of building a GN-1. Is there anyone out there who is
>> >currently building one ? If so I would like to hear about the
>construction
>> >and decisions that had to be made along the way.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | about "new builder" |
I had to laugh when STevee said that some of his parts were 2nd 3rd, and 4th built...
I'm thinking about building two airplanes, the one that
does fly, and another made from all my screwed up parts.
oil can
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: about "new builder" |
Build it right the first time and you can have an airplane at 1/2 the
price. When I first started building I couldn't get going because I didn't
want to screw up the expensive material. So I quit building. Than I started
on boats. After a while it became easier to do a job right the first time.
Than I started on my plane and haven't had to redo too many parts. You get
better with practice. If you have to pratice and know it will be screwed
up make the part from scrap material.
>I had to laugh when STevee said that some of his parts were 2nd 3rd, and
4th built...
>
>I'm thinking about building two airplanes, the one that
>does fly, and another made from all my screwed up parts.
>
>oil can
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Nichols <Nichol14(at)ix.netcom.com> |
| Subject: | So maybe not a GN-1 |
OK, so if I were to build a real Pietenpol instead of a GN-1, what are the
differences between the Model A and a Continental A/C-65. What extra plans
do I need if I want the Cont. How hard are parts for the Model A to come
by. Since most airports are not sod are there plans for a tailwheel or is
this left up to the builder. My preference would be for an interchangable
tailwheel/tailskid if I could base the aircraft at a sod field. Does
anyone fly a Piet with a tailskid, if so how does it handle. Were any
modifications to the landing gear position to get the tailskid to function
properly or does the modification need to be in the other direction when
installing a tailwheel? I saw an Acey Ducey at a flyin yesterday that had
entry steps under the cockpits externally. Is this possible on an all wood
Piet? ( the Acey Ducey had a steel tube fuse and the steps were attached to
the vertical tubes) How similar are the Aircamper and the Skyscout. I am
building a wing rib jig from Skyscout plans and am wondering if the airfoil
is the same for both aircraft (60" chord). The actual truss members can be
changed later for different spar locations and other dimentional changes.
If it cannot be used at least I have practice building a jig.
Just a few thoughts and questions,
Thanks
James Nichols
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight |
>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't useful load include fuel
>weight. So pilot, passengers, baggage;-) and fuel would have to weigh
>less than 385 pounds in this case.
>
>
Dean,
I was being an optomist. 385 sounds like lawyer speak to me but
then I only have 6 hours toward my ticket. I guess that if you
are little then the 280 or so after gas allows a passenger that
is larger than a toddler and maybe a pack of pampers :-).
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: about "new builder" |
Kind of reminds me of the third time I cut the part and it was still too
short ! };-)
But after all the idea is to have fun with and educational and recreational
experience. Sometimes we just end up recreating the same part once too
often.
But it is still fun
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net>
Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 10:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: about "new builder"
>Build it right the first time and you can have an airplane at 1/2 the
>price. When I first started building I couldn't get going because I didn't
>want to screw up the expensive material. So I quit building. Than I started
>on boats. After a while it became easier to do a job right the first time.
>Than I started on my plane and haven't had to redo too many parts. You get
>better with practice. If you have to pratice and know it will be screwed
>up make the part from scrap material.
>
>
>>I had to laugh when STevee said that some of his parts were 2nd 3rd, and
>4th built...
>>
>>I'm thinking about building two airplanes, the one that
>>does fly, and another made from all my screwed up parts.
>>
>>oil can
>>
>>
>>http://www.mailexcite.com
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Which one gets the jeep engine ;-)
>Date: Mon, 07 Sep 1998 00:10:10 -0700
>From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
>Subject: about "new builder"
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>I had to laugh when STevee said that some of his parts were 2nd 3rd,
and 4th built...
>
>I'm thinking about building two airplanes, the one that
>does fly, and another made from all my screwed up parts.
>
>oil can
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
Larry - I'm ever so slowly building a Piet in a basement in Dublin, OH
(Columbus area). I have wing ribs done and am working on the tail.
When you drive north to visit Michael how about swinging by my place,
I'd love to ride along.
Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
614-792-6315
>Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:34:50 -0400
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Ohio Piets
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>>Hi,
>>I'm getting ready to purchase the Pietenpol plans for my first
homebuilt
>>project. I live in Chillicothe, Ohio. I would love to take a look at
>>your plane sometime if I get up your way. Congratulations on Oshkosh.
>>I hope it's true that a person with "average Skills" can build a
>>Pietenpol! Because I'm About as average as you get.
>>thanks, Larry
>
>Larry- It's TRUE !!! Your first step is a good one: look at as many
Piets
>as you can and take pictures, notes, measurements, hints, etc. because
>every guy has something unique they learned and can pass that along
>to you. Get the videos from Kim Stricker (see Grant's BPA website
>for Piets), try to make it to the Piet fly in at Brodhead, and the
best
>money you can ever spend is on the Tony Bingelis books from sold
>thru EAA to answer your questions when the experts aren't around.
>The other catch is that if you build some parts exactly like the plans
>show, they will flat out not fit. There are some metal fittings with
>'ears' on them that with another 1/2" of length can mean the difference
>between getting a bolt in the hole or not.
> To answer your question- yes, you may visit my Piet on one or
>two days notice and if you'd like I know of several other Piets in this
>general area: Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy at Barber Airport in
Alliance,OH,
>Earl Myers has an almost ready to fly Sky Scout at his house
> in Louisville, OH, Will Graff has a well-flown Model A Air Camper at
>Wadsworth Municipal Airport near Wadsworth, OH, and Dan Shotwell is
>building a Piet in his basement in Litchfield, OH.
>Welcome and
>best wishes !
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
| Subject: | Re: about "new builder" |
This is the most important thing I have learned so far, after
finishing 11 ribs: when cutting pieces for ribs (or other parts), cut
pieces about a 1/16" too long. That way avoiding useless pieces that
are too short. You can always trim long pieces. I think I learned
this by rib #3 or 4.
Richard
> Kind of reminds me of the third time I cut the part and it was still
> too short ! };-) But after all the idea is to have fun with and
> educational and recreational experience. Sometimes we just end up
> recreating the same part once too often. But it is still fun
>
> John Mc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, September 07, 1998 10:38 AM
> Subject: Re: about "new builder"
>
>
> >Build it right the first time and you can have an airplane at 1/2 the
> >price. When I first started building I couldn't get going because I didn't
> >want to screw up the expensive material. So I quit building. Than I started
> >on boats. After a while it became easier to do a job right the first time.
> >Than I started on my plane and haven't had to redo too many parts. You get
> >better with practice. If you have to pratice and know it will be screwed
> >up make the part from scrap material.
> >
> >
> >>I had to laugh when STevee said that some of his parts were 2nd 3rd, and
> >4th built...
> >>
> >>I'm thinking about building two airplanes, the one that
> >>does fly, and another made from all my screwed up parts.
> >>
> >>oil can
> >>
> >>
> >>http://www.mailexcite.com
> >>
> >>
> >
>
-------------------------------------------------
Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Endicotts <rasala(at)brutus.bright.net> |
Dean Dayton wrote:
>
> Larry - I'm ever so slowly building a Piet in a basement in Dublin, OH
> (Columbus area). I have wing ribs done and am working on the tail.
> When you drive north to visit Michael how about swinging by my place,
> I'd love to ride along.
>
> Dean Dayton - deandayton(at)hotmail.com
> 614-792-6315
>
> >Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:34:50 -0400
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >Subject: Ohio Piets
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>I'm getting ready to purchase the Pietenpol plans for my first
> homebuilt
> >>project. I live in Chillicothe, Ohio. I would love to take a look at
> >>your plane sometime if I get up your way. Congratulations on Oshkosh.
> >>I hope it's true that a person with "average Skills" can build a
> >>Pietenpol! Because I'm About as average as you get.
> >>thanks, Larry
> >
> >Larry- It's TRUE !!! Your first step is a good one: look at as many
> Piets
> >as you can and take pictures, notes, measurements, hints, etc. because
> >every guy has something unique they learned and can pass that along
> >to you. Get the videos from Kim Stricker (see Grant's BPA website
> >for Piets), try to make it to the Piet fly in at Brodhead, and the
> best
> >money you can ever spend is on the Tony Bingelis books from sold
> >thru EAA to answer your questions when the experts aren't around.
> >The other catch is that if you build some parts exactly like the plans
> >show, they will flat out not fit. There are some metal fittings with
> >'ears' on them that with another 1/2" of length can mean the difference
> >between getting a bolt in the hole or not.
> > To answer your question- yes, you may visit my Piet on one or
> >two days notice and if you'd like I know of several other Piets in this
> >general area: Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy at Barber Airport in
> Alliance,OH,
> >Earl Myers has an almost ready to fly Sky Scout at his house
> > in Louisville, OH, Will Graff has a well-flown Model A Air Camper at
> >Wadsworth Municipal Airport near Wadsworth, OH, and Dan Shotwell is
> >building a Piet in his basement in Litchfield, OH.
> >Welcome and
> >best wishes !
> >
> >Mike C.
> >
>
Dean, I'm Going to go to the MERFI flyin in Marion this weekend would it
be possible to stop by and look at your project on my way. Also, your
welcome to come along to the Flyin. I'm going up Friday and Sunday.
thanks, Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Endicotts <rasala(at)brutus.bright.net> |
Hi Everyone,
Well I just received my plans and Manual. Help! The manual recommends
starting with the fuselage, I have read on the discussion group that
some people start with the ribs. Does anyone have any recommendations
for the first project?
Thanks, Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Larry,
Start with the ribs or the tail section. This will cost you the least
money
and you will see if you really want to continue building. My friend and I
started building the tail sections. Two separate projects. He has a pilots
license ;I do not. He gave up. I am now ready to put the rear seat in my
fuselage and I am enjoying the building process. I am starting to plan my
gear.
By the way, the plans are not clear on the control cables running
through the rear seat back connecting to the bell crank. Does anyone have
some suggestions?. The plans show the cables going through 1/4" holes in
the rear seat. Won't the top bell crank cable ride the seat?
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Larry, I guess I have had my head stuck in the sand. What manual are you
talking about and where can I get one.
phil
The Endicotts wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> Well I just received my plans and Manual. Help! The manual recommends
> starting with the fuselage, I have read on the discussion group that
> some people start with the ribs. Does anyone have any recommendations
> for the first project?
> Thanks, Larry
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
Larry,
When I finally got started on my Piet, I chose to build the vertical tail.
Not too much material, simple structure, seemed like a good first step. It
worked very well. My woodworking skills are developing, which builds my
confidence. People who've looked at my work give it a thumbs-up, so I'm on my
way!
Bottom line...start!
Good luck!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
| Subject: | Cables through rear seat |
On 7 Sep 98 at 23:56, PTNPOL(at)aol.com wrote:
> By the way, the plans are not clear on the control cables
> running
> through the rear seat back connecting to the bell crank. Does
> anyone have some suggestions?. The plans show the cables going
> through 1/4" holes in the rear seat. Won't the top bell crank cable
> ride the seat?
>
> -=Ron=-
I have seen 2 Piet's with pulleys under the rear seat, instead of
just the holes the plans ask for, and both look very solid. Here's
an image of it from my site:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/acimg/DougHunt-Controls1.jpg
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
I put a pulley on the back of the pilot's seat some people put two. It is
more than a slight bend in the cable to reach the top of the walking bar
from the bottom of the seat. For each of the other pulleys I put a nylon
rubbing plate so the cable will never contact the wood.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 07, 1998 9:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: What next
Hey Larry,
Start with the ribs or the tail section. This will cost you the least
money
and you will see if you really want to continue building. My friend and I
started building the tail sections. Two separate projects. He has a pilots
license ;I do not. He gave up. I am now ready to put the rear seat in my
fuselage and I am enjoying the building process. I am starting to plan my
gear.
By the way, the plans are not clear on the control cables running
through the rear seat back connecting to the bell crank. Does anyone have
some suggestions?. The plans show the cables going through 1/4" holes in
the rear seat. Won't the top bell crank cable ride the seat?
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight |
Dave,
Useful load is normally Max Take-Off Weight less empty weight. Empty weight normally
includes oil in the engine and unusable fuel in tanks.
That will give you a few extra lbs to play with.
Take heart from the fact that about every bomber that lifted from the runway during
WWII was overloaded and many of us do the same today when starting on a cross-country
- just don't throw the aircraft around until you get some of that
fuel used up.
Alternatively you can do as I did and get 20 lbs off your own weight. It does wonders
for the rate of climb! Can't get a better incentive than that.
Regards,
Leo
On Mon, 07 Sep 1998 17:24:32 Dave and Connie wrote:
>>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't useful load include fuel
>>weight. So pilot, passengers, baggage;-) and fuel would have to weigh
>>less than 385 pounds in this case.
>>
>>
>Dean,
>
>I was being an optomist. 385 sounds like lawyer speak to me but
>then I only have 6 hours toward my ticket. I guess that if you
>are little then the 280 or so after gas allows a passenger that
>is larger than a toddler and maybe a pack of pampers :-).
>
>Dave
>
>
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
____
>>Dean, I'm Going to go to the MERFI flyin in Marion this weekend would it
be possible to stop by and look at your project on my way. Also, your
>welcome to come along to the Flyin. I'm going up Friday and Sunday.
>thanks, Larry
Guys- I will have my Piet at the MERFI fly-in (assuming good weather)
Saturday by mid-morning and will be leaving about 24 hours later.
MIke C>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight |
At 1160 lbs. loaded my 65 hp Piet lifts off from a 2,500 ft. strip and
climbs decently on a 80 F day. Field elev: 850 msl.
That's two fat guys, full fuel and oil. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Leading Edge Cover |
As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
material arises.
I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
US$100.
I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
anything useful.
Any other suggestion?
For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
Any help on this one would be appreciated.
-=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
As an Ace procrastinator, I would suggest that anyone start with those pieces
that can be hung/stored easily...wing ribs and tail feathers come to mind.
They are relatively inexpensive to construct, will teach you good work habits,
and can be thrown under the bed when construction slows down. Try to throw a
fuselage under the bed! Mighty lumpy.
Also, someone down the list reminded us that all the WW II bombers took off
over weight. I take exception to that. Airplanes are designed with a max ramp
weight, max takeoff weight, and max landing weight. Anyone who fiddles with
any one of these is not asking for trouble, he's BEGGING for it. Those (then)
boys were definitely not stupid! They might have been eager, and
inexperienced, but if the book said 29,853 pounds for take off, I'd bet my
butt they figured out how much taxi fuel they needed, added it to the max take
off weigh, and left the blocks weighing precicely THAT MUCH. For us dummies
that lack the engineering know-how and experience, DO NOT FIDDLE WITH GROSS
WEIGHTS!!!!! For everybody else, have a ball.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Ian,
At the recommendation of builders of a Really nice, highly viewed Piet I
used mat-board like for picture frames. Worked out really nice.
The plans call for cardboard, and I have heard of campaign posters being
used.
John
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Holland
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
>wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
>support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
>material arises.
>
>I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
>line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>
>The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
>the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
>cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
>US$100.
>
>I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
>The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>
>I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
>anything useful.
>
>Any other suggestion?
>For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
>Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>
>Any help on this one would be appreciated.
>-=Ian=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Do you just dope the cardboard with epoxy after you get it in place? Or how
do you insure enough regidity?
Do you glue it in place or use fasteners?
Thanks,
Greg Yotz
P.S. Got my Sport Aviation today... Anyone wanting me to email them a
digitized pict or Piet painting for wall paper please leave email address
here...
John Greenlee wrote:
> Ian,
>
> At the recommendation of builders of a Really nice, highly viewed Piet I
> used mat-board like for picture frames. Worked out really nice.
>
> The plans call for cardboard, and I have heard of campaign posters being
> used.
>
> John
>
> John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Holland
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:46 PM
> Subject: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>
> >As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
> >wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
> >support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
> >material arises.
> >
> >I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
> >line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
> >
> >The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
> >the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
> >cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
> >US$100.
> >
> >I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
> >The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
> >
> >I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
> >anything useful.
> >
> >Any other suggestion?
> >For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
> >Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
> >
> >Any help on this one would be appreciated.
> >-=Ian=-
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | First flight and misc |
After much ground testing and some test flights by a friend, my Ford
Escort powered Piet finally took to the air with me at the controls last
Saturday. With air temp 50F and field altitude 4880', the old plane
performed very well. I've never had a flying thrill quite like this one.
When I shoved the throttle forward the straight pipes on the Ford began to
sing. I was airborne before I knew it climbing rather steeply at 60 mph.
By the time I reached the end of the 4200' runway, I was at 300' and
really climbing well compared to my tired C-120. The sensation of rolling
my eyes to the left or right and being able to look down so easily was
amazing--my bod was that close to both sides at once. I could glance over
my shoulder for traffic easily. With the cut out in the wing and my
height, I was comfortable looking under and yet had good coverage above.
The tail wasn't nearly as sensitive as in the C-120. I came over the
fence at 65 mph and flared too high--that long nose! I dropped in around
5', putting the traditional straight axle wooden-gear legs and motorcycle
tires to the test. They ironed out the bounce amazingly well. I did
better on my next five landings but now have great respect for the gear
that those old Jenny's flew with in WWI. I've soloed 4-5 other airplanes
but haven't had the thrill that this first flight gave me. I immediately
decided to keep the Piet and sell my 1/3 interest in the C-120.
My plane weighs 770 lbs, pretty heavy for a Piet. Yet, at 9200' it would
still climb well. I don't have accurate figures but with a watch I'd
guess 300' per minute. Cruise at 4300 rpm was around 75mph with a 2.5 to
1 reduction. Having the 70-80 hp seems to compensate pretty well for
some of the weight. I can't wait to fly it again and enjoy that open-air
feel.
Since my plane is fairly heavy, but performs well, I've decided to keep at
a single-seater. In addition, winter is coming to this country and I'm
scheming to add a light heater: two t's in the water hoses, a fan, and a
radiator core with a cover over the front cockpit. Has anyone else had
any Piet experience with such an installation? With full car ignition and
alternator, obviously the power plant can handle the electrical need.
I used aluminum on the leading edge of the wing and would do it again. I
used it on the trailing edge as well. Works well. CU
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: First flight and misc |
Congratulations, Bill! Are you comming down for the Heber Fly-in on the
18-19th? We will have two piets and would love to make it a threesome!
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
William Conway
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First flight and misc
After much ground testing and some test flights by a friend, my Ford Escort
powered Piet finally took to the air with me at the controls last Saturday.
With air temp 50F and field altitude 4880', the old plane performed very
well. I've never had a flying thrill quite like this one. When I shoved
the throttle forward the straight pipes on the Ford began to sing. I was
airborne before I knew it climbing rather steeply at 60 mph. By the time I
reached the end of the 4200' runway, I was at 300' and really climbing well
compared to my tired C-120. The sensation of rolling my eyes to the left or
right and being able to look down so easily was amazing--my bod was that
close to both sides at once. I could glance over my shoulder for traffic
easily. With the cut out in the wing and my height, I was comfortable
looking under and yet had good coverage above. The tail wasn't nearly as
sensitive as in the C-120. I came over the fence at 65 mph and flared too
high--that long nose! I dropped in around 5', putting the traditional
straight axle wooden-gear legs and motorcycle tires to the test. They
ironed out the bounce amazingly well. I did better on my next five landings
but now have great respect for the gear that those old Jenny's flew with in
WWI. I've soloed 4-5 other airplanes but haven't had the thrill that this
first flight gave me. I immediately decided to keep the Piet and sell my
1/3 interest in the C-120.
My plane weighs 770 lbs, pretty heavy for a Piet. Yet, at 9200' it would
still climb well. I don't have accurate figures but with a watch I'd guess
300' per minute. Cruise at 4300 rpm was around 75mph with a 2.5 to 1
reduction. Having the 70-80 hp seems to compensate pretty well for some of
the weight. I can't wait to fly it again and enjoy that open-air feel.
Since my plane is fairly heavy, but performs well, I've decided to keep at a
single-seater. In addition, winter is coming to this country and I'm
scheming to add a light heater: two t's in the water hoses, a fan, and a
radiator core with a cover over the front cockpit. Has anyone else had any
Piet experience with such an installation? With full car ignition and
alternator, obviously the power plant can handle the electrical need.
I used aluminum on the leading edge of the wing and would do it again. I
used it on the trailing edge as well. Works well. CU
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
A Gentleman in my EAA chapter that had the good fortune to spend some
time with Bernard Pietenpol many years ago told me that he used the
cardboard from oatmeal containers ( the round quaker type ) to make
his leading edge. It might be hard to round up that many, but I know
someone that did it by scrounging for several weeks at a recycling
center...
Paris
---Ian Holland wrote:
>
> As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of
the
> wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
> support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
> material arises.
>
> I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
> line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>
> The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
> the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece
cross
> cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
> US$100.
>
> I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading
edge.
> The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>
> I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
> anything useful.
>
> Any other suggestion?
> For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
> Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>
> Any help on this one would be appreciated.
> -=Ian=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Greg,
I think that's part of the idea. You don't want it TOO rigid. I just glued
it to the rib cap strips and varnished with the rest of the wing.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email>
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 2:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>Do you just dope the cardboard with epoxy after you get it in place? Or
how
>do you insure enough regidity?
>Do you glue it in place or use fasteners?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Greg Yotz
>P.S. Got my Sport Aviation today... Anyone wanting me to email them a
>digitized pict or Piet painting for wall paper please leave email address
>here...
>
>John Greenlee wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> At the recommendation of builders of a Really nice, highly viewed Piet I
>> used mat-board like for picture frames. Worked out really nice.
>>
>> The plans call for cardboard, and I have heard of campaign posters being
>> used.
>>
>> John
>>
>> John
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Holland
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:46 PM
>> Subject: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>>
>> >As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
>> >wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
>> >support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
>> >material arises.
>> >
>> >I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
>> >line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>> >
>> >The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
>> >the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
>> >cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
>> >US$100.
>> >
>> >I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
>> >The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>> >
>> >I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
>> >anything useful.
>> >
>> >Any other suggestion?
>> >For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
>> >Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>> >
>> >Any help on this one would be appreciated.
>> >-=Ian=-
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cables through rear seat |
Richard,
First of all, I would like to thank you for the work you are doing on
your website. The pictures help when you have any questions about building.
I saw the pulley's on the website. The only thing I was wondering was
that the elevator bell crank runs vertical. Won't this cause a deflection
in the 1/8" cable with dual pulley's. According to the 1934 plans it looks
like their is a deflection of the cable from the dual pulleys to the control
stick. Will this create any problems?. It is best to have a straight run in
the cable.
Keep on building,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
| Subject: | Re: Cables through rear seat |
I'm not sure if the question itself was directed at me, but I dont
know the answer. Anyone on the list care to field this one?
Thanks for the positive feedback on my site!
On 8 Sep 98 at 23:24, PTNPOL(at)aol.com wrote:
> Richard,
>
> First of all, I would like to thank you for the work you are
> doing on
> your website. The pictures help when you have any questions about
> building. I saw the pulley's on the website. The only thing I was
> wondering was that the elevator bell crank runs vertical. Won't
> this cause a deflection in the 1/8" cable with dual pulley's.
> According to the 1934 plans it looks like their is a deflection of
> the cable from the dual pulleys to the control stick. Will this
> create any problems?. It is best to have a straight run in the
> cable.
>
> Keep on building,
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: First flight and misc |
>After much ground testing and some test flights by a friend, my Ford
Escort powered Piet finally took to the air with me at the controls last
Saturday.
Congratulations Bill !!!! Nuthin like it, is there ??
Michael Cuy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
>Do you just dope the cardboard with epoxy after you get it in place? Or how
>do you insure enough regidity?
>Do you glue it in place or use fasteners?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Greg Yotz
>P.S. Got my Sport Aviation today... Anyone wanting me to email them a
>digitized pict or Piet painting for wall paper please leave email address
>here...
>
I would appreciate it.jas
>John Greenlee wrote:
>
>> Ian,
>>
>> At the recommendation of builders of a Really nice, highly viewed Piet I
>> used mat-board like for picture frames. Worked out really nice.
>>
>> The plans call for cardboard, and I have heard of campaign posters being
>> used.
>>
>> John
>>
>> John
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ian Holland
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:46 PM
>> Subject: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>>
>> >As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
>> >wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
>> >support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
>> >material arises.
>> >
>> >I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
>> >line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>> >
>> >The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
>> >the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
>> >cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
>> >US$100.
>> >
>> >I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
>> >The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>> >
>> >I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
>> >anything useful.
>> >
>> >Any other suggestion?
>> >For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
>> >Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>> >
>> >Any help on this one would be appreciated.
>> >-=Ian=-
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: First flight and misc |
Congratulations. That makes me go out to the shop and work on my plane.
>After much ground testing and some test flights by a friend, my Ford
Escort powered Piet finally took to the air with me at the controls last
Saturday. With air temp 50F and field altitude 4880', the old plane
performed very well. I've never had a flying thrill quite like this one.
When I shoved the throttle forward the straight pipes on the Ford began to
sing. I was airborne before I knew it climbing rather steeply at 60 mph.
By the time I reached the end of the 4200' runway, I was at 300' and really
climbing well compared to my tired C-120. The sensation of rolling my eyes
to the left or right and being able to look down so easily was amazing--my
bod was that close to both sides at once. I could glance over my shoulder
for traffic easily. With the cut out in the wing and my height, I was
comfortable looking under and yet had good coverage above. The tail wasn't
nearly as sensitive as in the C-120. I came over the fence at 65 mph and
flared too high--that long nose! I dropped in around 5', putting the
traditional straight axle wooden-gear legs and motorcycle tires to the
test. They ironed out the bounce amazingly well. I did better on my next
five landings but now have great respect for the gear that those old
Jenny's flew with in WWI. I've soloed 4-5 other airplanes but haven't had
the thrill that this first flight gave me. I immediately decided to keep
the Piet and sell my 1/3 interest in the C-120.
>
>My plane weighs 770 lbs, pretty heavy for a Piet. Yet, at 9200' it would
still climb well. I don't have accurate figures but with a watch I'd guess
300' per minute. Cruise at 4300 rpm was around 75mph with a 2.5 to 1
reduction. Having the 70-80 hp seems to compensate pretty well for some
of the weight. I can't wait to fly it again and enjoy that open-air feel.
>
>Since my plane is fairly heavy, but performs well, I've decided to keep at
a single-seater. In addition, winter is coming to this country and I'm
scheming to add a light heater: two t's in the water hoses, a fan, and a
radiator core with a cover over the front cockpit. Has anyone else had any
Piet experience with such an installation? With full car ignition and
alternator, obviously the power plant can handle the electrical need.
>
>I used aluminum on the leading edge of the wing and would do it again. I
used it on the trailing edge as well. Works well. CU
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight |
Useful weight definitly includes "useable" fuel. It can also include the
weight of engine oil.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 05, 1998 9:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Gross weight
>Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't useful load include fuel
>weight. So pilot, passengers, baggage;-) and fuel would have to weigh
>less than 385 pounds in this case.
>
>
>>What is the suggested max gross on an Air Camper?
>>http://www.pietenpol.com/plans.htm lists empty
>>weight as 630 and useful load as 385 lb. It also
>>lists fuel capacity as 10-18 gallons. I am assuming
>>that useful load is what you have when you are done
>>filling the tanks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Escort Powered Piet |
Am interested in the details of using the Escort engine. What is comparable
weight with the Model A? I assume ou have the electrical system, so did you
include the starter? This would be advantageous for those who shy from the
hand prop method of firing up.
Orville E. Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Endicotts <rasala(at)brutus.bright.net> |
Phil Peck wrote:
>
> Larry, I guess I have had my head stuck in the sand. What manual are you
> talking about and where can I get one.
> phil
>
> The Endicotts wrote:
>
> > Hi Everyone,
> > Well I just received my plans and Manual. Help! The manual recommends
> > starting with the fuselage, I have read on the discussion group that
> > some people start with the ribs. Does anyone have any recommendations
> > for the first project?
> > Thanks, Larry
>
> --
> Check out Crusader Toys @
> http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
The plans and manual are from the Pietenpol Website. You can access it
from the Buckeye Pietenpol Association Website. The Plans and manual are
the original plans and Modern Mechanic Magazine article that were
written in 1931. Goodluck.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Ian, I have used aluminum on restorations of two Piper J-5 and have not had
a problem with sharp definition. I believe you would see more with
plywood, than Al.. I am going to use Al. leading edge support on the three
piece wing for my Piet.
Phil Phillips
> From: Ian Holland
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Wing Leading Edge Cover
> Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 9:42 PM
>
> As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
> wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
> support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
> material arises.
>
> I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
> line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>
> The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
> the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
> cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
> US$100.
>
> I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
> The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>
> I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
> anything useful.
>
> Any other suggestion?
> For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
> Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>
> Any help on this one would be appreciated.
> -=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | more gross weight |
Don't antbody yell at me for this,
There is a very interesting story in a book about the history of the c-47. It seems
that one of these airplanes was used in the Berlin airlift to haul a gross
weight load of aluninum matting. After needing the entire runway for takeoff,
the airplane never was able to get much out of ground effect, and had to fly
into Berlin at full power just to stay in the air. After landing and unloading
, it was discovered that the aluminum matting was actually a full load of steel.
As I recall, the airplane was ok, but the landing gear was messed up.
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
What is everyone doing for a backup on power plants like the escort? I would
want to use a circuit that would allow for a backup jell-cell battery so if my
alternator or main battery died my engine wouldn't stop turning....
Greg Yotz
LanhamOS(at)aol.com wrote:
> Am interested in the details of using the Escort engine. What is comparable
> weight with the Model A? I assume ou have the electrical system, so did you
> include the starter? This would be advantageous for those who shy from the
> hand prop method of firing up.
> Orville E. Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more gross weight |
Sounds like your friend is listening in his A&P classes...Ramp weight, or "Max
Taxi Weight" is that weight above the max take off weight that the landing
gear will support without damage. Max Take Off Weight is that weight
determined by the power available and the lift available. Power Loading and
Wing Loading are familiar terms, but usually used in a slightly different
context. Basically, if the wing has a "loading" of, say, 6 pounds per square
foot, that means that that wing/airfoil combination can safely support that
much weight. For instance, a 24 foot wing with a 48 inch (4 foot) chord has
that 6 pound loading, you can safely move 576 pounds into the lower
atmosphere. Raise the weight, either through making the airplane heavier, or
increasing g-loads, and you can flirt with disaster. Stall speeds increase
until they overcome the available lift. Then you can only go one way...down.
The take off weight, although having a "fudge factor", is nothing for the
average pilot to play with, unless his insurance is paid in full, he has
kissed his wife good-bye, and the IRS is snipping at his heels. Before
anybody calls me to task for this statement by saying, "but what about ol' so-
and so, who took off over gross on his non-stop trip hither and yon?", let me
say that if he was successful he either did a lot of homework or had an angel
on his shoulder. Even Charles Lindberg almost didn't get off the ground going
to Paris, and an awful lot of his contemporaries didn't make it beyond the
trees.
Power loading? A door will fly with enough horsepower aboard to drag it
around. Look at the space shots, and their MILLIONS of pounds of thrust to
inject them into space. We ain't that lucky. Don't even think about it.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Common sense/Test time |
Just a few misc. thoughts....
The 40 hours the FAA gives us to fly solo in our Piets once they have
been signed off in the 'test area' is an excellent thing. I dreaded
the
time I'd have to wait to take my first passenger- but lots learned
during
that time. Lots of things you get used to, adjust, fix, etc. You
find
out how it can be loaded lightly but a tailwind cuts your climb in half
just
because you forgot to check the wind which shifted during the past
few hours.... In my case after 4.5 years all building and little flying,
I was very rusty. About 5 hours of J-3 time helped get me ready.
But even last week I forgot to 'clear a turn' and found a banner towing
airplane nearby. Very nearby.
When you get your test time flown off and you start taking passengers
you look at your CG chart and mentally note the configuration that will
put you in trouble. The FAA told me to intentionally fly the plane at
both
CG extremes and do stalls there to fully become familiar with the
planes
handling qualities. Not to exceed those numbers,
but to fly it within the
limits. You can use sand bags, people, small people first, bigger
later, etc. Also how hot is it ? Is the ground hard or soft ?? Is
the
runway sloped uphill or down ? Do I need to burn more fuel before
taking the parents for rides ?? How far down the runway can I touch
and still do a touch and go if I need to ? Even since the 40 hours
have
been flown off I'm still learning. Learning that you can become too
you
a long time ago come back during the test time. You are not only
testing
a new machine, but your skills and common sense.
The 40 hours really help you
define how your plane will do at your field elevation with you at the
controls. (besides, it sure is fun) Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more gross weight |
I won't yell at you but I will say flatly that your "student of mechanics"
friend is way off base. Let's go to Denver Co. (or North Little Rock, Ar.
for that matter) on a hot summer day and rent us a Cessna 150, load it up to
gross weight and go fly. Believe me, this will really get your attention!
The amount of runway needed, the marginal climb performance and the sick
feeling you get looking at the mountains up ahead can really get the hairs
on your neck to stand up!Now lets put another 100 lbs in it (about 20%
overload). If you get this pup off
the ground by the end of the runway then your problems have just begun and
bending the gear will be the least of your worries.
I left Addison Tx. Last eve. in a C172 with full fuel and just 2 aboard. Got
a real close-up view of the Galleria south
of the airport and just barely made our assigned alt. of 2000 feet
in the Class B above Love Field. This airplane was a couple hundred
pounds under gross.
My point is that aircraft landing gear is designed to take some pretty
hard landings (2-3 G's ? I don't know, somebody do the math) but a few extra
pounds on board has meant the end of many an airplane, pilot, and
passengers. Weight and balance figures are based on flight performance and
safety. Take them very seriously.
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 11:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more gross weight
>Don't antbody yell at me for this,
mechanics about gross weight. He told me that gross weight is mostly
determined by how much weight the aircraft's landing gear can support. He
further said that most airplanes can lift more weight than the gross, but
the landing gear, on landing just can't support it.
>
>There is a very interesting story in a book about the history of the c-47.
It seems that one of these airplanes was used in the Berlin airlift to haul
a gross weight load of aluninum matting. After needing the entire runway for
takeoff, the airplane never was able to get much out of ground effect, and
had to fly into Berlin at full power just to stay in the air. After landing
and unloading , it was discovered that the aluminum matting was actually a
full load of steel.
>
>As I recall, the airplane was ok, but the landing gear was messed up.
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: more gross weight |
If you think that landing gear is all that limits gross weight, you are
over simplifying the problem. During the initial design process, a mission
profile for the given aircraft is defined. For example, a 40 pax. twin
turbo prop capable of 5 hrs cruise at 250 kts. This means a passenger
payload of 43 (pax+crew) x passenger weight (assuming 170 lbs) or 7130 lbs
plus thier luggage (50 lbs x 43) or 2150 lbs for a payload of 9280 lbs.
The design cruise will be determined and a suitable airfoil/planform
selected. This will help determine power requirements and rough fuel
payloads. Assuming 2 x 2000 hp @ .5 specific fuel consumption gives about
1600 lbs per hour or, for a 5 hr endurance, approximately 8000 lbs. This
gives a usable of 17280 lbs. Now that the usable is frozen, the empty
weight can be estimated. Let's say that turn's out to be 24,000 lbs. This
is when the aerodynamics are re-checked to see if a gross weight of 41,280
lbs will work. Adjustments are made and the empty weight is frozen.
Each system and structure is given weight restrictions from the weights
engineers. Using limit and yeild load factors specified in the FAR's,
parts are designed to support the gross weight + load factors. This
applies to ALL structures, not just the landing gear. For example, the
wing is designed to support the gross weight x 4.4 (limit load) x 1.5
(safety factor) for a total of 272448 lbs (positive). Other criteria are
also considered here such as control forces (torsional stiffness), drag
forces, fatigue, etc. which may end up making the airplane capable of
carrying heavier weights at slow speeds.
The landing gear is designed to withstand 20G (if I remember correctly) at
the maximum landing weight. This weight can only differ from the Max TO
weight if the airplane is equipped to dump fuel. The idea is that 99.9% of
the time, an airplane will land significantly lighter than it takes off,
so wy carry all the extra weight in the landing gear to support a landing
at max TO weight.
So, by exceeding the gross weight, you could end up running into other
design limits before you ever get a chance to land. One example that comes
to mind was a video I saw of a prototype European twin (simular to a Twin
Commander) that was being flown at an airshow by the factory test pilot.
The plane was designed utilizing the latest in finite element analysis and
other computer design tools such that the structure would withstand the
limit load plus the safety factor and nothing more making it a very
effecient design. This was fine except that the pilot was from the
"old-school" of thinking where the planes structures were always stronger
than the published umtimate load factors. During the aerobatic
performance, both wings broke at exactly the same time and within 1% of
the ultimate load.
When you consider the number of experienced engineers that are designing
components to withstand the ultimate loading at the least amount of
weight, it is hard to say just where a plane will fail when pushed outside
these limits.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more gross weight |
Among other interesting comments, Mike Cunningham observed:
>I left Addison Tx. Last eve. in a C172 with full fuel and just 2 aboard.
Got
>a real close-up view of the Galleria south
>of the airport and just barely made our assigned alt. of 2000 feet
>in the Class B above Love Field. This airplane was a couple hundred
>pounds under gross.
Brings up a couple of questions. What was the temperature at the time?
And do you think it would have been all that difficult if you had been
taking off in, say, New Hampshire in January?
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
I told you guys not to yell at me...
That was not in any way an endorcement of exceeding gross wt. I just thought you
fellows would be interested in what I had heard and read.
About the c-47 in the berlin airlift...the pilot reported that the flight was a
very scary experience.
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
A small story to relate:
In real life I work for a major (unnamed) airline. We used to do contract
maintenance for another major carrier that happened to fly freighters through
Memphis. They had one airplane, a Boeing 720, that the crews kept writing up
as "sluggish on the controls", or "too much nose up trim required". The other
carrier did everything they could think of to figure it out. My buddies and I
spent many nights scratching our heads about this one, because everything
checked out by the book. We even checked control cable length and tension,
rigging of the hydraulic packs, etc.
It also seems that the carrier had paid a claim for a customer for a lost
piece of sheet metal. One part ot the company never thought to ask the other.
Time went by. The crews kept writing up the airplane. Nobody could find
anything wrong. The airplane went into heavy check, and the hanger crews
started taking it apart, just like they're supposed to. When they got into
the rear lower cargo compartment, they found that the floor had a "heavy,
metal doubler, just laying on the floor." Guess what that doubler
was...that's right, a (as I remember it) 450 pound piece of steel plate that
almost exactly fit the dimensions of the floor! Once the metal was removed,
the airplane flew exactly as advertised.
Just a memory from a distant past.
Remember, THE AIRPLANE KNOWS!!!
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rib Jig building |
I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question is
how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)vmicro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib Jig building |
Steve I can Draw it in cad and plot it out full size
if you give me the coordinates
Ken Hannan
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib Jig building
>I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
>shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
>supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question is
>how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
>
>Steve E.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Rib Jig building |
Ken, What do you need for coordinates? Inches and stations? How would I
get that from the plans?
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Hannan
Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib Jig building
Steve I can Draw it in cad and plot it out full size
if you give me the coordinates
Ken Hannan
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib Jig building
>I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
>shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
>supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question is
>how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
>
>Steve E.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)vmicro.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib Jig building |
Steve
If you have a full size drawing and you what to make a copy see if
there's a blueprint house near by
they can make 1 to 1 copy's. but if not then Inches and stations will work.
or if you know what rib it is I my have it in my handy book of airfoil
coordinates.
Please Call if not clear.
Toll free 888-693-2496
Ken Hannan
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Rib Jig building
>Ken, What do you need for coordinates? Inches and stations? How would I
>get that from the plans?
>
>Stevee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>Hannan
>Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:58 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: Rib Jig building
>
>
>Steve I can Draw it in cad and plot it out full size
>if you give me the coordinates
>
>Ken Hannan
>-----Original Message-----
>From: steve(at)byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 2:24 PM
>Subject: Rib Jig building
>
>
>>I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
>>shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
>>supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question
is
>>how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
>>
>>Steve E.
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Rib Jig building |
Just a warning when copying your CAD drawings on a blueprint copy machine.
I did that with my Piet. ribs and the copy was not the same as the plotted
CAD drawing.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Thanks for the feedback. I found a whole bunch of old file covers at
work (about 1940-50's vintage that are the same thickness as aluminum
and are also very dense (glazed). They glue up well and I am now looking
at butt joints with a 1/2" "gusset"behind. I may yet look at aluminum.
How did you fasten? by glue or?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <deandayton(at)hotmail.com> |
>Dean, I'm Going to go to the MERFI flyin in Marion this weekend would
it
>be possible to stop by and look at your project on my way. Also, your
>welcome to come along to the Flyin. I'm going up Friday and Sunday.
>thanks, Larry
>
Hi Larry,
I'm going to MERFI on Saturday, but I'll probably be around Friday
evening or Sunday if you want to stop by. Give me a call 614-792-6315
for directions
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re:Escort Powered Piet |
The Ford Escort 1.9L weighs 275 pounds converted with a 2.5 to 1 redrive,
but figure 300 1lbs with the cooling system. A Cont 0-200 weights around
267 lbs. Somebody should be able to give you the weight of the Model A.
My engine has both an alternator and a starter. I figure I have around 70
h.p. but could easily go to around 100 with a cam grind. Solo the
performance is excellent.
>>> 09/09 4:50 PM >>>
Am interested in the details of using the Escort engine. What is
comparable
weight with the Model A? I assume ou have the electrical system, so did
you
include the starter? This would be advantageous for those who shy from the
hand prop method of firing up.
Orville E. Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more gross weight |
Since this has been the second hottest summer on record in Texas
I am pretty sure everybody realizes that two of the "three H's" (hot, high,
humid) were definitely in effect. Temp was about 100 and humidity probably
75% or more. I'll take winter in NH any time (actually they can keep it
-) ) but I still would not even consider overloading the airplane. I guess
my point here is that summer flying in TX often gives us an up close and
personal demonstration of aircraft performance limits that others may not
experience as often. We take weight, balance limits and the "three h's" very
seriously, and know that there
is no gray area to play with. Sure you might get away with over-loading a
plane on a cold day, but you are becoming a test pilot. Then you get to find
out about other things (Do you have enough elevator
to flair for landing?, etc.). There are a hundred reasons not to overload
an airplane, bending the gear is way, way towards the bottom of the list.
-----Original Message-----
From: Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com>
Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 1:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: more gross weight
>Among other interesting comments, Mike Cunningham observed:
>
>
>>I left Addison Tx. Last eve. in a C172 with full fuel and just 2 aboard.
>Got
>>a real close-up view of the Galleria south
>>of the airport and just barely made our assigned alt. of 2000 feet
>>in the Class B above Love Field. This airplane was a couple hundred
>>pounds under gross.
>
>Brings up a couple of questions. What was the temperature at the time?
>And do you think it would have been all that difficult if you had been
>taking off in, say, New Hampshire in January?
>
>Owen Davies
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
Thanks for the replay.. I think the Model A weighs about 450 lbs. I would
love to hear our engine, and see you fly. Is the prop mounted on the flywheel
end like the Model A conversion? I have tried to get to the pix site, but my
server says.. something is wrong and I can't access it. Dr. Orville E. Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re:Escort Powered Piet |
On Fri, 11 Sep 1998, William Conway wrote:
> The Ford Escort 1.9L weighs 275 pounds converted with a 2.5 to 1
> redrive, but figure 300 1lbs with the cooling system. A Cont 0-200
> weights around 267 lbs. Somebody should be able to give you the weight
> of the Model A. My engine has both an alternator and a starter. I
> figure I have around 70 h.p. but could easily go to around 100 with a
> cam grind. Solo the performance is excellent.
I'd re-check your 0-200 weight estimates. The shipping weight of my
C-85-12F (full electrics and wooden CRATE complete with TIRE) was 255 lbs.
The 0-200 and C-85-12F share essentially the same case, jugs and
accessories. The only difference is the crank, rods, pistons and cam.
Most C-85/C-90/0-200 installations should come out to about 210-230 lbs
including exhaust. This can vary depending on your choice of accessories.
The new altenators and starters are coming out pretty light these days.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine Info Site |
Look at http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/engines.html for a good source
of engine info including the horsepower and weight specs of the
powerplants involved. Also, from memory, I think the model A engine puts
out about 40 hp and weighs about 240 pounds.
Andy Schneider
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
So what, my first thoughts of building a Pietenpol
were in July of 1984, think it was an article in kit
planes , a guy his wife and daughter were building a Pietenpol
I received my wood and epoxy couple of weeks ago!
i'm hoping it goes a little quicker in the future though!
---Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RdwdSgn(at)aol.com <RdwdSgn(at)aol.com> |
Ron
>
So what, my first thoughts of building a Pietenpol
were in July of 1984, think it was an article in
kit
planes , a guy his wife and daughter were building a
Pietenpol
I received my wood and epoxy couple of weeks ago!
i'm hoping it goes a little
quicker in the
future though!
---Original Message-----From:
Discussion
Monday, September 07, 1998 6:14 PMSubject: Re: SA
PietIt took me 400 hrs. just to build a
few
ribs.&n=
bsp;&nb=
sp;
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Yes the 1.5mm aircraft birch I bought was about
$24.00 4x4 sheet , Anderson's International has it
also Westwind Hardwoods , International Hardwoods
in Detroit has very beautiful okoume 1/16 that is ($50 4x8)
marine grade no knots very light and strong, the great thing
is that they can be rolled up in a cylinder and shipped ups.
all the above can be found on the internet. also Harbor
sales has very beautiful okoume,sapelee,khaya and birch in several
different widths and grades free catalog 8008689257
I recently found baltic birch plywood in 1/8 and 1/4 in
in local hardware store
50"x50" inches for $12.00 a sheet, very strong, fails
in wood not glue line, I also purchased hollow core interior
doors that were damaged form a local hardware store
for $2.00 a piece, ripped the edges off with a table saw
then slowly pryed apart while cutting card board spacing
with hand saw, not bad stuff left outside a week with a couple
of rains with no delamination. width is about 1/16"
A light sanding with
med grade paper will remove the cardboard and glue
from inside section of ply. I'm no expert but if you ever had
to force land in a corn field I believe the damages would
be much easier to repair on a ply leading edge than one built
of sheet aluminum.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Holland
Date: Tuesday, September 08, 1998 1:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing Leading Edge Cover
>As the plywood ( or metal) 9 inch strip covering the leading edge of the
>wing is not required for structural support. It is rather an airfoil
>support from what i can gather, the question of what may be a suitable
>material arises.
>
>I have seen articles that advise not to use aluminum, as the transfer
>line is too harsh (not aesthetic in nature).
>
>The use of 1/16 inch aircraft plywood appears to be ideal, except for
>the cost. my calculation shows a 4' x 4' piece and a 2' x 4' piece cross
>cut makes the least waste. The cost of this is likely going to be
>US$100.
>
>I have looked at doorskins at $20 for material to do whole leading edge.
>The down side is that they are 1/8" and heavier.
>
>I have looked for heavy (high density) cardboard, but have not found
>anything useful.
>
>Any other suggestion?
>For those of you that have used aluminum, would you do it again?
>Has anyone used doorskins? Comments?
>
>Any help on this one would be appreciated.
>-=Ian=-
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
The figure that comes to mind for the Ford A is something like 245 lbs. I
don't think that includes radiator and water.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: LanhamOS(at)aol.com <LanhamOS(at)aol.com>
Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Escort Powered Piet
> Thanks for the replay.. I think the Model A weighs about 450 lbs. I
would
>love to hear our engine, and see you fly. Is the prop mounted on the
flywheel
>end like the Model A conversion? I have tried to get to the pix site, but
my
>server says.. something is wrong and I can't access it. Dr. Orville E.
Lanham
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Hello to the group,i used 1.5mm 3 ply birch for my leading edge
cover.Soaked in hot water in the sink for 1/2 hour or so,then was able to
start the ply at the bottom edge of the leading edge and wrap it around and
stopped about 3 inches past the spar at the top.I secured it to the wing
over night with strips or wood and bungee straps,then removed it the next
day,it retained its shape,then applied epoxy and held it in place again
with the strips of wood untill set.I then cut scallops in the ply between
the ribs at the top for visual apeal (to my eyes anyway).I epoxied strips
of high density styrofoam on top of the spar to support the light ply.I
also cut false nose ribs and epoxied them to the inside of the leading ply
to give more support as i found without it,the ply did not lay true.
I think if i was to do it again i would consider aluminum,far less labour?
I also routed out the back side of the leading edge before i installed
it,saving 1.5 lbs.per wing.
For what it's worth......Doug Hunt.............
> From: Ian Holland
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover
> Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 3:34 PM
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I found a whole bunch of old file covers at
> work (about 1940-50's vintage that are the same thickness as aluminum
> and are also very dense (glazed). They glue up well and I am now looking
> at butt joints with a 1/2" "gusset"behind. I may yet look at aluminum.
> How did you fasten? by glue or?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib Jig building |
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
> shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
> supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question is
> how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
>
> Steve E.
Steve,
You have probably already figured out a solution to your problem and
have 4 or 5 ribs built already, but if not here are a few ideas.
Take your rib template sheet and play the steam from a humidifier over
it for a few minutes, then lay it out flat and see what the dimension is
between spars. It may expand enough and stay put long enough for you to
transfer the countours to some plywood, especially if you work in a
steamed up bathroom with the shower running full hot. The wife and kids
will look at you funny, but if it works... Or you could trace out the
fwd and aft halves of the rib as they are but with the correct spar
spacing and best fit a smooth short curve in the 3/16 gap somewhere in
between where there isn't too much curvature. Your spar height probably
did not change enough with the plans shrinkage to worry about. You
could also use the plans as they are since you lose less than a quarter
square foot of wing area, but then you have the domino affect of having
to move spar attach points on your fuselage, on and on.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | The Endicotts <rasala(at)brutus.bright.net> |
Hi all,
I'm getting ready to order my rib material. The 1/16" gusset plywood,
what type of ply is best, Mahogany?
Thanks, Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
The Endicotts wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> I'm getting ready to order my rib material. The 1/16" gusset plywood,
> what type of ply is best, Mahogany?
> Thanks, Larry
Larry,
I am using birch with good results and for less money.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | Transferring drawing to rib jig |
Folks, I have a beginner question.
How do I transfer the rib drawing to my fixture base, so I can then add the
blocks to hold the stringers in place? Carbon paper? Glue the drawing (with
the correct dimension between spars) to the plywood surface of the fixture?
Inquiring, but inexperienced, minds want to know!
Mike Hinchman
PS: Yes, I know I need to hook up with a local EAA group - just haven't done
it yet!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe Czaplicki <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
Hi all;; getting ready to varnish the fuselage and in looking over the
bottom I find myself questioning the need for a fairing strip down the
center of the bottom. The plans only call for strips on the back half behind
the plywood base and that would have the fabric in full contact with the
plywood base. Is this as it should be or has anyone added that center
fairing strip???
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Transferring drawing to rib jig |
Michael Hinchman wrote:
>
> Folks, I have a beginner question.
>
> How do I transfer the rib drawing to my fixture base, so I can then add the
> blocks to hold the stringers in place? Carbon paper? Glue the drawing (with
> the correct dimension between spars) to the plywood surface of the fixture?
>
> Inquiring, but inexperienced, minds want to know!
>
> Mike Hinchman
>
> PS: Yes, I know I need to hook up with a local EAA group - just haven't done
> it yet!
Mike,
I glued the rib drawing down to the plywood. It serves as a guide but
don't always use the capstrip lines on the print as they tend to be a
little too wide for accuracy. Always measure yourself the spar
openings, distance between spars, and anything that depicts the
thickness of your capstrip. Be sure your blocks representing the spar
openings are parallel. Once I had everything located I glued and nailed
down my blocks using capstrip spacers to ensure a snug, not too tight
hold on the capstrip. Then I coated everything with two coats of
polyurethane. It is handy to use blocks that are about 3/32 shy of the
width of your capstrip, that way they don't get in the way.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
Yes, the fabric should be in contact with the floor.
and,
Yes, I have seen a fairing strip down the center.
I don't have a strong opinion on this. I covered my fuselage recently, and
the floor looks fine. People only see the belly of the plane clearly on
those blinding high speed, low level passes. Probably don't get a good look
even then.
A stringer down the belly might be a bit more elegant. However, people
might not ever see it, and it adds weight and complexity.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Joe Czaplicki <fishin(at)wwa.com>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 7:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fairing strip
>Hi all;; getting ready to varnish the fuselage and in looking over the
>bottom I find myself questioning the need for a fairing strip down the
>center of the bottom. The plans only call for strips on the back half
behind
>the plywood base and that would have the fabric in full contact with the
>plywood base. Is this as it should be or has anyone added that center
>fairing strip???
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
I have scanned the Piet painting in Sport Aviation and placed 3
different resoultion images on my Piet images page:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/Piet/pics.html
under the "Misc" category. Someone let me know if any copyright
issues come up with this. For those that dont know, to set one of the
images as wallpaper, load it into Netscape or Internet Exploder, then
right-click on it and choose "Set As Wallpaper".
Enjoy! Don't forget to sign my guestbook while your there! :)
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
The prop is mounted on a 2.5 to 1 reduction: with the engine turned
around, the smaller reduction is on the flywheel and the larger is bolted
to the block just below where the distributer was located. The reduction
unit is simple with no separate housing. Since we have just five hours
on the set up--original builder had 46, it remains to be seen how we'll
like it in the long run.
>>> 09/11 3:49 PM >>>
Thanks for the replay.. I think the Model A weighs about 450 lbs. I
would
love to hear our engine, and see you fly. Is the prop mounted on the
flywheel
end like the Model A conversion? I have tried to get to the pix site, but
my
server says.. something is wrong and I can't access it. Dr. Orville E.
Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | aircamper- biplane |
please add my name to the list, I'mlooking for any information on St.
Criox biplane
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: fairing strip |
Concerning fairing strips on the bottom:
A stringer down the belly might be a bit more elegant. However, people
might not ever see it, and it adds weight and complexity.
John
I put two small fairing strips on the bottom, It hides all the bolt heads
and fittings, keeps the fabric from slapping the floor in prop-wash, and I
didn't have the weight of the extra cement to keep it stuck to the floor
everywhere. I'd do it again. weight penalty would be an ounce or so.
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
>Hi all;; getting ready to varnish the fuselage and in looking over the
>bottom I find myself questioning the need for a fairing strip down the
>center of the bottom.
Joe- Lots of ways to go with this part of the plane- Some leave the
bare plywood, some run one or two 1" or so high stringers down the
belly. I ran two all the way from the firewall to tail then tapered them
down at both ends. This way your nuts and bolt heads won't bulge out
against the fabric. (which will eventually rub thru, or get a hole by when
you sand your finishes) I just bought the triangular 3/4" x 3/4"
spruce from Wicks to glue on each side of the stringer every foot or
so. Try to brace the stringers as they flow beyond the belly plywood
floor area too because when you heat taughten your fabric the
un-reinforced stringers may buckle or bow on you.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
I was also told that having a fairing on the bottom helps to drain
out any water that might get in there by way of condensation, etc.
On 14 Sep 98 at 10:25, Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >Hi all;; getting ready to varnish the fuselage and in looking over the
> >bottom I find myself questioning the need for a fairing strip down the
> >center of the bottom.
>
> Joe- Lots of ways to go with this part of the plane- Some leave
> the bare plywood, some run one or two 1" or so high stringers down
> the belly. I ran two all the way from the firewall to tail then
> tapered them down at both ends. This way your nuts and bolt heads
> won't bulge out against the fabric. (which will eventually rub
> thru, or get a hole by when you sand your finishes) I just bought
> the triangular 3/4" x 3/4" spruce from Wicks to glue on each side of
> the stringer every foot or so. Try to brace the stringers as they
> flow beyond the belly plywood floor area too because when you heat
> taughten your fabric the un-reinforced stringers may buckle or bow
> on you.
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Engine Info Site |
What is the minimum hp required to power an Air Camper well? Is the
Continental A-40, 40 hp a contender? What kind of performance can one
expect from an Air Camper powered with 40 hp? How would it perform with
maximum load : fuel and two passengers (I weigh in at 215 lbs.)?
I might be able to get my hands on a Continental A-40 that originally
powered a Taylorcraft J-2. It has been out in the weather for many
years without cowling or cover. I have seen an ad in "Sport Aviation"
where they have parts for the A-40. Is it worth investing in an A-40?
Will it provide the power needed, and can it be maintained with minimal
cost? I would appreciate any feedback anyone might have regarding the
A-40. Thank you.
Ed Larsen
From: Andrew Schneider [SMTP:ajs(at)luminate.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 5:47 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Engine Info Site
Look at http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/engines.html for a good
source
of engine info including the horsepower and weight specs of the
powerplants involved. Also, from memory, I think the model A
engine puts
out about 40 hp and weighs about 240 pounds.
Andy Schneider
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Rib Jig building |
Michael (and others)
Thanks for your suggestions!
I have choosen your suggestion #2 I came up with the same idea. I measured
and marked the spar locations and then traced the rib outline ahead and
behind the spars and then the middle. The gap I split between the two spar
locations and drew in the gaps. I have a flyin to go to this weekend, but
ribs should be forthcomming after that!
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
michael list
Sent: Sunday, September 13, 1998 1:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib Jig building
steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> I have started my rib jig (Tailwind) and I have realized that due to
> shrinkage of the paper my full scale rib drawing, isn't. The spars are
> supossed to be 24" apart and they are about 3/16" to short. My question
is
> how do I get an accurate lofting of the airfoil transfered to my jig?
>
> Steve E.
Steve,
You have probably already figured out a solution to your problem and
have 4 or 5 ribs built already, but if not here are a few ideas.
Take your rib template sheet and play the steam from a humidifier over
it for a few minutes, then lay it out flat and see what the dimension is
between spars. It may expand enough and stay put long enough for you to
transfer the countours to some plywood, especially if you work in a
steamed up bathroom with the shower running full hot. The wife and kids
will look at you funny, but if it works... Or you could trace out the
fwd and aft halves of the rib as they are but with the correct spar
spacing and best fit a smooth short curve in the 3/16 gap somewhere in
between where there isn't too much curvature. Your spar height probably
did not change enough with the plans shrinkage to worry about. You
could also use the plans as they are since you lose less than a quarter
square foot of wing area, but then you have the domino affect of having
to move spar attach points on your fuselage, on and on.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Engine Info Site |
Ed, you might get it off the ground solo, at sea level, but I think you will
really want the extra power. I would consider 65 hp minimum. If you can
get 90 to 100 hp you will be pleased with the climb performance with two
aboard. I havn't tried to find parts for the -40, but they will be rare.
-See you at Heber-
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Larsen, Ed
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Engine Info Site
What is the minimum hp required to power an Air Camper well? Is the
Continental A-40, 40 hp a contender? What kind of performance can one
expect from an Air Camper powered with 40 hp? How would it perform with
maximum load : fuel and two passengers (I weigh in at 215 lbs.)?
I might be able to get my hands on a Continental A-40 that originally
powered a Taylorcraft J-2. It has been out in the weather for many
years without cowling or cover. I have seen an ad in "Sport Aviation"
where they have parts for the A-40. Is it worth investing in an A-40?
Will it provide the power needed, and can it be maintained with minimal
cost? I would appreciate any feedback anyone might have regarding the
A-40. Thank you.
Ed Larsen
From: Andrew Schneider [SMTP:ajs(at)luminate.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 5:47 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Engine Info Site
Look at http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/engines.html for a good
source
of engine info including the horsepower and weight specs of the
powerplants involved. Also, from memory, I think the model A
engine puts
out about 40 hp and weighs about 240 pounds.
Andy Schneider
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
Steve,
I didn't think about the bolt heads. I bet that makes it look cleaner.
The fabric hitting the floor in prop-wash is a non-issue. I used to
poly-brush to stick the fabric to the floor. It ain't goin' nowhere.
If I had it to do again, I'd consider the stringers. It seems like where I
noticed them was on Sky Gypsy -- a clearly elegant airplane.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: fairing strip
>Concerning fairing strips on the bottom:
>
>A stringer down the belly might be a bit more elegant. However, people
>might not ever see it, and it adds weight and complexity.
>
>John
>
>I put two small fairing strips on the bottom, It hides all the bolt heads
>and fittings, keeps the fabric from slapping the floor in prop-wash, and I
>didn't have the weight of the extra cement to keep it stuck to the floor
>everywhere. I'd do it again. weight penalty would be an ounce or so.
>
>Steve E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Line Drawings of a piet? |
I am designing my own Piet T-Shirt and find myself looking for a line
drawing of a continental powered piet...
Any leads?
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Info Site |
Ed,
It would appear that an A-40 would fly a Piet if it would fly a J-2. There
is a very early production J-2 at Brodhead. I read an article in an old
BPAN where the guy thought the Model A Piet would out perform the A-40 J-2.
I think it is likely as a converted A probably puts out more hp than a A-40,
and more importantly, more torque. A draggy airframe like a Piet likes the
slow turning prop.
The A-40 would have a weight advantage which if properly exploited would
make up for its low output. However, what I have observed with a lot of
homebuilt airplanes, especially Piets, the weight advantage of the
certificated engine is more than offset by the useless junk added to the
airframe by its builder. I.e.: brakes, tailwheels, radios, electric
systems, batteries, bomb racks, refrigerators, machine guns, air
conditioning, canopies, fat women, armor plate etc, etc.
Brian Kenney's Piet is said to be the lightest one on Earth. About 585 lbs.
It has (I think) a 50 hp Continental, and is a good performer and good
flier. I know of another absolutely beautiful ship with a Fiesta that is a
800+ lb monster. It flies as the result of having enough hp to drag it
around.
I ramble on a bit to say that what I have learned from listening to a lot of
builders is that the key to a successful Piet (as well as any other type) is
control of weight. Take that part you are considering adding to your ship.
Throw it up in the air. If it comes back down, its too heavy.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Larsen, Ed <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com>
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 11:22 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Engine Info Site
>What is the minimum hp required to power an Air Camper well? Is the
>Continental A-40, 40 hp a contender? What kind of performance can one
>expect from an Air Camper powered with 40 hp? How would it perform with
>maximum load : fuel and two passengers (I weigh in at 215 lbs.)?
>
>I might be able to get my hands on a Continental A-40 that originally
>powered a Taylorcraft J-2. It has been out in the weather for many
>years without cowling or cover. I have seen an ad in "Sport Aviation"
>where they have parts for the A-40. Is it worth investing in an A-40?
>Will it provide the power needed, and can it be maintained with minimal
>cost? I would appreciate any feedback anyone might have regarding the
>A-40. Thank you.
>
>Ed Larsen
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Schneider [SMTP:ajs(at)luminate.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 1998 5:47 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Engine Info Site
>
> Look at http://www.halcyon.com/wanttaja/engines.html for a good
>source
> of engine info including the horsepower and weight specs of the
> powerplants involved. Also, from memory, I think the model A
>engine puts
> out about 40 hp and weighs about 240 pounds.
>
> Andy Schneider
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
I didn't use fabric at all on the bottom from cockpit forward. I painted
it the same color as the rest. Access to the bolts holding controls is
excellent. No one can see them without getting down on their knees.
>>> John Greenlee 09/14 10:57 AM >>>
Steve,
I didn't think about the bolt heads. I bet that makes it look cleaner.
The fabric hitting the floor in prop-wash is a non-issue. I used to
poly-brush to stick the fabric to the floor. It ain't goin' nowhere.
If I had it to do again, I'd consider the stringers. It seems like where
I
noticed them was on Sky Gypsy -- a clearly elegant airplane.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: fairing strip
>Concerning fairing strips on the bottom:
>
>A stringer down the belly might be a bit more elegant. However, people
>might not ever see it, and it adds weight and complexity.
>
>John
>
>I put two small fairing strips on the bottom, It hides all the bolt heads
>and fittings, keeps the fabric from slapping the floor in prop-wash, and
I
>didn't have the weight of the extra cement to keep it stuck to the floor
>everywhere. I'd do it again. weight penalty would be an ounce or so.
>
>Steve E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: fairing strip (or lack of it) |
Well now thats using your head!
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
William Conway
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 1:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: fairing strip
I didn't use fabric at all on the bottom from cockpit forward. I painted it
the same color as the rest. Access to the bolts holding controls is
excellent. No one can see them without getting down on their knees.
>>> John Greenlee 09/14 10:57 AM >>>
Steve,
I didn't think about the bolt heads. I bet that makes it look cleaner.
The fabric hitting the floor in prop-wash is a non-issue. I used to
poly-brush to stick the fabric to the floor. It ain't goin' nowhere.
If I had it to do again, I'd consider the stringers. It seems like where I
noticed them was on Sky Gypsy -- a clearly elegant airplane.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: fairing strip
>Concerning fairing strips on the bottom:
>
>A stringer down the belly might be a bit more elegant. However, people
>might not ever see it, and it adds weight and complexity.
>
>John
>
>I put two small fairing strips on the bottom, It hides all the bolt heads
>and fittings, keeps the fabric from slapping the floor in prop-wash, and I
>didn't have the weight of the extra cement to keep it stuck to the floor
>everywhere. I'd do it again. weight penalty would be an ounce or so.
>
>Steve E.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A 40 Powered Piets |
Many ages ago I flew J 2's, with A 40 power. Rate of climb with 2 on
board, with some fuel leaved a lot to be desired.. Sort of like a powered
glider. I think gross weight was about 750 lbs. I saw some J 2's with brakes,
and lots of extra instruments. I did not see them fly.. I also saw a J 3 with
an A 40. The Model A really produced a lot of torque at low rpm. I think the
best bet would be to purchase a 65 hp mill, as parts might be easier to find.
I am impressed the 90 hp Franklin.
Anyone using it? Dr. Lanham Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: A 40 Powered Piets |
I've got a 90 franklin, Intended to put it in the piet, but now flying with
the a-65, I cant give up flying long enough to to put it in. Maybe I'll
have to build another piet...
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
LanhamOS(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: A 40 Powered Piets
Many ages ago I flew J 2's, with A 40 power. Rate of climb with 2 on
board, with some fuel leaved a lot to be desired.. Sort of like a powered
glider. I think gross weight was about 750 lbs. I saw some J 2's with
brakes,
and lots of extra instruments. I did not see them fly.. I also saw a J 3
with
an A 40. The Model A really produced a lot of torque at low rpm. I think the
best bet would be to purchase a 65 hp mill, as parts might be easier to
find.
I am impressed the 90 hp Franklin.
Anyone using it? Dr. Lanham Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A 40 Powered Piets |
Ed,
I figure the others are correct. If you want to use a certificated engine,
the a-65 is probably the way to go. Adequate power, and the parts are
readily available. Probably much cheaper in the long run too. I've seen
som A-65 Piets that were really nice installations.
Main drawbacks are lack of a radiator/cockpit heater and that really
attrocious noise they make. Maybe you could get a boom box and epoxy it to
the belly of your ship and use a continuous loop tape to play the sound of a
Model A as you fly.
Just a thought........
John
-----Original Message-----
From: steve(at)byu.edu
Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 5:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: A 40 Powered Piets
>I've got a 90 franklin, Intended to put it in the piet, but now flying with
>the a-65, I cant give up flying long enough to to put it in. Maybe I'll
>have to build another piet...
>
>Stevee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>LanhamOS(at)aol.com
>Sent: Monday, September 14, 1998 3:49 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: A 40 Powered Piets
>
>
> Many ages ago I flew J 2's, with A 40 power. Rate of climb with 2 on
>board, with some fuel leaved a lot to be desired.. Sort of like a powered
>glider. I think gross weight was about 750 lbs. I saw some J 2's with
>brakes,
>and lots of extra instruments. I did not see them fly.. I also saw a J 3
>with
>an A 40. The Model A really produced a lot of torque at low rpm. I think
the
>best bet would be to purchase a 65 hp mill, as parts might be easier to
>find.
>I am impressed the 90 hp Franklin.
>Anyone using it? Dr. Lanham Bellevue, Ne.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Certified Engines |
Along the way I learned that if you rebuild an aircraft engine and have
it signed off by an IA, or hang and engine that came off of a production
certified airplane, the moment you
put it on a homebuilt it becomes experimental and voids the certification.
Yup. Then to legally use that engine on a factory airplane at some point
in the future you need to have an IA go over it and sign it off as being
recertitifed. The only break you get by using a certified engine/prop
combination is that your test time is reduced from 40 hours to 25.
Ain't that something ?!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: fairing strip |
Thanks all for your input, you convinced me to go ahead with the fairing
strip(s).Having a place for condensation to collect away from the airframe
was the prime determining factor,esthetics secondary.
Joe C
Zion, Ill
>I was also told that having a fairing on the bottom helps to drain
>out any water that might get in there by way of condensation, etc.
>
>On 14 Sep 98 at 10:25, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>> >Hi all;; getting ready to varnish the fuselage and in looking over the
>> >bottom I find myself questioning the need for a fairing strip down the
>> >center of the bottom.
>>
>> Joe- Lots of ways to go with this part of the plane- Some leave
>> the bare plywood, some run one or two 1" or so high stringers down
>> the belly. I ran two all the way from the firewall to tail then
>> tapered them down at both ends. This way your nuts and bolt heads
>> won't bulge out against the fabric. (which will eventually rub
>> thru, or get a hole by when you sand your finishes) I just bought
>> the triangular 3/4" x 3/4" spruce from Wicks to glue on each side of
>> the stringer every foot or so. Try to brace the stringers as they
>> flow beyond the belly plywood floor area too because when you heat
>> taughten your fabric the un-reinforced stringers may buckle or bow
>> on you.
>
>Richard DeCosta
>Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
> Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
> Ph: 207-842-2064
> Fax: 207-842-2239
>PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Thanks all for your input, you convinced me to go ahead with the fairing
>strip(s).Having a place for condensation to collect away from the airframe
Joe/Group.....On the cockpit floor plywood where you have those
three 3/16" holes just ahead of each, equally spaced left to right to allow
for wet feet, snow, rain, etc, (pop) to drain out of the belly. Then I
put a few drain grommets in the belly fabric to suck that moisture out.
Seaplane grommets would have been fancy here too. For those with no
fabric on the belly these holes will help keep the floor dry too...
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
Mike, thanks again for your input. the great thing about this discussion
group is our choice to use the best ideas of all those who build before us.
Joe C
>>Thanks all for your input, you convinced me to go ahead with the fairing
>>strip(s).Having a place for condensation to collect away from the airframe
>
>Joe/Group.....On the cockpit floor plywood where you have those
>three 3/16" holes just ahead of each, equally spaced left to right to allow
>for wet feet, snow, rain, etc, (pop) to drain out of the belly. Then I
>put a few drain grommets in the belly fabric to suck that moisture out.
>Seaplane grommets would have been fancy here too. For those with no
>fabric on the belly these holes will help keep the floor dry too...
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aircamper- biplane |
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>
> please add my name to the list, I'mlooking for any information on St.
> Criox biplane
>
>
I was interested in the biplane version but figured the extra wing
panels wouldn't fit my budget. I have a set of the biplane plans from
St. Croix so I can tell you they basically add another diagonal truss
member to each side of the fuselage, add a couple of attach fittings,
build up lower wing panels of slightly smaller span and chord, add a
slightly larger rudder/fin (optional) and put on a bigger engine. Don't
expect good performance out of it with a 65 Continental with all the
added drag and about 80 lbs extra weight. A neat feature of the wings
is the flexible wire trailing edge, a la German WWI aircraft. Looks
slick, but I have heard mixed reviews on it's flying qualities. I would
suggest building a Piet first, then think about a biplane version later.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aircamper- biplane |
When I was first considering building a plane I was of the mind that
"real planes have two wings". Then I found the Piet. I also found
discussions on the biplane version and decided pretty quick that it was
not a good thing to build, mainly due to its flying characteristics (or
lack of them). I can't remember where i saw the references, but the
characteristics stuck in my mind. The other issue is basically that
there appear to be lots of Piets flying, and NO Piet bipes. I would
proceed with a great deal of caution.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Thanks to all that responded. After gluing a bunch of the card file
material together, I have abandonned the idea of using it due to the
lack of rigidity and seams. I am now proceeding with aluminum.
I found a good source $25 for enough to do the entire leading edge.
Currently I am planning on doing 1/2 inch nailing along the nose piece
and along the built up spar. I was thinking of using the 1/2 inch
aircraft nails as I have a lot of them left.
Is this the right way to do it, or should I be doing something else?
also, does the aluminum go directly in contact with the wood, or is
there tape between? I am planning on two coat epoxy varnishing the wing
before applying the aluminum leading edge.
Can't seem to find anything in the manuals on how to do this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
Care to share your source? I priced 1/16 plywood for that job and
nearly split a gasket.
On 16 Sep 98 at 12:04, Ian Holland wrote:
> Thanks to all that responded. After gluing a bunch of the card file
> material together, I have abandonned the idea of using it due to the
> lack of rigidity and seams. I am now proceeding with aluminum.
>
> I found a good source $25 for enough to do the entire leading edge.
>
> Currently I am planning on doing 1/2 inch nailing along the nose
> piece and along the built up spar. I was thinking of using the 1/2
> inch aircraft nails as I have a lot of them left.
>
> Is this the right way to do it, or should I be doing something else?
> also, does the aluminum go directly in contact with the wood, or is
> there tape between? I am planning on two coat epoxy varnishing the
> wing before applying the aluminum leading edge.
>
> Can't seem to find anything in the manuals on how to do this.
>
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <ConwayW(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
I used the aluminum and think it looks great: smooth, esthetically
pleasing. I used epoxy varnish, as you suggest, and then nailed the LE
directly, just as you plan to do. I used tape afterwards on the nails and
joints to prepare the surface for fabric. I personally think Bernie would
have used aluminum today.
>>> Ian Holland 09/16 1:04 PM >>>
Thanks to all that responded. After gluing a bunch of the card file
material together, I have abandonned the idea of using it due to the
lack of rigidity and seams. I am now proceeding with aluminum.
I found a good source $25 for enough to do the entire leading edge.
Currently I am planning on doing =BD inch nailing along the nose piece
and along the built up spar. I was thinking of using the =BD inch
aircraft nails as I have a lot of them left.
Is this the right way to do it, or should I be doing something else?
also, does the aluminum go directly in contact with the wood, or is
there tape between? I am planning on two coat epoxy varnishing the wing
before applying the aluminum leading edge.
Can't seem to find anything in the manuals on how to do this.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing Leading Edge Cover |
The source was old files at work, namely Control Department files that
were obsolete. They were old filing jackets of very dense (glazed) paper
board that were almost like arborite but not as stiff.in 9 x 12 format.
they glued up real well. the trick would be to go to the source and trie
to get a stub roll of the stuff before they were cut up. I suspect that
the stuff is no longer made.
I went to the Beaver lumber store and for $9.00 Canadian, got 14" x 10'
aluminum flashing. $30 for the whole works.
The name of the material that I think would do a good job is;
ACCOPRESS
Genuine pressboard binder
Acco Canadian Company Ltd
Toronto
also ogdensburg,N.Y, Chicago, london
I went to the local Home Businesss store, but could not find anything
similar. All the new stuff is pretty cheap and flimsey looking compared
to the above.
Yeah, the cost of 1/16 ply set me back on my heels too!
Good luck,
-=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | scherer2(at)airmail.net (Glenn Scherer) |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Info Site |
>However, what I have observed with a lot of
>homebuilt airplanes, especially Piets, the weight advantage of the
>certificated engine is more than offset by the useless junk added to the
>airframe by its builder. I.e.: brakes, tailwheels, radios, electric
>systems, batteries, bomb racks, refrigerators, machine guns, air
>conditioning, canopies, fat women, armor plate etc, etc.
>
>Take that part you are considering adding to your ship.
>Throw it up in the air. If it comes back down, its too heavy.
>
>John
ROTFL! You're having too much fun with this, John. :)
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
About this two part epoxy as varnish. I bought a gallon of w.e.s.t. and 206 hardner
to do my wings. But the stuff weighs about 30 pounds! I then went to the
local hardware and found best quality exterior spar varnish. And it weighed maybe
10 pounds to the gallon!
What brand of epoxy are you guys using?
Is it as heavy as mine?
Does yours go on thick, and heavy?
Did it require an entire gallon of epoxy to do the wings?
Has anybody used W.E.S.T.as varnish and any of the slower hardners? 207, 209 etc
Is epoxy varnish all that necessary?
I could sure use some advice on this mater.
OCB
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: two part epoxy |
Hold up a minute! The two part epoxy varnish that I am using is out of
the Wick's Catalogue. It can be thinned and is actually very light. It
is NOT a West product. I am at work but I believe the part number is UV
570. I think that if you were to use the West system as a varnish you
would be adding LOTS of excessive weight.I believe it is a Randolph
product. If you want I can send you the proper description tonight. Get
back to me by e-mail if you want.
Also, the working life is 6 to 7 hours which gives lots of time for beer
breaks etc.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: two part epoxy |
I used thinned spar varnish for the wood structures. I wanted deep
penetration into the wood so my first coat was about 50/50 thinner to
varnish. Second and third coats were a little thicker, probably 25/75.
Lastly, only in the areas where the fabric would touch, did I apply epoxy
varnish. I used epoxy there, incase I or someone else ever decided to do a
recover, in hopes that the mek would not lift the normal varnish in the
process.
Much cheaper, much lighter...
for what it's worth,
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
can
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 1998 12:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: two part epoxy
About this two part epoxy as varnish. I bought a gallon of w.e.s.t. and 206
hardner to do my wings. But the stuff weighs about 30 pounds! I then went to
the local hardware and found best quality exterior spar varnish. And it
weighed maybe 10 pounds to the gallon!
What brand of epoxy are you guys using?
Is it as heavy as mine?
Does yours go on thick, and heavy?
Did it require an entire gallon of epoxy to do the wings?
Has anybody used W.E.S.T.as varnish and any of the slower hardners? 207, 209
etc
Is epoxy varnish all that necessary?
I could sure use some advice on this mater.
OCB
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Info Site |
TNX for the humour/comonsense. Doug..
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine Info Site |
>However, what I have observed with a lot of
>homebuilt airplanes, especially Piets, the weight advantage of the
>certificated engine is more than offset by the useless junk added to the
>airframe by its builder. I.e.: brakes, tailwheels, radios, electric
>systems, batteries, bomb racks, refrigerators, machine guns, air
>conditioning, canopies, fat women, armor plate etc, etc.
>
>Take that part you are considering adding to your ship.
>Throw it up in the air. If it comes back down, its too heavy.
>
>John
ROTFL! You're having too much fun with this, John. :)
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | russell ray <rray(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Epoxy Alternatives.... |
Yes did a test on two pieces of yello pine with my raka epoxy
both about 1.5'' in width glued about 1" square area pre soaking then
mixing with silca no clamping just stuck together let set over night,
had to put in vise and repeated heavy blows with hammer, pulled
out large amount of wood, didn't bother to clean dirty scrap yellow pine
which is more dense than spruce. I now feel comfortable
using this glue as long as the ambient temperature is below 130 degrees.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:33 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Epoxy Alternatives....
>> Yes I would like to use Raka epoxy about 30 bucks a gallon.
>
>I used Raka on a strip built canoe with good results. I would
>suggest following the instructions and using measuring cups for
>mixing. I found the pumps to be rather inaccurate. His prices
>are 1/2 of West for epoxy and his glass prices are not too bad
>either (at least when I bought a year ago). If you order from
>Raka you need to decide what hardeners you want. His normal for
>a 3 gallon kit is 2 gallons of resin, 1/2 gallon each of fast and
>slow hardeners. Mix the hardeners to control the kick time. They
>are all rather slow in a thin film but I did melt the bottom out of
>a mixing cup when a blob fired off.
>
>Dave
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Wing leading edge cover |
Has anyone considered using thin Formica instead of cardboard?
color#000000>Has
anyone considered using thin Formica instead of
cardboard?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
Bill
At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
compared the
computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
had kept up with
technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
driving
twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
gallon." In response to
Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
stating:
If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
be driving cars with the following characteristics:
1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
day.
2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
have to
buy a new car.
3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
reason, and
you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
would cause
your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
you would have to reinstall the engine.
5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
bought
"Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
seats.
6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
reliable,
five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
only run on five percent of the roads.
7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
would be
replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
butt.
9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
off.
10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
lock you out
and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
door handle,
turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
deluxe set of
Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
for investigation by the Justice Department.
12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
have to learn
how to drive all over again because none of the controls
would operate in
the same manner as the old car.
13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email> |
| Subject: | Re: lighter side |
Thanks for the laugh.... Unfortunatly that is soooo close to the truth
is hurts....
Bill Talbert wrote:
> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>
> Bill
>
> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> compared the
> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
> had kept up with
> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
> driving
> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
> gallon." In response to
> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating:
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
> day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
> have to
> buy a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
> reason, and
> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
> would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
> you would have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
> bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
> seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
> reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
> only run on five percent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
> would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
> butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
> off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
> lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle,
> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
> deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
> for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
> have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
> would operate in
> the same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email> |
| Subject: | Re: Epoxy Alternatives.... |
How do I contact this Raka company for price list and info???
Greg Yotz
russell ray wrote:
> Yes did a test on two pieces of yello pine with my raka epoxy
> both about 1.5'' in width glued about 1" square area pre soaking then
> mixing with silca no clamping just stuck together let set over night,
> had to put in vise and repeated heavy blows with hammer, pulled
> out large amount of wood, didn't bother to clean dirty scrap yellow pine
> which is more dense than spruce. I now feel comfortable
> using this glue as long as the ambient temperature is below 130 degrees.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, August 25, 1998 6:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Epoxy Alternatives....
>
> >> Yes I would like to use Raka epoxy about 30 bucks a gallon.
> >
> >I used Raka on a strip built canoe with good results. I would
> >suggest following the instructions and using measuring cups for
> >mixing. I found the pumps to be rather inaccurate. His prices
> >are 1/2 of West for epoxy and his glass prices are not too bad
> >either (at least when I bought a year ago). If you order from
> >Raka you need to decide what hardeners you want. His normal for
> >a 3 gallon kit is 2 gallons of resin, 1/2 gallon each of fast and
> >slow hardeners. Mix the hardeners to control the kick time. They
> >are all rather slow in a thin film but I did melt the bottom out of
> >a mixing cup when a blob fired off.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Epoxy Alternatives.... |
>How do I contact this Raka company for price list and info???
>
>Greg Yotz
>
Raka has gone big time and has moved his web site to:
http://www.raka.com/
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair Authority |
Has anybody done any business with William Winnie owner of "The Corvair
Authority"? I just received some literature in the mail and it seems as
if he does nice work. Does anybody have an e-mail address for him?
Has anybody done any business with
William
Winnie owner of The Corvair Authority? I just received
some
literature in the mail and it seems as if he does nice work. Does
anybody
have an e-mail address for him?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Good evening, y'all,
I'm getting ready to install span-wise tapes to my left wing. Where all
did you put them? The leading edge and trailing edge are obvious as is
the leading edge sheeting. Did you add any over any of the other spars?
Need info.
John
Good evening, y'all,
I'm getting ready to install span-wise tapes to my
left
wing. Where all did you put them? The leading edge and
trailing edge
are obvious as is the leading edge sheeting. Did you add any over
any of
the other spars?
Need info.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | who's a redneck ? |
If you want to start off your work week with a little chuckle, check out
. Just might be a little redneck in some of us.
JoeC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com.I.hate.junk.email> |
What do you think a used Piet would be worth in the following config???
Built 1986 and in good shape.
Cont. 0-65 w/wood prop.
Recovered in 1996.
Basic instr.
Good paint job.
The artistic wood areas are of 'pretty good' quality.
This is not a champion at Osh. but also not a dog.
Any comments????
thanks,
GY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Value??? |
I'd guess around $8,000, depending a little on how close the engine is to
overhaul. The plane may have sat outside: I can't image the need for
recover in just 10 years. Even though I would like to think our labor is
worth something, I think in general we're likely to get about the cost of
our materials and only a few pennies per hour. Of course, for me, the
building is a great pleasure and I usually don't get paid to have fun!
>>> Greg Yotz 09/21 7:49 AM >>>
What do you think a used Piet would be worth in the following config???
Built 1986 and in good shape.
Cont. 0-65 w/wood prop.
Recovered in 1996.
Basic instr.
Good paint job.
The artistic wood areas are of 'pretty good' quality.
This is not a champion at Osh. but also not a dog.
Any comments????
thanks,
GY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | bozeman(at)cassnet.com (Bozeman, Eli, Robert, and Teresa) |
| Subject: | 0-290 for aircamper |
Does anyone have a set of plan for a 0-290 engine mount and how far is
it from the firewall to the prop on a model A Piet?
0-290 weighs the same as the model A , and what is the max. wing load on
the Piet?
Does anyone have a set
of plan for a
0-290 engine mount and how far is it from the firewall to the prop on a
model A
Piet?
0-290 weighs the same
as the model A
, and what is the max. wing load on the Piet?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Value??? |
I concur with William and actually saw an ad for a A-65 powered Piet for
$12,000 CDN ( about $8000 USD) on the weekend.
On Mon, 21 Sep 1998, William Conway wrote:
> I'd guess around $8,000, depending a little on how close the engine is
> to overhaul. The plane may have sat outside: I can't image the need for
>
>> Greg Yotz 09/21 7:49 AM >>>
>
> What do you think a used Piet would be worth in the following config???
>
> Any comments????
>
> thanks,
> GY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
Would the sender of the Gates/GM dialog about cars and computers put it
back on line, or else send it to me directl. I wiped out a batch of mail. I
sared some the lumor wit out Data Processing staff, and I would like the
complete text.
Thanks. Orville Lanham, the J3 Cub flyer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
Orville Lanham, the J3 Cub flyer,
I received a copy of this the other day, here it is again.
Are you really a J3 cub flyer? Is owning and flying a J3 as great as it
appears? If you did not own a J3 but could home-build one, would you do
it, or would you consider a different project? I am considering
building a WAG-AERO Sport Trainer, which is supposed to be a J3 Cub
replica. I am trying to collect as much information as I can regarding
J3 Cubs and the Sport Trainer. Anyone out there building a Sport
Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any feedback.
Thanks.
Ed Larsen
Thanks for the laugh.... Unfortunatly that is soooo close to the truth
is hurts....
Bill Talbert wrote:
> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>
> Bill
>
> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> compared the
> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
> had kept up with
> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
> driving
> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
> gallon." In response to
> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating:
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
> day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
> have to
> buy a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
> reason, and
> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
> would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
> you would have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
> bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
> seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
> reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
> only run on five percent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
> would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
> butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
> off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
> lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle,
> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
> deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
> for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
> have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
> would operate in
> the same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
From: LanhamOS(at)aol.com [SMTP:LanhamOS(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 11:31 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: re: humor
computers put it
back on line, or else send it to me directl. I wiped out a batch
of mail. I
sared some the lumor wit out Data Processing staff, and I would
like the
complete text.
Thanks. Orville Lanham, the J3 Cub flyer.
________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
Larsen, Ed
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 1:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: humor
Orville Lanham, the J3 Cub flyer,
I received a copy of this the other day, here it is again.
Are you really a J3 cub flyer? Is owning and flying a J3 as great as it
appears? If you did not own a J3 but could home-build one, would you do
it, or would you consider a different project? I am considering
building a WAG-AERO Sport Trainer, which is supposed to be a J3 Cub
replica. I am trying to collect as much information as I can regarding
J3 Cubs and the Sport Trainer. Anyone out there building a Sport
Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any feedback.
Thanks.
Ed Larsen
Thanks for the laugh.... Unfortunatly that is soooo close to the truth
is hurts....
Bill Talbert wrote:
> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>
> Bill
>
> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> compared the
> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
> had kept up with
> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
> driving
> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
> gallon." In response to
> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating:
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
> day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
> have to
> buy a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
> reason, and
> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
> would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
> you would have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
> bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
> seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
> reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
> only run on five percent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
> would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
> butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
> off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
> lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle,
> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
> deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
> for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
> have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
> would operate in
> the same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
From: LanhamOS(at)aol.com [SMTP:LanhamOS(at)aol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 11:31 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: re: humor
computers put it
back on line, or else send it to me directl. I wiped out a batch
of mail. I
sared some the lumor wit out Data Processing staff, and I would
like the
complete text.
Thanks. Orville Lanham, the J3 Cub flyer.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | FW: Information Please |
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 1998 5:17 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Information Please
A day or two ago I e-mailed Mr. Grant MacLaren, not realizing how much mail
he recieves. Since he may not be able to answer soon, I've pulled your name
out of the internet hat for a second go.
I purchased a GN-1 Aircamper, put on new fabric, and did minor repairs. The
seller also included a partial set of GN-1 builder plans. Unfortunately,
the information I need must be in the missing sections. I am looking for an
experienced GN-1 builder. We have some question about rigging. Any help you
could provide would be appreciated.
Thanks, Larry Pasley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
I have not yet done business with William Wynne, although I, too, have received
his information package. I have a Corvair engine, and I was just about ready
to start ordering a few parts to begin the rebuild, but now I'm curious about
what Wynne has to say. Have you seen his website?
http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm
It contains little more information than is contained in his info pack. I have
not yet decided to order his Corvair conversion booklet, so if you get it I
would appreciate hearing your reaction.
Does anyone know of a Pietenpol, or any other aircraft for that matter, that
has flown using the guidance of William Wynne's booklet? Flying examples are
conspicuously absent from his information packet.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
I want to thank you Peter for giving me the address for the Corvair
Authority. No, I have not seen his website. I just found out however that
I will be making a trip to Orlando in Oct. which is just a little ways from
Port Orange where the Corvair Authority is located. If I can talk my wife
into a little "side trip", I will maybe get some answers. Thanks again for
the info. I'll keep you posted. If you could send me your e-mail address,
I could e-mail you direct.
Craig
chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
Anyone out there building a Sport
Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any
feedback.
Thanks.
Ed Larsen
I'm not building yet but here's what I'm thinking. A PA 14 is the
equivalent of a stretched piper tripacer with super cub wings. It has STOL
performance in like with a super cub and a 135 mph cruse. It holds 4 people
and 50 gal of fuel.
You can buy a TriPacer in need of fabric and an engine for about $4000.
You can sell the wings for about what it would cost you buy the materials to
build super cub wings. Covering would cost about $4000. Add a 180hp O-360
for about 13,000 or rebuild your own for less
For about $25,000 you'd have one heck of an airplane for half the cost of a
super cub and an experimental rating so you could do your own repairs.
Marc Davis
Anyone out there building a Sport
Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any
feedback.
Thanks.
Ed Larsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
I started a Sport Trainer a few years ago. I have not done as much as I
wish I could have. I have found it hard to really get started because of
all the welding and parts making. The plans are definitely not designed for
the first time builder. There is not a building manual to follow and the
plans are basically copies of the original plans. Some day I will get back
to the J-3. But right now, I'm building an easy airplane plan. The
Pietenpol.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Why not keep the airplane as a standard category. Install the STC's for
tailwheel, increased power, Borer prop . . ., I've used stock Tripacers and
Pacers for banner tow and glider tow and the short wing will give you
exceptional performance. A Pacer with a 150hp and an M76DM52 prop will give
performance equivelant to a Super Cub. As for maintenance, there is nothing you
can't do on a certified airplane. All you need is an A&P to supervise. The
annual has to be done by an IA but all the panel removal and replacement could
be done by you.
Davis, Marc wrote:
> Anyone out there building a Sport
> Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any
> feedback.
> Thanks.
> Ed Larsen
>
> I'm not building yet but here's what I'm thinking. A PA 14 is the
> equivalent of a stretched piper tripacer with super cub wings. It has STOL
> performance in like with a super cub and a 135 mph cruse. It holds 4 people
> and 50 gal of fuel.
>
> You can buy a TriPacer in need of fabric and an engine for about $4000.
> You can sell the wings for about what it would cost you buy the materials to
> build super cub wings. Covering would cost about $4000. Add a 180hp O-360
> for about 13,000 or rebuild your own for less
>
> For about $25,000 you'd have one heck of an airplane for half the cost of a
> super cub and an experimental rating so you could do your own repairs.
>
> Marc Davis
>
>
> Anyone out there building a Sport
> Trainer or the Super Sport Trainer? I am interested in any
> feedback.
> Thanks.
> Ed Larsen
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
If at all possible try to get some flights in a J-3, Aeronca Champ, and
a Pietenpol before you decide what you think you might want to buy/
build. After flying our Champ for several years I found that although
the J-3 gets the attention and notoriety, it lacks alot compared to the Champ.
Even an honest closet Cub owner will admit to this. For what it's worth ,
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
<< Has anybody done any business with William Winnie owner of "The Corvair
Authority"? I just received some literature in the mail and it seems as if he
does nice work. Does anybody have an e-mail address for him?
>>
I have done business with William Wynne and had a very good transaction. He
was a little slow but worth the wait. I have a block with threaded crank, new
main bearings, new cam gear, helicoiled, all together for very reasonable
price. It is worth the fifty bucks just to be able to talk to the man as he
is very knowledgeable. I recomend the manual.
William Koucky
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Authority |
I wrote in the previous post;
<< I have done business with William Wynne and had a very good transaction.
He
was a little slow but worth the wait. I have a block with threaded crank,
new
main bearings, new cam gear, helicoiled, all together for very reasonable
price. It is worth the fifty bucks just to be able to talk to the man as he
is very knowledgeable. I recomend the manual. >>
I spent fifty bucks for the manual not the above block. The above block was
under $500 all put together as I recall. Just read my own post and thought I
should clear that up.
William Koucky
traverse City, MI
________________________________________________________________________________
Quite right, to a point on the maintenance...the Friendlies say that
"supervise" means just that: eyeballs on. However, there is quite a bit that
you, as a pilot/owner, can legally do unsupervised on your own aircraft.
Check out FAR 43 for the juicy details. By the way, if you do ANY work on ANY
airplane, keep a log of what you do, and how much time you spend. It's just
like going to school. After so much experience, you may be eligible to take
the A&P (excuse me, the AMT) writtens. Check with your local FSDO Maintenance
Representative for the latest. If you're doing all that work, might as well
try for a bonus.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
From: David B. Schober [SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 6:34 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
I happen to be the proud owner of a 150hp Tripacer with a climb
prop. Today I took off with three 200lb men and 36gal of gas. It was 70
deg. and we were at sea level. I managed 600 FPM climb after a 1000ft
takeoff roll. I'm very happy with the plane but a PA14 with a 180hp engine
could have done this at 1200fpm and a 400ft roll.
Marc
Why not keep the airplane as a standard category. Install the STC's
for tailwheel, increased power, Borer prop . . ., I've used stock Tripacers
and Pacers for banner tow and glider tow and the short wing will give you
exceptional performance. A Pacer with a 150hp and an M76DM52 prop will give
performance equivelant to a Super Cub. As for maintenance, there is nothing
you can't do on a certified airplane. All you need is an A&P to supervise.
The annual has to be done by an IA but all the panel removal and replacement
could be done by you.
Davis, Marc wrote:
interested in any
14 is the
wings. It has STOL
It holds 4 people
for about $4000.
buy the materials to
Add a 180hp O-360
half the cost of a
own repairs.
interested in any
*
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
When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
Marc,
I had a PA22-160. The extra 10 hp doesn't sound like much but it did help. My
prop was repitched to 50". Climb performance at gross was close to 1000' per
min. Light it was in the 1800' range. I operated this airplane out of strips as
short as 700' at gross weight. Problem was that cruise suffered. In climb if you
let the airspeed go over 80 you had to start coming back on the throttle or you
would over rev. I would cruise at 2700 rpm and about 115 mph. With the 60" prop
it would cruise at 2500 rpm and 130 mph.
I used this airplane for banner towing and could pull more than a 150hp PA12. I
installed a second oil cooler, four tow hitches, and the repitched prop and the
airframe was metalized. Otherwise it was a stock 160 Tripacer. Average sign was
40 five foot Gasser letters. I've pulled as many as 63 letters but performance
was marginal. This was all at sea level but during the summer months along the
New Jersey shore so temps were in the 80's and 90's.
One other note, a Tripacer will takeoff shorter than a Pacer. If short field
performance is what you are looking for, stay with a milk stool. Since the gear
on a Pacer is shorter and farther forward, you cant rotate to as high an angle
of attack and your ground roll will be longer.
Davis, Marc wrote:
> From: David B. Schober [SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 6:34 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Cub ideas
>
> I happen to be the proud owner of a 150hp Tripacer with a climb
> prop. Today I took off with three 200lb men and 36gal of gas. It was 70
> deg. and we were at sea level. I managed 600 FPM climb after a 1000ft
> takeoff roll. I'm very happy with the plane but a PA14 with a 180hp engine
> could have done this at 1200fpm and a 400ft roll.
>
> Marc
>
> Why not keep the airplane as a standard category. Install the STC's
> for tailwheel, increased power, Borer prop . . ., I've used stock Tripacers
> and Pacers for banner tow and glider tow and the short wing will give you
> exceptional performance. A Pacer with a 150hp and an M76DM52 prop will give
> performance equivelant to a Super Cub. As for maintenance, there is nothing
> you can't do on a certified airplane. All you need is an A&P to supervise.
> The annual has to be done by an IA but all the panel removal and replacement
> could be done by you.
> Davis, Marc wrote:
> interested in any
> 14 is the
> wings. It has STOL
> It holds 4 people
> for about $4000.
> buy the materials to
> Add a 180hp O-360
> half the cost of a
> own repairs.
> interested in any
>
>
> *
> 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
>
> When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
--
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: | Just FYI, 40' Stinson 10A Voyager For Sale |
As many of you know, I bought this project about six months expecting to do
a ground
up restoration, however I was able to buy a hanger and now have to sell
one of my projects to finance it.
1940 Voyager 10A
complete with all logs and parts.
Located in Provo UT.
Franklin 90 hp less than 200 hours on rebuild according to logs, New
Falcon wood prop.
last flown in 93' According to the last pilot that flew it, the engine
ran well and developed full RPM, but leaked oil. Presumably because the
A/C had sat for a number of years, drying the seals and gaskets. The
wing are still covered, the fuse is stripped and prepped to be blasted
and epoxy coated. Pictures can be seen on my home page:
http://steve.byu.edu
I have it advertised for $7500 but will sell it to anyone on the Piet list
or Tailwind list for $6500. Tell your friends!
Steve Eldredge
Steve(at)byu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
From: David B. Schober [SMTP:dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 6:36 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
David
Thanks for the discussion. It's been very interesting. I think my
prop is a 52". As a new pilot I'm sure I'm not ringing all the performance
that I can from the tripacer I have.
Marc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
Nice to see all the interaction about Cubs. I am amazed to see that
a J 3 in good condition is priced at 20K +. I agree, the Champ as some
features tat are better.. For example there is is egress into the front flight
deck.. For the Cub, I always suggest getting up on te right tire, Sit on the
door frame, reach up and grab the cabane struts behind the windscreen, Pull
yourself up, lift up the left limb and slide over.. then bring the right limb
up.. Works oik.. Except for someone with a skirt.. I like the Champ when it is
trimmed for a landing. I always thought pitch control was more sensitive. The
Champ is more comfortable for XC . After about an hour in the J3 lower seat
cushion frame begins to make impressions on your extrimities.. But, if you can
land a J3, you can land anything. I have not had the pleasure of flying a
Super Cub..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
There is a gentleman in the Provo, Utah area that has a 194? J-3 Cub for
sale. It has only a few years on the fabric. He is asking US
$30,000.00, and claims that he will get it. He says that its value
increases US $11.00 per day. He explained that many of the people who
originally learned to fly in a Cub, are retiring. Nostalgia is forcing
them to get one, and they are willing to pay. So landing a Cub is a
challenge? Please elaborate. I'm considering building a J-3 replica,
and I'm not even a pilot yet. The J-3 seems to have some kind of
hypnotic power over me, but I have never flown in one. I certainly
don't want to build one an find out that I made a mistake afterward.
Any comments?
Ed Larsen
From: LanhamOS(at)aol.com [SMTP:LanhamOS(at)aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 1998 1:16 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
amazed to see that
a J 3 in good condition is priced at 20K +. I agree, the Champ
as some
features tat are better.. For example there is is egress into
the front flight
deck.. For the Cub, I always suggest getting up on te right
tire, Sit on the
door frame, reach up and grab the cabane struts behind the
windscreen, Pull
yourself up, lift up the left limb and slide over.. then bring
the right limb
up.. Works oik.. Except for someone with a skirt.. I like the
Champ when it is
trimmed for a landing. I always thought pitch control was more
sensitive. The
Champ is more comfortable for XC . After about an hour in the J3
lower seat
cushion frame begins to make impressions on your extrimities..
But, if you can
land a J3, you can land anything. I have not had the pleasure of
flying a
Super Cub..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Lamb <lamb01(at)flash.net> |
Larsen, Ed wrote:
>
> There is a gentleman in the Provo, Utah area that has a 194? J-3 Cub for
> sale. It has only a few years on the fabric. He is asking US
> $30,000.00, and claims that he will get it. He says that its value
> increases US $11.00 per day.
Yeah, he'll get it if the thing is at all nice...
Seems like even the ragged ones are bringing over $20.
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Guys
Still working on my Pietenpol.
And from the exposure to the Tailwind Group that Steve is also running,
have decided that I would like a Tailwind. Can't build both at once, so am
looking to buy a nice clean Tailwind in the western states. If anyone here
has a lead, please contact me here or on the Tailwind Page.
Thanks in advance for the help.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Ed Larson wrote:
>
>So landing a Cub is a
>challenge? Please elaborate.
Ed- Mr. Lanham's observation here illustrates the difference between the
Cub's bungee suspension and the Champ's oleo strut suspension.
The bungee's, especially when newly installed on a Cub, are
tight and less forgiving than the Champ's cushion type feel on landing.
Neither aircraft should be feared in any way though. Both are sweet.
I have learned that the bungee's we use on straight axle Piets go thru
a 'break-in' period of sorts. I had to re-wrap mine three times during my
first 40 hours as they stretched out. Now they are fine- haven't had to
adjust them at all. Wrapped too loose and the wind/uneven ground
handling will rock your wings back and forth way too much, and too
tight you can't get a smooth landing. For the motorcycle wheel guys
I started out with 30 lbs. of tire pressure which proved too much.
Now using about 25 lbs. which seems good. The wise owner of
Cleve. Motorcycle Supply told me though that too low a tire pressure
may allow the tire to slip upon touchdown on the rim, shearing off
the valve stem, resulting in an instant flat. This is more likely on
paved strips than grass. Happy Friday !!!!!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
I had to rewrap several times as well on my split gear too. It is just
perfect now.
Among several things that get adjusted several times as you work into the
hours on a new plane.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Michael D Cuy
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 5:46 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Cub ideas
Ed Larson wrote:
>
>So landing a Cub is a
>challenge? Please elaborate.
Ed- Mr. Lanham's observation here illustrates the difference between the
Cub's bungee suspension and the Champ's oleo strut suspension.
The bungee's, especially when newly installed on a Cub, are
tight and less forgiving than the Champ's cushion type feel on landing.
Neither aircraft should be feared in any way though. Both are sweet.
I have learned that the bungee's we use on straight axle Piets go thru
a 'break-in' period of sorts. I had to re-wrap mine three times during my
first 40 hours as they stretched out. Now they are fine- haven't had to
adjust them at all. Wrapped too loose and the wind/uneven ground
handling will rock your wings back and forth way too much, and too
tight you can't get a smooth landing. For the motorcycle wheel guys
I started out with 30 lbs. of tire pressure which proved too much.
Now using about 25 lbs. which seems good. The wise owner of
Cleve. Motorcycle Supply told me though that too low a tire pressure
may allow the tire to slip upon touchdown on the rim, shearing off
the valve stem, resulting in an instant flat. This is more likely on
paved strips than grass. Happy Friday !!!!!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve & Mike:
Flew a Piper Vagabond for years with a stiff gear...as in no bungie at
all...seemed to land just fine.
Question? How do you think a stiff gear on the Piet would work?
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
Doable with tires that will absorb landing loads ala Fly-Baby. Wire wheels
would seem to require a very gentle touch on landing, since they don't
absorb as much as fat tires. I have landed several times-grateful for at
least some shock absorbsion. (sheepish grin)
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Warren D. Shoun
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 9:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cub ideas
Steve & Mike:
Flew a Piper Vagabond for years with a stiff gear...as in no bungie at
all...seemed to land just fine.
Question? How do you think a stiff gear on the Piet would work?
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
Warren,
WAG AERO offers plans for a Piper Vagabond replica called the Wagabond.
They claim that it is a good first-time building project with extensive
plans and instructions and helps, as opposed to the Sport Trainer plans
that require previous building experience. At least, that is what I
have gathered.
Since you flew a Vagabond for years, would you be willing to explain
what you liked and disliked about the airplane as well as flight
characteristics, span, length, power plant required, etc. If you had an
opportunity to build a Vagabond replica, would you do it? Please
elaborate. Thank you.
Ed Larsen
From: Warren D. Shoun [SMTP:wbnb(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 9:24 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
Steve & Mike:
bungie at
all...seemed to land just fine.
work?
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve,
Thanks for the experience relay. It ALL helps.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Ed,
The Vagabond was the most fun plane that I have ever had or flown. I
can only hope that the Piet is as much fun!
The short wings on the Vagabond were never any problem, due to the light
weight of just over 600#. Span is 29' and Length is 18'..sound familiar?
On only 65 horsepower, would get in and out of the shortest unimproved strip
easily with 2 aboard. I often used it as an "Air Camper". Easily flew
hands off with just pedal input. Stalls were a non-event. In fact you
could pull the power, gently pull the stick clear back to the stop and just
mush down at about 300 feet / minute. Side slips to a landing were just
plain fun and I would often come in high on purpose just so I could practice
them.
Speed wasn't much...again similar to the Piet...85-90 on a good day.
Landed at a walk and very short.
Bought the Wag-Aero plans. Extra-ordinarily extensive. In fact, I am
using them as a reference for the Piet on how to do some things. I would
definitely build one, if I hadn't decided that I wanted the "rain-water in
my ear" kind of flying....and I may anyway. This one has doors on both
sides, more power and better fuel load, and cruises @ 124 mph or better.
Seems like an ideal Subaru project to me.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
Warren,
This is just the kind of information I was looking for. Thank you very
much! I believe that I will buy the plans from WAG AERO. At only US
$66, it seems that they are a great resource and good bargain.
Best regards,
Ed
From: Warren D. Shoun [SMTP:wbnb(at)earthlink.net]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 10:26 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
Hi Ed,
flown. I
can only hope that the Piet is as much fun!
to the light
weight of just over 600#. Span is 29' and Length is 18'..sound
familiar?
On only 65 horsepower, would get in and out of the shortest
unimproved strip
easily with 2 aboard. I often used it as an "Air Camper".
Easily flew
hands off with just pedal input. Stalls were a non-event. In
fact you
could pull the power, gently pull the stick clear back to the
stop and just
mush down at about 300 feet / minute. Side slips to a landing
were just
plain fun and I would often come in high on purpose just so I
could practice
them.
good day.
Landed at a walk and very short.
fact, I am
using them as a reference for the Piet on how to do some things.
I would
definitely build one, if I hadn't decided that I wanted the
"rain-water in
my ear" kind of flying....and I may anyway. This one has doors
on both
sides, more power and better fuel load, and cruises @ 124 mph or
better.
Seems like an ideal Subaru project to me.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
To Ed Larson:
I am flying a Pietenpol AND a "Wag-A-Bond" Piper PA 17
replica, both built by me in 1970 and 1993 respectively. I
rebuilt a PA17 Vagabond from a "basket case" in 1965
and flew it for three years before selling it. (Should have
kept that one).
Warren's evaluation of the Vagabond is pretty accurate,
and I agree with him that the Vag is a thoroughly nice lit-
tle airplane with docile behavior in the air. On paved run-
ways they are a bit squirrelly, but no worse than my Piet.
under the same conditions. Both are short-coupled with
very responsive controls. This can lead to overcontrolling
until one "gets them trained". Grass runways tame these
tendencies enormously, making ground operations easy.
My first Vagabond taught me the importance of not trying
to raise the tail too high, too soon, on takeoff in a cross-
wind condition. If this is done, the little Vag will take the bit
in her teeth and swing into the wind, heading for the edge
of the runway in spite of opposite rudder input. This pheno-
menon lasts only a few seconds before the rudder takes
hold, but is guaranteed to increase adrenalin flow drama-
tically. I was not certain what caused this, but reasoned that
the upwind wing, being not far from the tailfeathers in such
a short-coupled design, was blocking clean airflow over the
fin and rudder when the tail was raised too high at low air-
speed. The slab-sided aft fuselage would produce weather-
cocking, according to my theory. The solution? Leave the
elevators at neutral during takeoff and let the tail lift itself
when sufficient speed is gained. I tried this technique and
it worked! In a brisk crosswind, I sometimes use a little up
elevator at the beginning of the takeoff run to maintain posi-
tive tailwheel steering, but never use any down elevator in
a crosswind takeoff. I have re-tested this procedure on my
Wag-A-Bond and it behaves in exactly the same way as my
old Vagabond did. The airplane is easy to land.
Both the Vagabond and Wag-A-Bond had/have the Continen-
tal A65 for power and performed well at this elevation of 2400
feet above sea level. At a maximum gross weight of 1150 lb.
the climb performance above 6000 ft. msl was considerably
degraded; my Taylorcraft BC12D with the same power was
still climbing well under the same conditions, proving that a
longer wingspan with low power is essential for good perform-
ance at altitude. I am considering installing a Continental C85
in the Wag, but for the type of flying I am doing it is not at all
necessary---and that is why it hasn't been done by now.
I used the Wag Aero plans for reference and the basic fuselage
of a PA 15 in much need of repair for the Wag-A-Bond project.
I built new wings using the metal spars and drag truss from a
PA16 Clipper. The wing ribs were built up from .020 " 2024 T3
formed angles. Lots of other parts such as wing struts, dual con-
trols and landing gear were built, easily satisfying the 51% re-quirement
for the amateur-built category. Altogether, the airplane
is pretty much a PA 17 except for the 6.00-6 Cleveland wheels
and hydraulic disc brakes obtained from Wag Aero. I didn't use
a left door in order to save some weight (as in the originals).
If you can find the remains of a short-winged Piper to use as the nucleus of
your project, by all means do so; this will save you from having to
scratch-build everything---and may save some money
too. The Wag Aero plans are excellent, and I recommend them.
If you want a simple, nice-flying, cute little sport plane, the Vag is
the one. If you go with the "classic" version (as I did), keep it sim-
ple and light the way it was meant to be and you will not be disap-
pointed.
The Pietenpol is great for summer flying and the Vagabond is
great the year around. Although I have put them both on skis for
winter fun --and both are good skiplanes--the Vag gets the nod
most winter days because it is more comfortable for these old
bones.
Good luck in your project!
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
Graham,
This type of feedback is priceless. Thank you for your experience and
your recommendations. I am just getting into this, and I have soooooo
much to learn. It is nice to be able to borrow from the experience of
others who are "in-the-know". Thank you!
Best regards,
Ed Larsen
From: Graham Hansen [SMTP:grhans@cable-lynx.net]
Sent: Friday, September 25, 1998 4:36 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Cub ideas
To Ed Larson:
I am flying a Pietenpol AND a "Wag-A-Bond" Piper PA 17
replica, both built by me in 1970 and 1993 respectively. I
rebuilt a PA17 Vagabond from a "basket case" in 1965
and flew it for three years before selling it. (Should have
kept that one).
Warren's evaluation of the Vagabond is pretty accurate,
and I agree with him that the Vag is a thoroughly nice lit-
tle airplane with docile behavior in the air. On paved run-
ways they are a bit squirrelly, but no worse than my Piet.
under the same conditions. Both are short-coupled with
very responsive controls. This can lead to overcontrolling
until one "gets them trained". Grass runways tame these
tendencies enormously, making ground operations easy.
My first Vagabond taught me the importance of not trying
to raise the tail too high, too soon, on takeoff in a cross-
wind condition. If this is done, the little Vag will take the
bit
in her teeth and swing into the wind, heading for the edge
of the runway in spite of opposite rudder input. This pheno-
menon lasts only a few seconds before the rudder takes
hold, but is guaranteed to increase adrenalin flow drama-
tically. I was not certain what caused this, but reasoned that
the upwind wing, being not far from the tailfeathers in such
a short-coupled design, was blocking clean airflow over the
fin and rudder when the tail was raised too high at low air-
speed. The slab-sided aft fuselage would produce weather-
cocking, according to my theory. The solution? Leave the
elevators at neutral during takeoff and let the tail lift itself
when sufficient speed is gained. I tried this technique and
it worked! In a brisk crosswind, I sometimes use a little up
elevator at the beginning of the takeoff run to maintain posi-
tive tailwheel steering, but never use any down elevator in
a crosswind takeoff. I have re-tested this procedure on my
Wag-A-Bond and it behaves in exactly the same way as my
old Vagabond did. The airplane is easy to land.
Both the Vagabond and Wag-A-Bond had/have the Continen-
tal A65 for power and performed well at this elevation of 2400
feet above sea level. At a maximum gross weight of 1150 lb.
the climb performance above 6000 ft. msl was considerably
degraded; my Taylorcraft BC12D with the same power was
still climbing well under the same conditions, proving that a
longer wingspan with low power is essential for good perform-
ance at altitude. I am considering installing a Continental C85
in the Wag, but for the type of flying I am doing it is not at
all
necessary---and that is why it hasn't been done by now.
I used the Wag Aero plans for reference and the basic fuselage
of a PA 15 in much need of repair for the Wag-A-Bond project.
I built new wings using the metal spars and drag truss from a
PA16 Clipper. The wing ribs were built up from .020 " 2024 T3
formed angles. Lots of other parts such as wing struts, dual
con-
trols and landing gear were built, easily satisfying the 51%
re-quirement
for the amateur-built category. Altogether, the airplane
is pretty much a PA 17 except for the 6.00-6 Cleveland wheels
and hydraulic disc brakes obtained from Wag Aero. I didn't use
a left door in order to save some weight (as in the originals).
If you can find the remains of a short-winged Piper to use as
the nucleus of
your project, by all means do so; this will save you from having
to
scratch-build everything---and may save some money
too. The Wag Aero plans are excellent, and I recommend them.
If you want a simple, nice-flying, cute little sport plane, the
Vag is
the one. If you go with the "classic" version (as I did), keep
it sim-
ple and light the way it was meant to be and you will not be
disap-
pointed.
The Pietenpol is great for summer flying and the Vagabond is
great the year around. Although I have put them both on skis for
winter fun --and both are good skiplanes--the Vag gets the nod
most winter days because it is more comfortable for these old
bones.
Good luck in your project!
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
Hello group,
I am looking for the book "How to Hotrod Corvair Engines". It is out of
print so the only way I will get one is to find a used one. If anybody
out there knows where I may find one, I would be eternally grateful.
Craig
Hello group,
I am looking for the book How
to Hotrod
Corvair Engines. It is out of print so the only way I will
get one
is to find a used one. If anybody out there knows where I may find
one, I would be eternally grateful.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
Hi Craig,
Clarks Corvair Parts has reprinted the book. It's part number is C162RP, $20,
and their phone number is (413) 625-9776. Another publication that is well
worth the money is "How to keep your Corvair alive", although some people in
the Corvair community take a dim view of a few of the details in this book.
Also, the Clark's catalog is just brimming with technical details and hints for
engine rebuilds. They're all written by enthusiastic, knowledgeable authors
who are smitten by this engine.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
Peter,
>Another publication that is well worth the money is "How to keep your
Corvair alive", although some people >in the Corvair community take a dim
view of a few of the details in this book.
How can one find out what the dim views are to consider their merit?
>They're all written by enthusiastic, knowledgeable authors who are smitten
by this engine.
What is it they really like about this engine?
Thanks,
Brent Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
Just a suggestion-I found a copy through Amazon.com- they have a
network of used book dealers- it took a few weeks though, and in the
meantime I found a copy in the trunk of a corvair in a junkyard-not
too much worse for the wear-got it for 2$- I think amazon wanted 12$
w/ ship/hand etc. Good luck.
Paris
---Craig & Shari Hanson wrote:
>
> Hello group,
>
> I am looking for the book "How to Hotrod Corvair Engines". It is
out of print so the only way I will get one is to find a used one. I=
f
anybody out there knows where I may find one, I would be eternally
grateful.
>
> Craig
>
ype>
Hello group,
=A0
I am looking for the book "How to
Hotrod
Corvair Engines".=A0 It is out of print so the only way I will get on=
e
is to find a used one.=A0 If anybody out there knows where I may find=
one,=A0 I would be eternally grateful.
=A0
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FIRST LAST <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
Does anyone know the name of the author of "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines"? Thanks.
--
On Sat, 26 Sep 1998 12:27:45 Paris Wilcox wrote:
>
>Just a suggestion-I found a copy through Amazon.com- they have a
>network of used book dealers- it took a few weeks though, and in the
>meantime I found a copy in the trunk of a corvair in a junkyard-not
>too much worse for the wear-got it for 2$- I think amazon wanted 12$
>w/ ship/hand etc. Good luck.
>Paris
>
>
>---Craig & Shari Hanson wrote:
>>
>> Hello group,
>>
>> I am looking for the book "How to Hotrod Corvair Engines". It is
>out of print so the only way I will get one is to find a used one. I=
>f
>anybody out there knows where I may find one, I would be eternally
>grateful.
>>
>> Craig
>>
>
>
>ype>
>
>
>Hello group,
>=A0
>I am looking for the book "How to
>Hotrod
>Corvair Engines".=A0 It is out of print so the only way I will get on=
>e
>is to find a used one.=A0 If anybody out there knows where I may find=
>
>one,=A0 I would be eternally grateful.
>=A0
>Craig
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
>Does anyone know the name of the author of "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines"?
Thanks.
To answer your question, the following paragraph was
written to me a few months ago in correspondence with
a wise old professional mechanic who has devoted decades
to fiddling with Corvairs.
"ABSOLUTELY- you MUST get a copy of Bill Fisher's excellent book, "How To
HotRod Corvair Engines"- it was originally published by HP books in 1964
and has been revised and updated many times since then, Clarks Corvair
Parts currently holds copyright on it, and sells it- it may also be
available other places. Read it carefully, its the best book I have ever
read hands down on automobile engines of any type."
Incidentally, Clark's indicated about $20 for the book in
their catalog, but charged only $15 on my invoice.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | Auto Conversion Costs |
1. I am interested in knowing what it is necessary to prepare a
Subaru engine from the wrecking yard to the engine mount and the costs
involved.
2. I would also like to know what needs to be done to prepare a
Corvair engine and how it compares in cost, involvement, and
performance.
3. I am also interested to know exactly how you go about finding a
Corvair engine. I have called around to the local junk yards, and they
do not appear to be easily found.
4. I suppose you find a Subaru in the junkyard, right? Is it
better to buy one that is already re-built with the reduction drive,
carbs, ignition, etc. I read a horror story on the net about a guy who
built a Christavia MK 1 and ended up spending close to US $6000 on a
Subaru engine. Wouldn't you be able to pick up a good used Continental
or Lycoming for less than this?
5. Also, if you do find a Subaru or a Corvair engine, how much
would you expect to pay?
6. What would you expect to pay for a Continental C-85?
7. How about a used Lycoming (125-150 hp)?
8. What is the best way to find a good used Aircraft engine? The
newspaper (there are rarely aircraft entries in the classified section)?
The net? (where) Trade-a-plane? Help.
I would appreciate any input anyone might have. You can gather from my
questions that I am new here. I need help!
Thanks,
Ed Larsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines" |
I have reading your conversations on corvairs . we are building a Piet Air
Camper with a Corvair also . I worked on Corvairs many years ago . Now the
Piet has me fired up again after 25 years . I sold all my Corvair books many
years ago . I learned alot from a race car driver by the name of Dick Griffin
from Lansing Mich . Ihave modifed several models and came up with some very
fast cars At Boardhead 2 years ago i did buy the GM service manuals . What
are people doing to engines to get more ponies out of it ? the most we were
able to get was 325 hp from a stock 180 hp .
Thanks for your time by the way has anybody put a Corvair in a Tailwind yet
?
drop me a line if you get a chance TLC62770@aol .com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Costs |
Ed,
I am new to this as well but I do have some info for you.
First you wrote:
I am also interested to know exactly how you go about finding a
Corvair engine. I have called around to the local junk yards, and they
do not appear to be easily found.
I have found a few Corvair engines up here in ND. The cost at the local
wrecking yard is $250.00. That is about what it will cost around the
country. I have a friend that is in a national Corvair club and he has
confirmed this. I also have received some information from William Wynne
from the "Corvair Authority". His web site is
http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm.
I plan on going down to Florida next month and I plan on visiting him. If
you would like, I can report back to you later next month.
I am just starting my project myself, but I am going with a Corvair engine.
I believe it will cost allot less than with a normal "certified" engine.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Auto Conversion Costs |
Craig,
Thank you for the feedback. I would be interested in any new
information you discover after your trip to Florida regarding the
Corvair engine. Thanks. Have a good trip.
Best regards,
Ed Larsen
From: Craig & Shari Hanson [SMTP:chanson(at)polarcomm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 1:20 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Auto Conversion Costs
Ed,
I am new to this as well but I do have some info for you.
First you wrote:
I am also interested to know exactly how you go about finding a
Corvair engine. I have called around to the local junk yards,
and they
do not appear to be easily found.
I have found a few Corvair engines up here in ND. The cost at
the local
wrecking yard is $250.00. That is about what it will cost
around the
country. I have a friend that is in a national Corvair club and
he has
confirmed this. I also have received some information from
William Wynne
from the "Corvair Authority". His web site is
http://www.omnispace.com/Corvair/infopack.htm.
I plan on going down to Florida next month and I plan on
visiting him. If
you would like, I can report back to you later next month.
I am just starting my project myself, but I am going with a
Corvair engine.
I believe it will cost allot less than with a normal "certified"
engine.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Costs |
I'll stick with what I know, ie A/C engines.
On Tue, 29 Sep 1998, Larsen, Ed wrote:
> 6. What would you expect to pay for a Continental C-85?
Depends on what you want. I bought mine for $1000 and it basically got me
the case, valve train, gears and mags. Everything else will be replaced
with either O-200 used or new parts. I've seen half time engines for about
the $3000-$5000 and O/H'd for ~$7000. If all else is the same, you might
as well get an O-200. They weigh the same and you get 15 hp extra. You can
make a C-85 put out 100 hp, but you will need to add an O-200 cam, crank,
rods, pistons, valve springs and carb. In my case, I bought some used
O-2oo cylinders and pistons to replace the worn C-85 ones, I need a new
crank and the carb that was on the engine is an O-200 model.The only
additional cost to me for the extra 15 hp is the cam.
> 7. How about a used Lycoming (125-150 hp)?
Stick with a Continental if you can. The parts prices are very reasonable
like $1300 for a new crank, $700 for factory new jugs, $350 for a new cam
and even a rear accessort cover can be had for $450. This is 1/2 to 1/4
the cost of Lyc parts. O-235 crank is $4300.
> 8. What is the best way to find a good used Aircraft engine? The
> newspaper (there are rarely aircraft entries in the classified section)?
> The net? (where) Trade-a-plane? Help.
Check out http://www.barnstormers.com , http://www.avweb.com , and of
course, Trade-A-Plane.
> I would appreciate any input anyone might have. You can gather from my
> questions that I am new here. I need help!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ed Larsen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | new e-mail address.... |
change of e-mail address rrobert(at)centuryinter.net
-----Original Message-----
From: Brent Reed
Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 1:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: "How to Hot Rod Corvair Engines"
>Peter,
>
>>Another publication that is well worth the money is "How to keep your
>Corvair alive", although some people >in the Corvair community take a dim
>view of a few of the details in this book.
>
>How can one find out what the dim views are to consider their merit?
>
>
>>They're all written by enthusiastic, knowledgeable authors who are smitten
>by this engine.
>
>What is it they really like about this engine?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Brent Reed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Auto Conversion Costs |
I'll pass along what I've learned over the past few months about finding and
rebuilding Corvair engines. Keep in mind, however, that I have not yet rebuilt
my engine, so I have yet to learn a lot more.
>2. I would also like to know what needs to be done to prepare a
>Corvair engine and how it compares in cost, involvement, and
>performance.
As with any other aspect of Pietenpol construction, I like to repeat the mantra
"follow the plans". BHP composed a brief, but complete, description of how he
converted Corvair engines. This was reprinted in a BPAN back issue (number 31,
without photos), and I understand it is also published in the Builders Manual
sold by Don Pietenpol. His methods were to stay as close to stock as possible,
putting due confidence in the capabilities of GM engineers. The Corvair engine
is said to be an aircraft engine that was converted for use in a car, so one
only needs to convert it back again.
As for cost, there's been an ongoing discussion on the "Virtual Vair's"
newsgroup ( http://www.corvair.org/vvairs/ ) lately about costs to rebuild a
motor. Most agree that it's between $2000 and $3000 to do a complete engine
overhaul the "Right Way", and the costs depends upon how much work one farms
out to the machine shop and the extent of parts replacements. Parts are cheap
compared to aircraft engine parts; you can still get a NEW (NOS) GM Corvair
cylinder head for $250, and used go for about $20. Many experts have echoed
the sentiment that (with some guidance specific to air-cooled engines) this is
among the simplest to rebuild of all production automobile engines. Since most
Corvair owners do all their own work, there is a vast, loose-knit network of
helpful Corvair fanatics, and there are a few excellent books that guide you
through the process. Even the local Corvair shops have encouraged me to do the
whole thing myself, though they want to sell me the "right" parts.
It has been said that a stock 80hp Corvair engine provides performance
equivalent to a Continental 65, but without the vibration. Most people use
110hp motors; the most common and reliable. You can hop them up to over 200hp,
but you trade off reliability and you lose the ability to find parts readily.
I've been told that you get better climb performance by increasing the horses,
but there's really no appreciable gain in speed. Of course, in direct drive
configuration the output is considerably less than these maximum hp numbers.
People shy away from the stock engines that produce more horsepower (up to 180)
because of their propensity to drop valve seats. I've been told, however, that
this is only due to poor maintenance.
>3. I am also interested to know exactly how you go about finding a
>Corvair engine. I have called around to the local junk yards, and they
>do not appear to be easily found.
The most effective way to find a Corvair engine is to contact your local CORSA
representative http://www.corvair.org/ . They all have a bunch of engines
cluttering their garages, and they all know of several other people with a
bunch more engines. Corvair drivers have a habit of replacing worn engines
with running used engines instead of rebuilding their old ones, so they
accumulate.
That said, I found my Corvair in the local classified newspaper (The Recycler
http://www.recycler.com/ ). Here in Southern CA, on any given week there are
two or three engines listed, most not running, for about $100. Decent running
engines fetch about $400, often with the car still attached and drivable. My
engine was $80, not presently running but the crank turned easily. After
disassembly, everything looked great except for the main and rod bearings. By
the way, I completely disassembled this engine with only a set of deep-well
sockets and a vise grip (to keep the cylinder head studs from turning out of
the case while removing the upper head nuts).
Well, that's about all I know so far.
--Peter
>3. I am also interested to know exactly how you go about finding a
>Corvair engine. I have called around to the local junk yards, and they
>do not appear to be easily found.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: new e-mail address.... |
For those of you who would like adjustments made to their email address on
the list please send me the following
Current address:
Change to:
please let me know which list the change applies to. (piet or tailwind)
Thanks.
Stevee
________________________________________________________________________________
Has anyone out there heard of the use of a gear reduction unit used in
conjunction with a Corvair engine in a Pietenpol (or any other aircraft for
that matter)? I'm considering purchasing plans for such a device (Rinker
drive, see link below), but I'd like to learn more about it first. Sounds like
a good way to reduce the stress on the engine and to reach the peak of the
power curve at normal prop speeds. Anyone have any experience with these?
Ever heard of a crank main journal failure due to thrust loads in a Corvair?
Check out this link if interested:
http://www.west.net/~vertsys/
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
Peter,
Hello from North Dakota. It looks as though you have been doing some
homework. The PSRU for the Corvair really looks interesting. One thing
that I am concerned about is it looks as though the prop is raised up almost
3". Will that affect the flying characteristics of the Piet? That maybe a
stupid question but how else does one learn.
Craig
Peter,
Hello from North Dakota. It
looks as
though you have been doing some homework. The PSRU for the Corvair
really
looks interesting. One thing that I am concerned about is it looks
as
though the prop is raised up almost 3. Will that affect the
flying
characteristics of the Piet? That maybe a stupid question but how
else
does one learn.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | wing construction |
I am at last getting to the point where I must start to consider how to put together
my wings. The problem here is...How do I attach the wing ribs to the spars?
Some books I read say nails. Does that mean nails only? So that some day the
wing can be disassembled? Should I then varnish all before I put it
together, so that the varnish doesn't act like a giant glue joint?
Is it correct procedure to put the wing together by using glue to attach the ribs
to the spars, then use varnish over the whole thing, and just consider it
to be one solid unit that cannot be taken apart?
OCB
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | wing construction |
I am at last getting to the point where I must start to consider how to put together
my wings. The problem here is...How do I attach the wing ribs to the spars?
Some books I read say nails. Does that mean nails only? So that some day the
wing can be disassembled? Should I then varnish all before I put it
together, so that the varnish doesn't act like a giant glue joint?
Is it correct procedure to put the wing together by using glue to attach the ribs
to the spars, then use varnish over the whole thing, and just consider it
to be one solid unit that cannot be taken apart?
OCB
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair PSRU (long) |
Craig,
>One thing that I am concerned about is it looks as though the
>prop is raised up almost 3". Will that affect the flying
>characteristics of the Piet?
Yeah, that's a good question, and I don't have an answer. I'm sure there are
many things to consider when altering the geometry of the source of power.
Many Pietenpols have been built with PSRUs on engines such as the Escort,
Subaru, Geo, etc... Each of these builders has probably had to consider these
issues with each new power plant. Maybe its not critical, but I'll be sure to
learn more if I decide to pursue this Corvair PSRU idea.
Just a couple of posts ago, I was giving advice to follow BHPs plans, and now
I'm talking about reduction gears. I have a lot of faith in the design, and
I'd feel comfortable mounting a prop in direct drive configuration. However,
I'm interested in this because of some warnings I received from a Corvair
mechanic regarding stresses on the engine for which it was not designed. Now,
I know Corvairs have been powering aircraft for 3 decades in direct drive
configuration, but I also know that there have been some power failures leading
to dead stick forced landings. I can't help but wonder if some of these power
failures have been due to accelerated wear caused by thrust loads.
Naturally, a PSRU would prevent that, but it may introduce other problems.
Does anyone know of any Corvair engine failures? Has anybody disassembled a
Corvair engine after many hours of flight?
The following is an excerpt from a cautionary note I received from a Corvair
mechanic who often posts over at the Corvair Center Forum. Its long, but
pithy.
The #1 aspect that makes me nervous about this project is attaching the
prop to the crank nose-
Theres some problems with a Corvair engine in that area, and I feel that it
will compound them considerably if anything that big and/or with a thrust
load is attached there. It is not unusual for a Corvair passenger car with
a manual transmission to break the gear off, or the immediately adjacent
crank main bearing, due primarily to fatigue. Also, the thrust surface of
the bearing on a Corvair is barely adequate for intermittent thrust from
shifting gears, and the support for the bearing insert is rather flexible-
One thing that is evident about Corvair engines is that they are rather
'rubbery' in that things move around and expand/contract a lot.
To illustrate the crank bearing arrangement a bit better, a Corvair has a
17 lb. flywheel assembly stock. GM found it necessary to move the #4 main
bearing 0.0015" downwards from the centerline of the other three main
bearings to even out the wear caused by the drooping crank (it bends that
far from the weight). The crank #4 bearing is also offset towards the #6
cylinder (drivers side forward in a passenger car) by 0.0015" to remove
keep a noise and fatigue problem caused by a harmonic vibration caused in
the crank that is excited by the firing of the #6 cylinder. This correction
is made in the bearing shell insert in some engines, and at the bore in
others.It used to cause a bonk-bonk noise in Corvair engines , and it took
GM until 1963 to figure out the cause.
Fatigue failures related to the crankshaft inevitably manifest themselves
on the #4 main bearing also-
The Corvair engine was originally engineered to use only an automatic
transmission, and the addition of a flywheel and manual transmission was an
afterthought, and had a curious execution, I imagine you may have seen how
a Corvair flywheel is made-it has a very unusual design to cancel harmonic
vibrations - a solid flywheel does not work on the Corvair engine as an
example, and leads to rapid fatigue failure in most cases.
The 1964-69 engine uses a very good forged steel crankshaft, and the 140 HP
and Turbocharged engine have further refinements, in that it is tufftrided,
(hardened) for maximum fatigue strength. It is a very good peice.The gear
on the end of the crank that drives the camshaft is not a particularly
fancy item, its made of regular 4130 or similar material.
Corvair engines work great at what they're designed to do- if you use it in
a similar fashion you'll have no special concerns. They are very capable
and efficient at providing a sustained 15-40 horsepower output, and short
bursts of greater power- but long bouts of high power output will hurt
them, so be conscious of that.
To drive a Corvair automobile at 60 mph takes about 22 hp as example. this
is about 100lbs of 'thrust' to overcome aerodynamic and road drag- you can
safely assume that a propeller attached to a Corvair engine crank at say 80
hp output will be tugging on the crank to the tune of 300-400 lbs. I think
this is far too much strain. a 100 LB load would be too much in my view,
actually. I am aware that it has been done, and could work, with
accelerated wear, but feel its a false economy, and if it causes a failure
(likely in my view) it could be a catastrophic economy.
I would strongly encourage you to use a separate propeller support
arrangement, with its own bearings, and take drive off the crank nose only.
Theres other ways to take the drive off the engine, and I'd look into it.
An inexpensive and reliable source of reduction gearing is as near as a
Hydra Matic or similar big transmission- to adapt a planetary set out of
one of those would be extremely easy. A direct drive arrangement with a
slightly flexible coupling might be a good idea also. Please think about
doing this, I get terribly nervous about the idea of anything hanging from
that crank. :-)
The messages on the Corvair Forum were essentially me telling someone that
they should not direct drive off the crank, and a strong criticism of my
outlook from another posting correspondent that he felt it would work.
Theres more to this aspect than meets the eye, and I feel its worth playing
it safe. If you are interested in the fatigue characteristics etc. of the
crank I have more information- but under MAXIMUM load a new Corvair engine
running at normal temperature will explode with catastrophic
crank/connecting rod failure in 11 hours, according to Chevrolet's fatigue
tests.This is GM's passenger car standard, essentially- thats how they
decide what is an acceptable connecting rod beam size, as example, its not
a shortcoming of the Corvair engine. This would be similar to a full
throttle run for 11 hours installed in a car. Naturally, the less often the
engine is run at high speed/load/temp the longer it lasts, but theres
definite limits.
>One thing that I am concerned about is it looks as though the
>prop is raised up almost 3". Will that affect the flying
>characteristics of the Piet?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
I would like to receive information on the Tailwind airplane please put me on
your mailing list Thanks TLC62770(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair PSRU |
Peter,
Are you located in the Southern California area. I am located in
Lakewood
Ca. and I am also building a corvair powered Piet.
-=Ron=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair PSRU |
Peter How far along are you on your project ? Where did you get your info on
rebuilding the engine ? My friend and i are working on the ribs . We planon
on the lay-out of the fuelage real soon . We are using a Corvair also . I will
modify the engine the get more low end torque at lower rpm's . We will portand
polish the heads , balance rods , pistons , crank and put in a mild cam to
increace the hp a little . Put a external oil cooler on the fire wall dual
ignition re-stall the cooling fan back on top run a very small alternator .
We are looking at carburation systems . Has anybody used a down draft carb
place in back of the engine near the fire -wall . what cfm size carb iare
people using ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair PSRU |
Craig:
Adjust your motor mount dimension for thrust line. Will work just
fine.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: wing construction |
Regarding wing construction, There is even more to it than you have
described. It has been a couple of years since I did this, but this is what
I remember:
Prep the spar and ribs by test fit the ribs onto the spar, adjusting
openings if nessesary, Spars should be routed by this point.
Start at the wing tip and working root-ward,
Slide ribs into position (last time you can take apart the wing)
Glue all plywood fitting doublers, making the spar cutout adjustment to ribs
that go over the doublers. don't glue ribs yet. After getting the doublers
glued in and the ribs set, locate and install the cross bracing, and
compression struts making sure everything clears the obstacles. Using glue,
nails and wedges (to fill the gaps between the curvature of the ribs) fasten
the ribs in place, and glue the compression struts in place. Add the root
ribs, wing tip, LE sheeting, and all metal fittings, bracing etc, as if your
ready to install the wing on the airframe. After you are satisfied with fit
and function, tear all the metal fittings off, and varnish the finished
piece whole.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
can
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 1998 4:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing construction
I am at last getting to the point where I must start to consider how to put
together my wings. The problem here is...How do I attach the wing ribs to
the spars? Some books I read say nails. Does that mean nails only? So that
some day the wing can be disassembled? Should I then varnish all
before I put it together, so that the varnish doesn't act like a giant glue
joint?
Is it correct procedure to put the wing together by using glue to attach
the ribs to the spars, then use varnish over the whole thing, and just
consider it to be one solid unit that cannot be taken apart?
OCB
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | RE: wing construction |
>Regarding wing construction, There is even more to it than you have
>described.
Dear Oil Can Bob, Steveeee is right. In addition, don't do like I did
and tighten your wing X brace cables without the wingtip bow in place.
That bow acts as a compression strut so you don't pull the spars in
toward eachother and bust a rib. (yup, had to make a new rib).
Plus before you put on the wingtip bow make SURE you have already
slid in the aileron face and wing well spars and glue in place. Then you
can install the wingtip bow and tighten the wing cables. (drag and
anti-drag cables) Trammel the two wing bays as you tighten the X
cables making sure each leg of the X is equal- keeping the whole affair
square. I found just using a large carpenter's square checking the ribs
to the spar faces was enough to tell me what was out of whack.
Two saw horses is all you need- don't worry about making a huge flat
table, etc. You'll be able to adjust wing twist with your lift struts later.
The wing will remain very flexible in twist until after leading edge plywood
is installed and then tighter then after fabric. Where those 1/8" X
cables cross each other ?......protect them from each other with tygon
tubing over each or some other anti-chaffe material then tye-wrap them
together right at the x tightly.
You can varnish anything at anytime and that sequence is up to you-
but wherever you have a glue joint you cannot have varnish down first.
I left everything completely bare until the wing was totally 100 % finished.
Went to Wal-Mart and bought a $10 plastic 2 quart pump-up bug
spraying bottle with wand and filled that up with Minwax fast drying
polyurethane. Set the nozzle to suit your desired spray pattern and go
at it. I did mine over a gravel farm driveway. One side done, I flipped
the wing over and the drips went the other way, filling as they went.
This will raise the wood grain and you might want to sand between coats
lightly just where the fabric will touch....or wait till you're done.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: wing construction |
I agree with Michael on his description except for one point. I just
finished trammelling (is this word actually in the dictionary, I've used
it but was never sure) up the wings for the Christavia. I had squared them
up on the wood horses and then installed them on the plane. Once mounted,
it was apparent that this process is not accurate enough. The left wing
tip was about 3/4" too far forward and the right was about 1" too far
back.
What we did was to install the wings (no struts at this point) by hanging
them from the rafters and bolting the wing roots to the fuselage. The
wings were initially set up level (no dihedral, wahsout or incidence
angle) and a string was stretched along the LE from tip to tip. All the
Drag/Antidrag wires were loosened and we started with the inboard bays.
The wings were first straitened out so that the string was an even
distance from the LE along the length of the span. Then, the distance fron
the tip to the tail was checked and was found to be out by less than 1/16"
(I was very happy about that). Next, the remaining bays were tightened so
that the LE remained straight along the span. The final measurement was
taken to the tail. Mi drag/antidrag wires are 1/8" control cable with
turnbuckles, so at this point, tthe turnbuckles were safetied to keep them
fixed. The entire process took about 4 hrs.
Ken
On Thu, 1 Oct 1998, Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >Regarding wing construction, There is even more to it than you have
> >described.
>
> can install the wingtip bow and tighten the wing cables. (drag and
> anti-drag cables) Trammel the two wing bays as you tighten the X
> cables making sure each leg of the X is equal- keeping the whole affair
> square. I found just using a large carpenter's square checking the ribs
> to the spar faces was enough to tell me what was out of whack.
> Two saw horses is all you need- don't worry about making a huge flat
> table, etc. You'll be able to adjust wing twist with your lift struts later.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | More ??'s for ya... |
Hi Mike<
I am still trying to figure out what I want to build. Sometimes I think the
more I read about Piets the more confused I become. My main question is what
kind of climb performance are you getting on a warm Ohio day with one aboard
and how does she do with a passenger (say 175 pounder). I have seen posts
where guys have said they were getting about 300 fpm solo and they seemed to
consider this to be acceptable (I don't). I am sure your aircraft performs
better than that (guessing 5-600 fpm solo, 4-500 fpm dual???).
Also, I would sure appreciate it if you would give me your best guess as to
total cost for the airframe (everything except engine and inst.)
Thanks again for your help...
Mike Cunningham
Dallas.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Thursday, October 01, 1998 10:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: wing construction
>>Regarding wing construction, There is even more to it than you have
>>described.
>
>
>Dear Oil Can Bob, Steveeee is right. In addition, don't do like I did
>and tighten your wing X brace cables without the wingtip bow in place.
>That bow acts as a compression strut so you don't pull the spars in
>toward eachother and bust a rib. (yup, had to make a new rib).
>Plus before you put on the wingtip bow make SURE you have already
>slid in the aileron face and wing well spars and glue in place. Then you
>can install the wingtip bow and tighten the wing cables. (drag and
>anti-drag cables) Trammel the two wing bays as you tighten the X
>cables making sure each leg of the X is equal- keeping the whole affair
>square. I found just using a large carpenter's square checking the ribs
>to the spar faces was enough to tell me what was out of whack.
>Two saw horses is all you need- don't worry about making a huge flat
>table, etc. You'll be able to adjust wing twist with your lift struts
later.
>The wing will remain very flexible in twist until after leading edge
plywood
>is installed and then tighter then after fabric. Where those 1/8" X
>cables cross each other ?......protect them from each other with tygon
>tubing over each or some other anti-chaffe material then tye-wrap them
>together right at the x tightly.
> You can varnish anything at anytime and that sequence is up to you-
>but wherever you have a glue joint you cannot have varnish down first.
>I left everything completely bare until the wing was totally 100 %
finished.
>Went to Wal-Mart and bought a $10 plastic 2 quart pump-up bug
>spraying bottle with wand and filled that up with Minwax fast drying
>polyurethane. Set the nozzle to suit your desired spray pattern and go
>at it. I did mine over a gravel farm driveway. One side done, I flipped
>the wing over and the drips went the other way, filling as they went.
>This will raise the wood grain and you might want to sand between coats
>lightly just where the fabric will touch....or wait till you're done.
>Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin McDonald <kevin.mcdonald(at)dev.tivoli.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More ??'s for ya... |
Mike Cunningham wrote:
>
> Hi Mike<
> I am still trying to figure out what I want to build. Sometimes I think the
> more I read about Piets the more confused I become. My main question is what
> kind of climb performance are you getting on a warm Ohio day with one aboard
> and how does she do with a passenger (say 175 pounder). I have seen posts
> where guys have said they were getting about 300 fpm solo and they seemed to
> consider this to be acceptable (I don't). I am sure your aircraft performs
> better than that (guessing 5-600 fpm solo, 4-500 fpm dual???).
Nope, A-65 with cruise prop at 4000 density altitude
pilot + passenger + fuel about 200 fpm.
I'd love to have a C-85 with a climb prop!
KtM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FIRST LAST <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair power curves |
Anybody out there know where you might find power curves (rpm v. horsepower) for
the various models of corvair engines?
Thanks,
Mark Boynton
--
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 19:31:56 Warren D. Shoun wrote:
>Craig:
> Adjust your motor mount dimension for thrust line. Will work just
>fine.
>Warren
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
testing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
I haven't received anything on the Piet Net recently. After reading
through many old BPA newsletters I've discovered that the weight of planes
empty seems to range from around 635 (A-65) on up to over 800 lbs for on
plane with a Fiesta. My own plane weights 770 with a Ford Escort.
Obviously, if 995 or there abouts is considered gross weight for a Piet,
then my plane is a single place. If it weighed , however even 650 pounds,
it would still be a single place with my 215 pounds and 66 pounds of fuel
(11 gallons). I've removed the seat belts from the front seat, covered
the hole with canvas and removed the front windshield. It is now a single
seater with excellent performance, a thrill to fly with those 80 horses
pulling it off the ground in a steep climb out.
________________________________________________________________________________
IT is working.
-----Original Message-----
Brent Reed
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 8:43 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: test
testing
________________________________________________________________________________
My piet is nearly a year old and I have my repairmans certificate, any
suggestions on doing the condition inspection on a Pietenpol?
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
I bought a GN-1 Aircamper sometime back that weighed 784 lbs. It has a
65hp. Franklin engine and a 69 in prop I believe. Shortly after purchase a
friend and I flew in it together. He weighs 200+ lbs and I am about 155.
The gasoline in it that day was unknown, but somewhat less than full I
suppose. It was about 95 deg. that July day. It flew. The climb out was
slow to be sure, but it did climb. We went up to around 800 ft. and stayed
near the airport. It may not have been real wise, but the Pietenpol wing
will lift a bunch!
Shortly after that we took the fabric off to find out what we had bought.
It now - finally - has new fabric and all necessary repairs made. Im am
going to start tail wheel training soon. Looking forward to flying.
Thanks, Larry
> I haven't received anything on the Piet Net recently. After reading
through
> many old BPA newsletters I've discovered that the weight of planes empty
seems
> to range from around 635 (A-65) on up to over 800 lbs for on plane with a
> Fiesta. My own plane weights 770 with a Ford Escort. Obviously, if 995
or
> there abouts is considered gross weight for a Piet, then my plane is a
single
> place. If it weighed , however even 650 pounds, it would still be a
single
> place with my 215 pounds and 66 pounds of fuel (11 gallons). I've
removed the
> seat belts from the front seat, covered the hole with canvas and removed
the
> front windshield. It is now a single seater with excellent performance, a
> thrill to fly with those 80 horses pulling it off the ground in a steep
climb
> out.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | randmk1(at)juno.com (Ronald A Kaser) |
| Subject: | Re:Hardware list |
I'm wondering if anyone has made up a material list for the hardware
needed to build a Piet? I have the fuselage and one side of a three
piece wing built and need to order the necessary hardware
(turnbuckles,bolts,cable,pullies ect.). I am in the process of making a
list from Bernie's drawings and would like to compare it to some ones who
has completed a Piet and made corrections to their list . So if anyone
out there has such a list I and I'm sure others would appreciate having
it.
Minnesota)
__________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
The weights I have seen on Piets have ranged from 585 lbs or so with a
Continental to 800 lb+ monsters. Well built Model A ships can weigh less
than 650 and maybe down around 635 lbs. THAT is the secret to flying behind
a Model A.
What amazes me is the mindset that the light weight Continental is an
opportunity to add junk to the airframe rather than an opportunity to get
the weight down and have a performer. These ships should weigh less than
600 lbs.
I have no idea what my ship will weigh but I hope it is less than 650. I
have built it to the plans with no extras, but nothing taken away. My model
A has an aluminum head - a 15 lb savings. I've got a skid and no brakes, and
am using the lightest covering system -- 1.7 oz Stits.
However, the radiator sure feels heavy, and the wood gear and axle sure
feels heavy.
Hoping for the best.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net>
Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 12:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet weight
>I bought a GN-1 Aircamper sometime back that weighed 784 lbs. It has a
>65hp. Franklin engine and a 69 in prop I believe. Shortly after purchase a
>friend and I flew in it together. He weighs 200+ lbs and I am about 155.
>The gasoline in it that day was unknown, but somewhat less than full I
>suppose. It was about 95 deg. that July day. It flew. The climb out was
>slow to be sure, but it did climb. We went up to around 800 ft. and stayed
>near the airport. It may not have been real wise, but the Pietenpol wing
>will lift a bunch!
>Shortly after that we took the fabric off to find out what we had bought.
>It now - finally - has new fabric and all necessary repairs made. Im am
>going to start tail wheel training soon. Looking forward to flying.
>Thanks, Larry
>
>----------
>> I haven't received anything on the Piet Net recently. After reading
>through
>> many old BPA newsletters I've discovered that the weight of planes empty
>seems
>> to range from around 635 (A-65) on up to over 800 lbs for on plane with a
>> Fiesta. My own plane weights 770 with a Ford Escort. Obviously, if 995
>or
>> there abouts is considered gross weight for a Piet, then my plane is a
>single
>> place. If it weighed , however even 650 pounds, it would still be a
>single
>> place with my 215 pounds and 66 pounds of fuel (11 gallons). I've
>removed the
>> seat belts from the front seat, covered the hole with canvas and removed
>the
>> front windshield. It is now a single seater with excellent performance,
a
>> thrill to fly with those 80 horses pulling it off the ground in a steep
>climb
>> out.
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Since I'm the one with the 800+ lb monster with the Fiesta, allow me to
comment on weight: I use 1250 lbs as gross weight, though I have flown it at
over 1300 at which weight the landing speed increases noticeably. At gross,
rate of climb is aproximately 200 fpm. Also at gross it rides the bumps a
little better. The Fiesta provides sufficient power from sea level up to about
3,000 ft. Above this altitude it takes much longer to get off the runway and
rate of climb decreases. Would it be better to have lighter ship? Absolutely.
Keep it light from the beginning and enjoy the bumps.
Jim Malley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Boynton <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair PSRU |
I came across a source of some good information on converting the Corvair engine.
Some might be interested. There is a Master's thesis at Cal State Long Beach
titled "Converting the Corvair Engine for Aircraft Use." I borrowed it through
inter-library loan. Just returned it yesterday, so it should be available
again, soon. The author is William L. Shulze. Publication date is 1974.
He offers a good solution to gyroscopic forces on the end of the crank shaft and
some solutions to other problems as well. Worth reading.
--
On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 13:21:22 Peter P Frantz wrote:
>Has anyone out there heard of the use of a gear reduction unit used in
>conjunction with a Corvair engine in a Pietenpol (or any other aircraft for
>that matter)? I'm considering purchasing plans for such a device (Rinker
>drive, see link below), but I'd like to learn more about it first. Sounds like
>a good way to reduce the stress on the engine and to reach the peak of the
>power curve at normal prop speeds. Anyone have any experience with these?
>Ever heard of a crank main journal failure due to thrust loads in a Corvair?
>
>Check out this link if interested:
>http://www.west.net/~vertsys/
>
>--Peter
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
John Greenlee wrote:
>What amazes me is the mindset that the light weight Continental is an
>opportunity to add junk to the airframe rather than an opportunity to get
>the weight down and have a performer.
Amen to this ! You can save lots of weight by using the light 1.7 oz.
fabric and dope finish. Enamels and fancy paint systems weigh lots.
Even the alum around the engine/cockpit should be no thicker than
.025". Plenty strong when you finally anchor it down.
>However, the radiator sure feels heavy, and the wood gear and axle sure
>feels heavy.
John- Yes ! I felt the same about the axle too but even with brakes, 6"
solid rubber tailwheel, leaf springs for t-wheel mine came in at 632 lbs.
(actually I was surprised) That thick axle does weigh alot but it sure
can take some bad landings. I like the fact that with the straight
axle too you never, never can blame bad ground handling on wheel
mis-alignment. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Since I'm the one with the 800+ lb monster with the Fiesta,
Even though Jim admits here that his plane came in on the heavy side,
for those who have seen it at Brodhead, wherever can testify to the fact
that his workmanship is of the finest quality. A beautiful example of a
Piet. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
Jim, I take off from a 4200' runway at 4880'. The Escort gives spectacular=
performance with 1030 lbs--I'd guess at least 350 to 400' per minute
climb at 60-65 mph but I'll bet it would be a real poor performer with
another 200 lbs at this altitude. I'll bet your plane has really
excellent performance solo, doesn't it?
>>> 10/06 4:09 PM >>>
Since I'm the one with the 800+ lb monster with the Fiesta, allow me to
comment on weight: I use 1250 lbs as gross weight, though I have flown it
at
over 1300 at which weight the landing speed increases noticeably. At
gross,
rate of climb is aproximately 200 fpm. Also at gross it rides the bumps a
little better. The Fiesta provides sufficient power from sea level up to
about
3,000 ft. Above this altitude it takes much longer to get off the runway
and
rate of climb decreases. Would it be better to have lighter ship?
Absolutely.
Keep it light from the beginning and enjoy the bumps.
Jim Malley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Jim,
Didn't know you were online. Good to hear from you.
For those who do not know, it was Jim Malley who unwittingly enticed me to
build a Pietenpol. Get the July 1992 Kitplanes and look at the cover. The
ship is even more attractive in person than in the magazine.
About the ONLY negative thing I have heard said about this one is that it is
heavy. Well built and finished airplane and will always draw a croud.
Jim, what is the deal with the Fiestas and Escorts. Are they just a heavy
engine? What does the fwf stuff weigh?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, October 07, 1998 9:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet weight
>>Since I'm the one with the 800+ lb monster with the Fiesta,
>
>Even though Jim admits here that his plane came in on the heavy side,
>for those who have seen it at Brodhead, wherever can testify to the fact
>that his workmanship is of the finest quality. A beautiful example of a
>Piet. MC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: PSRU for Corvair conversion |
Hi Mark,
>There is a Master's thesis at Cal State
>Long Beach titled "Converting the Corvair Engine for Aircraft Use." I
borrowed
>it through inter-library loan. Just returned it yesterday, so it should be
>available again, soon. The author is William L. Shulze. Publication date is
>1974.
Hey, thanks for the reference. It never occurred to me to search the academic
literature for corvair conversion information. I live just a couple of miles
from CSU Long Beach, so I'll see if I can get my hands on that thesis.
>My primary concerns are torque and gyro forces on the crank shaft - also,
sustained upper
>end RPM.
I share your concerns for the forces on the crankshaft for which this engine
was not designed. I take comfort in the fact that these have been flying for
decades without developing a reputation for catastrophic failures, but I would
like to do everything I can to be nice to the engine. I wish I knew more.
I'll see if I can formulate an answerable question about sustained high RPM and
post it over at the Corvair Center Forum http://www.loop.com/~yujisilva/ . I
know of some very competent mechanics over there that would love to answer that
question. I asked several people about sustained RPM at a CORSA West gathering
over the weekend, and couldn't get a straight answer. I did meet a few people
with good engines for sale.
>Have you come across any information about increasing
>lower RPM torque in the Corvair?
The only thing I've heard about boosting low end torque is that some builders
use the 95 hp cam in a 110 engine. Don't know much more than this.
By the way, I received a few low quality .gif images of the Rinker PSRU from
the kind folks at Vertical Systems. I sent them along to Richard DeCosta for
publication on his web site http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/Piet/pics.html , but
as of 9/7/98 AM they were not yet posted. (He may be very busy with his
move...thanks for your efforts Richard). If anyone is anxious to see these, I
can e-mail them directly. Just lemme know.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
It must be fall as the discussion group is totally inactive. Is any one
still out there?
I was looking at a recreational vehicle outlet the other day and saw
some wheels with a 1 1/2" axle along with some brakes that might be
usable at around $100/ wheel. Has anyone considered these as a source?
load is 1250 pounds and they are certainly not going to be driven at
highway speeds on a Piet. any thoughts?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
I think flying a Piet is a lot of fun. Last evening forty-five minutes
before sunset I got the Escort retimed and decided to give it a try. By
playing with the timing I got a better idle and higher rpm for takeoff.
Taxiing with that high nose is fun with elbow and head handing out of the
cockpit on one side to see what's ahead. At the end of the runway, after
the announcement on my handheld, there is nothing to check. I push the
throttle forward along with forward pressure on the stick and the tail is
up almost immediately. I climb out steeply at 60 mph to show off what the
plane can do. I turn right out of the pattern toward the west and the
setting sun. The radio is silent; I've got the area to my self. The air
is perfectly smooth. The low angle of the sun spotlights everything on
the ground in sharp, vivid colors. The wind is ruffling my hair--I've got
to get a helmet one of these days. My jacket rattles in the breeze. The
smell of burning fields, cattle feed lots, and good sweet Idaho air mingle
creating a unique bouquet. I turn north over the river, at 800' just
above several flights of ducks. I climb to 1000 agl and turn east. The
Teton Mountains seem to radiate light from the setting sun. The Grand
Teton, in the distance, is a jagged tooth in the air, new snow making the
tip glow. At 4200 rpms I cruise along at 65 mph, content to fly low and
slow. Is this living or what?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
I don't see how people can live like that.
> I think flying a Piet is a lot of fun. Last evening forty-five minutes
before
> sunset I got the Escort retimed and decided to give it a try. By playing
with
> the timing I got a better idle and higher rpm for takeoff. Taxiing with
that
> high nose is fun with elbow and head handing out of the cockpit on one
side to
> see what's ahead. At the end of the runway, after the announcement on my
> handheld, there is nothing to check. I push the throttle forward along
with
> forward pressure on the stick and the tail is up almost immediately. I
climb
> out steeply at 60 mph to show off what the plane can do. I turn right
out of
> the pattern toward the west and the setting sun. The radio is silent;
I've
> got the area to my self. The air is perfectly smooth. The low angle of
the
> sun spotlights everything on the ground in sharp, vivid colors. The wind
is
> ruffling my hair--I've got to get a helmet one of these days. My jacket
> rattles in the breeze. The smell of burning fields, cattle feed lots, and
> good sweet Idaho air mingle creating a unique bouquet. I turn north
over the
> river, at 800' just above several flights of ducks. I climb to 1000 agl
and
> turn east. The Teton Mountains seem to radiate light from the setting
sun.
> The Grand Teton, in the distance, is a jagged tooth in the air, new snow
> making the tip glow. At 4200 rpms I cruise along at 65 mph, content to
fly
> low and slow. Is this living or what?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Our time will come someday. Just keep teasing us with your reports.
>I don't see how people can live like that.
>
>----------
>> I think flying a Piet is a lot of fun. Last evening forty-five minutes
>before
>> sunset I got the Escort retimed and decided to give it a try. By playing
>with
>> the timing I got a better idle and higher rpm for takeoff. Taxiing with
>that
>> high nose is fun with elbow and head handing out of the cockpit on one
>side to
>> see what's ahead. At the end of the runway, after the announcement on my
>> handheld, there is nothing to check. I push the throttle forward along
>with
>> forward pressure on the stick and the tail is up almost immediately. I
>climb
>> out steeply at 60 mph to show off what the plane can do. I turn right
>out of
>> the pattern toward the west and the setting sun. The radio is silent;
>I've
>> got the area to my self. The air is perfectly smooth. The low angle of
>the
>> sun spotlights everything on the ground in sharp, vivid colors. The wind
>is
>> ruffling my hair--I've got to get a helmet one of these days. My jacket
>> rattles in the breeze. The smell of burning fields, cattle feed lots, and
>> good sweet Idaho air mingle creating a unique bouquet. I turn north
>over the
>> river, at 800' just above several flights of ducks. I climb to 1000 agl
>and
>> turn east. The Teton Mountains seem to radiate light from the setting
>sun.
>> The Grand Teton, in the distance, is a jagged tooth in the air, new snow
>> making the tip glow. At 4200 rpms I cruise along at 65 mph, content to
>fly
>> low and slow. Is this living or what?
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
Grand Tetons! Your talking my favorite place on earth,
that's yellowstone and elk refuge country.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Wing rib bending... |
What method has everyone used for the cap strip bending? I'm getting
ready to
make a PVC pipe steam tube to soften the pieces before I place them into
the
jig. Is there a better way? Is this neccasary? Can anyone give me some
input on this?
Thanks
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Wing rib bending... |
I heard of someone using a electric skillet (not your wife's) punching holes
in each side so 3-4 capstrips could be inserted, steaming them for 30 min or
so before going into the jig. I plan on trying it next time. I soaked mine
overnight and put them in a bending jig overnight again. Took a long time,
but worked well.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
Greg Yotz
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 1998 7:53 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing rib bending...
What method has everyone used for the cap strip bending? I'm getting
ready to
make a PVC pipe steam tube to soften the pieces before I place them into
the
jig. Is there a better way? Is this neccasary? Can anyone give me some
input on this?
Thanks
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
Greg,
I got this idea from Mike Cuy and it works great. I took a large garbage
can and filled it with water and soaked the wood for a day.
On a large piece of 4x4, I drew the contour, and cut that line with a
bandsaw. I then took the soaked pieces and stacked them in my "mold" about 5
or 6 high, then clamped the 2 halves of the 4x4 together until the wood was
dry. Works great.(Thanks again, Mike)
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
After reading Bill's "flying" post I couldn't resist going out myself. Last
night just before sunset my wife and I climbed in and flew along the wasatch
front. The colors are in full array as the scrub oaks prepare for winter.
The last of the sun painting the mountains deep red. Of course we didn't
forget the to TP bomb our neighborhood. (we are still not as good an aim as
my brother who landed a roll in our back yard last summer from a 172!) The
only turbulence in the sky was our wake. So smooth, no wind, 70 degrees,
matching Piet sweatshirts, couldn't have spent a more relaxing 20 minutes!
Keep building guys, it's worth every splinter!
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks again Steve, for the word pictures and this network. Really does
help keep one focused.
Kind Regards,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
For those of you who wanted to go to Brodhead but could not attend,
you can still enjoy the sights and sounds with the home video available
from Kim and Tami Stricker. I just rec'd my copy from them and it
is full of takeoffs, landings, etc. from the entire weekend. There is no
narration and little in the way of showing details of every plane, but for
pure enjoyment it's worth the price. He charges $ 15 for the tape and
I'd guess it runs at least one hour.
Kim & Tami Stricker
P.O. Box 104
Olmsted, IL
62970
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
I just filled a bathtub 1/6 up with HOT, HOT water, put the 1st 12"
of a capstrip in the water, and put a heavy pot on it to keep it
submerged, and left it there for a little over an hour. Works like a
charm.
On 8 Oct 98 at 8:53, Greg Yotz wrote:
> What method has everyone used for the cap strip bending? I'm
> getting ready to make a PVC pipe steam tube to soften the pieces
> before I place them into the jig. Is there a better way? Is this
> neccasary? Can anyone give me some input on this?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Greg Yotz
>
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
PERSONAL: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
I guess I'm lazy. I started building ribs one evening after having steamed
some collard greens for dinner. I had a big 5 quart pot on the stove with a
vegetable steamer and an inch of water inside. I stuck the last 8 inches of
three cap strips in the pot, put the lid back on, propped up the cold end of
the strips on a cereal box, and steamed for about 15 minutes. It's worked just
fine ever since. The strips then go into a bending jig that I cut out of a 2 x
4. I'm usually too impatient to wait more than another 15 minutes before I
take a cap strip out of the bending jig and fit it into my rib jig.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
>I guess I'm lazy. I started building ribs one evening after having steamed
>some collard greens for dinner. The strips then go into a bending jig
that I cut out of a 2 x 4.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::
AND you cook too. So, your capstrips have a decided green tint to them? 8
)
Do you have a shot of your jig?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
Hi Ed,
>Do you have a shot of your jig?
I have a photo that is not yet scanned. Basically, my jig is similar to those
described by others in this forum. I traced the curve of the leading edge top
cap strip onto a 10" piece of a 2 x 4, and cut along that line with a jig saw
(no band saw available at the moment, or I would have gone with a 4 x 4). The
2 x 4 allows me to bend 3 at a time. I actually left a little notch in the
bottom piece for the tips of the caps strips to catch while I bend them.
Here's my attempt at ascii-art:
I______________________________I
Hope that formats properly on your e-mail program. It's supposed to be the
bottom piece of the 2 x 4. The top piece (the missing chunk) is attached with
a c-clamp to hold the strips in place.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
The 4x4 bending mold worked great for me as well. To steam the ribs, I took
a piece of 1 1/2 inch galvanized pipe, capped one end, and filled 3/4 with
water. Put the capstrips in, and stuff a rag in the upper open end. Use a
propane torch to bring the water to a boil. the rag puts a bit of pressure
on the steam. After 1/2 hour, the strips are like a rubber band, and there
isn't as much grain lifting on the wood. It also dries out faster, because
the hot steam penetrates the wood, not just the water.
Al Swanson
>Greg,
> I got this idea from Mike Cuy and it works great. I took a large garbage
>can and filled it with water and soaked the wood for a day.
> On a large piece of 4x4, I drew the contour, and cut that line with a
>bandsaw. I then took the soaked pieces and stacked them in my "mold" about 5
>or 6 high, then clamped the 2 halves of the 4x4 together until the wood was
>dry. Works great.(Thanks again, Mike)
>Ron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib bending... |
I wasn't going to weigh in on this but......
A guy loaned me a device for steaming made out of a length of 4" pipe with
some legs welded on one end to make it stand upright and one end closed.
I used it with a small Coleman stove on blocks under it to heat with. Pour
water inside, drop in some capstrips, and add some heat.
I also used a jig with a slightly exagerated bend in it (4*4 type) to clamp
the strips in while they dried. After dry they would slide easily into the
rib jig.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Thursday, October 08, 1998 7:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing rib bending...
>The 4x4 bending mold worked great for me as well. To steam the ribs, I
took
>a piece of 1 1/2 inch galvanized pipe, capped one end, and filled 3/4 with
>water. Put the capstrips in, and stuff a rag in the upper open end. Use a
>propane torch to bring the water to a boil. the rag puts a bit of pressure
>on the steam. After 1/2 hour, the strips are like a rubber band, and there
>isn't as much grain lifting on the wood. It also dries out faster, because
>the hot steam penetrates the wood, not just the water.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>Greg,
>> I got this idea from Mike Cuy and it works great. I took a large
garbage
>>can and filled it with water and soaked the wood for a day.
>> On a large piece of 4x4, I drew the contour, and cut that line with a
>>bandsaw. I then took the soaked pieces and stacked them in my "mold" about
5
>>or 6 high, then clamped the 2 halves of the 4x4 together until the wood
was
>>dry. Works great.(Thanks again, Mike)
>>
>>Ron
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Rib bending |
I used a piece of 3 inch copper pipe 18 inches long, capped on one
end.
Put about 14 inches of water in, add two cap strips and boil on the
stove 20 - 30 minutes.
If they are boiled too long they have a greater tendency to kink when
you try to bend them.
I also found that making a jig to pre-bend the cap strip prior to
putting it in the rib jig to be redundant.
Mine went straight from the boiling water to the rib jig and sat
overnight. Glued up the following day.
Worked great.
Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Cooking with spruce |
Hearty Spruce Spaghetti
Ingredients
4' 1-1/2" pipe
1 end cap
12 cups water
Several sticks of spruce
1 lb of your favorite pasta (spaghetti works best)
1 tsp. salt
Instructions
Bring water to rolling boil in the pipe over high heat. Insert several
spruce sticks, and some spaghetti if you haven't had dinner yet. Cap and let
cook for 15 min. Season to taste. When spaghetti is limp and spruce is
pliable, have dinner and put together a few ribs. Remember this meal is
high in fiber and complex carbohydrates!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
| Subject: | Drag - anti-drag |
OK. You've got the ribs done (great tips lately), and your spars are
ready. I'd like to hear what different methods builders have utilized
for drag, anti-drag wires. Solid wires (what diameter) or stranded
cable (again what diameter). Concerns about stranded cables stretching?
Where are people obtaining what ever they're using. That should be
enough to get things going.
Also, while I'm on, I'd like to second those who have expressed
enjoyment reading those evening flying stories!
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | sitka spruce source report |
Just received a shipment of sitka spruce yesterday, and I can now confidently
recommend my source to you folks. I found Alaska Specialty Woods on the
internet a few months back and finally ordered about 22 board feet of lumber 7
weeks ago. Brent, who runs the show, found some wood for me in about a week,
it took him about two weeks to resaw it to my dimensions (salmon were running
that week), and then another 3 weeks in his kiln (warm, dry room). Took a
little while, but it was worth the wait since I had plenty of other wood to
keep me busy.
http://www.ptialaska.net/~liberty1/asw.html#anchor1
I received 6 boards that are a full 6" across and 7 feet long (the length was
chosen to meet the USPS dimensional limitations). Thicknesses varied from
about 5/8" to 1 1/8" and all pieces were surfaced on two sides (S2S). All
were perfectly clear, not a single tiny, tight knot. I counted an average of
about 16 grains per inch. Grain deviation was zero on most boards, but two had
a bit of deviation near one end. The worst slope of this deviation was about
1:14. All boards were cut perfectly vertical grain. I measured the density of
two boards: first was 24 lbs. per cubic foot, the second was 25 lb/cf. That
compares to 28 lb/cf specified for sitka spruce in the EAA wood book, and 33
lb/cf for the douglas fir that I'm using for some parts (near the CG).
Beautiful stuff, but some were not quite as pretty as the stuff I bought from
Aircraft Spruce & Specialty .
He charged me $6 /board foot plus shipping. We estimated the shipping to be
$26 for the quantity that I chose (22 board feet, a quantity that was just
under the USPS limit). However, since Brent was kind enought to cut each board
a little oversize (1/8" extra, so that I can plane it exactly to size here) the
total was over the limit. Still, Brent absorbed the extra shipping cost. Nice
guy. I've heard that he has offered a lower price to others, so you might
bargain with him, but the extra few bucks means a lot more to him than it does
to most of us. Either way, its a LOT less than the $20/BF charged by Aircraft
Spruce. (Brent lives on an island in southwest Alaska and finds windfallen
sitka spruce with his children.)
By the way, I was very careful to send him multiple e-mails and snail-mail to
indicate EXACTLY what I wanted in finished dimensions. I got exactly what I
asked for. Your mileage may vary.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Drag - anti-drag |
>OK. You've got the ribs done (great tips lately), and your spars are
>ready. I'd like to hear what different methods builders have utilized
>for drag, anti-drag wires.
Bill- I used 1/8" diam. stainless steel cable for those with four turnbuckles
per wing. I safety wired them and they sat for several months before
I was able to cover them.....the cables didn't seem to stretch any in my
case. PS- The cables that DID need re-tightening though after flying
were the X cables between the landing gear legs (straight axle) and wing
struts. MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Drag - anti-drag |
>Bill- I used 1/8" diam. stainless steel cable for those with four
turnbuckles
>per wing. I safety wired them and they sat for several months before
>I was able to cover them.....the cables didn't seem to stretch any in my
>case. PS- The cables that DID need re-tightening though after flying
>were the X cables between the landing gear legs (straight axle) and wing
>struts. MC
One friend who has built or restored eight or nine planes says he just
fixes the braided cable to the trailer hitch on his pickup and GENTLY
pulls forward. After that, the cable doesn't stretch much!
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
I changed my email address! rrobert(at)centuryinter.net
I changed my email address!
NT>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
I used the 'soak overnight then bend in a 2x4 jig' method for forming
wing ribs. Seems to work well. Ed Snyder has built a Camper, Scount
and is starting his 2nd Camper, and used this method for all.
Just got a new Snyer's catalog (no relation to Ed, above). They don't
seem to stock the 6:1 Aluminum heads for the Ford A anymore. Help!
Does anyone know of a source for these?
Thanks,
Carmen
PS - I'll put up a page soon of my project, but in the meantime, I'm
flying this:
http://www.cana.com/jodel/
----------------------
Mr. Carmen A. Natalie
President
CA Natalie Associates, Inc
CANA WebSystems
100 State Street Suite 1040
Albany, New York 12207
http://www.cana.com
phone 518.436.4932
fax 518.436.4933
----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Can anyone tell me if Mr. Pietenpol reduced the size of the main spars from 1"
to 3/4" ? Also, is the standard type of spar wood still spruce? I have been
unsing cedar for the ribs, and found that the caps will go right into the rib
jig, without any steam treatment. I hope to use a corvair engine in the
project and would like to hear about the causes of the engine failures that
someone spoke of. Also, has anyone ever heard of a spar failure in a Piet?
Oh, yeah...I love hearing the flying stories !!!
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: lighter side |
how cute! glad you enjoyed the game. back to work. another chester exercise.
> ----------
> From: Bill Talbert[SMTP:wtalbert(at)flash.net]
> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:57 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: lighter side
>
> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>
> Bill
>
> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> compared the
> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
> had kept up with
> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
> driving
> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
> gallon." In response to
> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating:
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
> day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
> have to
> buy a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
> reason, and
> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
> would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
> you would have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
> bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
> seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
> reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
> only run on five percent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
> would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
> butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
> off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
> lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle,
> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
> deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
> for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
> have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
> would operate in
> the same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ogden, Lexie" <lexie.ogden(at)lmco.com> |
| Subject: | RE: lighter side |
How true it is........ Thanks. I needed that. Hope your weekend was
great....
> ----------
> From: Bill Talbert[SMTP:wtalbert(at)flash.net]
> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:57 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: lighter side
>
> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>
> Bill
>
> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
> compared the
> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
> had kept up with
> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
> driving
> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
> gallon." In response to
> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
> stating:
> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
> day.
> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
> have to
> buy a new car.
> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
> reason, and
> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
> would cause
> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
> you would have to reinstall the engine.
> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
> bought
> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
> seats.
> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
> reliable,
> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
> only run on five percent of the roads.
> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
> would be
> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
> butt.
> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
> off.
> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
> lock you out
> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
> door handle,
> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
> deluxe set of
> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
> for investigation by the Justice Department.
> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
> have to learn
> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
> would operate in
> the same manner as the old car.
> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
>Can anyone tell me if Mr. Pietenpol reduced the size of the main spars from 1"
>to 3/4" ? Also, is the standard type of spar wood still spruce?
In Grant McLaren's Pietenpol Notebook it is said that the spars on BHP's "Last
Original" were 3/4" thick Western Hemlock. Of course, they were not routed,
but this is still less volume than routed 1" spars. 90% of that ship is
douglas fir, but Don Pietenpol says BHP ran out of fir and used hemlock for the
spars. Howard Henderson, among others, has used 3/4" douglas fir for spars.
It also says in GM's Piet Notebook that BHP laminated spars, using 7 pieces of
3/4" x 3/4" material, but it doesn't say if these in particular were the spars
made of hemlock, since he specified that solid wood is best (not laminated).
Here's a quite from BHP that I lifted from GM's Piet Notebook:
"Solid spars are preferred if you can get good wood. 3/4 inch solid and put on
1/8 inch plywood" [at the attachment fittings].
>I hope to use a corvair engine in the
>project and would like to hear about the causes of the engine failures that
>someone spoke of.
Two reports of Corvair engine failures are from Jim VanDervort in various back
issues of the BPAN. He had some sort of engine failure due to using one of
those stamped metal crankshaft pulleys instead of a harmonic balancer. He
didn't specify what exactly happened to the engine, but it required a deadstick
landing. A second failure was due to a broken rocker arm after allowing the
engine to sit unprotected (possibly rusting internally) for a while (he
recommends grooved rocker balls, but Corvair experts have discouraged this for
our application). I don't think the circumstances of that situation were
mentioned, but one could guess that he'd fly the plane on 5 cylinders if
necessary. Now, I'm drawing all of this from memory, so it might not be
perfectly accurate.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | What Glue for ribs? |
Hello everyone. I have been lurking out here for a few months enjoying
all the discussion. Love the Piet but after much thought have started to
build a Hatz. My question is which kind of glue do you guys like best for
rib construction?
My rib jig is built with clamps that can apply considerable pressure to
the joints while drying. I hope not to have to leave the ribs in the jig too
long as I will try to build them all during a two week vacation. Also, with
clamps to apply pressure to the joints I think I can forget about using
nails, am I right?
-----Original Message-----
From: Ogden, Lexie <lexie.ogden(at)lmco.com>
Date: Monday, October 12, 1998 8:50 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: lighter side
>How true it is........ Thanks. I needed that. Hope your weekend was
>great....
>
>> ----------
>> From: Bill Talbert[SMTP:wtalbert(at)flash.net]
>> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Sent: Friday, September 18, 1998 10:57 PM
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: lighter side
>>
>> This has nothing to due with planes or piets, but it showed
>> up in my email at work. Hope you folks enjoy it.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> At a recent computer expo (COMDEX), Bill Gates reportedly
>> compared the
>> computer industry with the auto industry and stated, "If GM
>> had kept up with
>> technology like the computer industry has, we would all be
>> driving
>> twenty-five-dollar cars that got 1000 miles to the
>> gallon." In response to
>> Bill's comments, General Motors issued a press release
>> stating:
>> If GM had developed technology like Microsoft, we would all
>> be driving cars with the following characteristics:
>> 1. For no reason whatsoever your car would crash twice a
>> day.
>> 2. Every time they repainted the lines on the road you would
>> have to
>> buy a new car.
>> 3. Occasionally your car would die on the freeway for no
>> reason, and
>> you would just accept this, restart and drive on.
>> 4. Occasionally, executing a maneuver such as a left turn,
>> would cause
>> your car to shut down and refuse to restart, in which case
>> you would have to reinstall the engine.
>> 5. Only one person at a time could use the car, unless you
>> bought
>> "Car95" or "CarNT." But then you would have to buy more
>> seats.
>> 6. Macintosh would make a car that was powered by the sun,
>> reliable,
>> five times as fast, and twice as easy to drive, but would
>> only run on five percent of the roads.
>> 7. The oil, water temperature and alternator warning lights
>> would be
>> replaced by a single "general car default" warning light.
>> 8. New seats would force everyone to have the same size
>> butt.
>> 9. The airbag system would say "Are you sure?" before going
>> off.
>> 10. Occasionally for no reason whatsoever, your car would
>> lock you out
>> and refuse to let you in until you simultaneously lifted the
>> door handle,
>> turned the key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
>> 11. GM would require all car buyers to also purchase a
>> deluxe set of
>> Rand McNally road maps (now a GM subsidiary), even though
>> they neither need them nor want them. Attempting to delete
>> this option would immediately cause the car's performance to
>> diminish by 50% or more. Moreover, GM would become a target
>> for investigation by the Justice Department.
>> 12. Every time GM introduced a new model car buyers would
>> have to learn
>> how to drive all over again because none of the controls
>> would operate in
>> the same manner as the old car.
>> 13. You'd press the "start" button to shut off the engine.
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford A heads |
try: Dan Price
7320 Sunbury Rd
Westerville, Oh 43081
614-891-2882
He has a flyer with several Model A componants of enterest
JoeC
>I used the 'soak overnight then bend in a 2x4 jig' method for forming
>wing ribs. Seems to work well. Ed Snyder has built a Camper, Scount
>and is starting his 2nd Camper, and used this method for all.
>
>Just got a new Snyer's catalog (no relation to Ed, above). They don't
>seem to stock the 6:1 Aluminum heads for the Ford A anymore. Help!
>Does anyone know of a source for these?
>
>Thanks,
>Carmen
>
>PS - I'll put up a page soon of my project, but in the meantime, I'm
>flying this:
>http://www.cana.com/jodel/
>
>----------------------
>Mr. Carmen A. Natalie
>President
>CA Natalie Associates, Inc
>CANA WebSystems
>100 State Street Suite 1040
>Albany, New York 12207
>http://www.cana.com
>phone 518.436.4932
>fax 518.436.4933
>----------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Woodworking book |
I paid US$ 20.00 only for FEDEX shipping each of the EAA building books, and
really am satisfied with the material inside, learning is not free. Well
the only book that was not really taht helpfull for me, was the one that
talks about registration proccess (in USA), here is diferent.
Enjoy your learning (reading), it can save your life
Saludos
Gary Gower
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
>Wow ! a woodworking book that will probably keep your tail feathers from
>falling off 2000" in the air, And only for $19.00 with free shipping !
>
>
>Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
>> I just went to the EAA store website to order the Aircraft
>> Woodworking book that everyone raves about, and found that it
>> is $11 and _$8 for shipping_! Zoiks! Does anyone know of another
>> place to get it from? The shipping is almost as much as the book!
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Richard
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Homepage: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
>
>
>--
>Check out Crusader Toys @
>http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Woodworking book |
> Hey guys, DeCosta solved his problem and is getting on with building his
>Piet...how about if we do the same on this forum.
> Paul & Tom have been offered positions that pay a lot more than they are
>taking home, based on their demonstrated abilities to build from scratch, and
>run a multi-national multi-million dollar enterprise....and I for one feel
>that they have more than adequately demonstrated their love for building &
>flying. Without them and the EAA we would probably be unable to have this
>hobby open to us at all.
>
ONE PERSONAL COMMENT:
The way the EAA is working in USA about aviation (recreational, sport, etc)
has helped a LOT to almost all the countrys IN THE WORLD, without THEIR
EXAMPLE, I cant imagine where sport and recrational aviation will be in our
countrys.
Hope I could help aviation here at least 1/1,000,000 of what Paul Poberensky
has done to WORLDWIDE aviation and I will think that my life and eforts was
helpfull to aviation.
Saludos
Gary Gower
EAA Chapter 1039 President
Federacion Mexicana de Aeronautica Regional Representative.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Woodworking book |
>> Paul & Tom have been offered positions that pay a lot more than they are
>>taking home,
Just out of curiosity, anyone know what they make?
>The way the EAA is working in USA about aviation (recreational, sport, etc)
>has helped a LOT to almost all the countrys IN THE WORLD, without THEIR
>EXAMPLE, I cant imagine where sport and recrational aviation will be in our
>countrys.
Australia has now accepted, practically verbatim, the FAA regs/language
governing experimental aircraft construction in that country. This is a
big plus for building "down under." I got a "YIPPEE" email from a friend
in Adelaide yesterday who said there are practically elebrations in the
streets. Think of it, a country as large as the US and only 17 million
people to inhabit it. Lots of space to fly, but tons of roadblocks along
the way. Nothing like a little common sense on the part of the authorities.
I'm on another list (UK base) that covers general aviation in the UK and
Europe in general. Be happy you fly here. The hassles, red tape, and FEES
for services would make you cry.
Support EAA and keep the Feds in line.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Rib bending |
This isn't on rib bending, but, being new, don't know how to address the
group without replying to a previous question.
Here is the problem;
I had new fabric and paint put on the plane I bought, a GN-1. It has the
piet wing as far as I can determine. The ailerons are warped, probably due
to over tighting of the fabric. When the inside trailing edge corner is
aligned up with the wing, the outside trailing edge corner will be warped
down about 2 inches. It's this way on both ailerons. I can see through the
fabric well enough to see that there is no cross bracing in the ailerons.
A friend suggested we take the cover off, get the ailerons squared and
flat, and glue something like 3/32 plywood on both sides before we recover.
Another friend said he would be afraid to do that since the ailerons are
not counter balanced and it might cause flutter.
It doesn'e seem likely to cause flutter to me, but I don't want to take
unnecessary chances. Also I don't know if that is the best way to solve the
proble or not.
Any expert advice would be appreciated.
Thanks, Larry
>
> I used a piece of 3 inch copper pipe 18 inches long, capped on one
> end.
> Put about 14 inches of water in, add two cap strips and boil on the
> stove 20 - 30 minutes.
> If they are boiled too long they have a greater tendency to kink when
> you try to bend them.
> I also found that making a jig to pre-bend the cap strip prior to
> putting it in the rib jig to be redundant.
> Mine went straight from the boiling water to the rib jig and sat
> overnight. Glued up the following day.
> Worked great.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
________________________________________________________________________________
1, on changing subjects, When replying just change the subject line, or
start a new thread by sending a new message to the list (piet(at)byu.edu)
2, Unwarping ailerons, pull off the fabric. Determine how bad the warp is
without the fabric. Remove the warp on a flat surface by putting the braces
in and recovering, or rebuilding the aileron. Flutter isn't likely to be a
problem because of the slow speed of the piet. None of the controls are
mass balanced.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Larry Pasley
Sent: Monday, October 12, 1998 4:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wing Rib bending
This isn't on rib bending, but, being new, don't know how to address the
group without replying to a previous question.
Here is the problem;
I had new fabric and paint put on the plane I bought, a GN-1. It has the
piet wing as far as I can determine. The ailerons are warped, probably due
to over tighting of the fabric. When the inside trailing edge corner is
aligned up with the wing, the outside trailing edge corner will be warped
down about 2 inches. It's this way on both ailerons. I can see through the
fabric well enough to see that there is no cross bracing in the ailerons.
A friend suggested we take the cover off, get the ailerons squared and
flat, and glue something like 3/32 plywood on both sides before we recover.
Another friend said he would be afraid to do that since the ailerons are
not counter balanced and it might cause flutter.
It doesn'e seem likely to cause flutter to me, but I don't want to take
unnecessary chances. Also I don't know if that is the best way to solve the
proble or not.
Any expert advice would be appreciated.
Thanks, Larry
>
> I used a piece of 3 inch copper pipe 18 inches long, capped on one
> end.
> Put about 14 inches of water in, add two cap strips and boil on the
> stove 20 - 30 minutes.
> If they are boiled too long they have a greater tendency to kink when
> you try to bend them.
> I also found that making a jig to pre-bend the cap strip prior to
> putting it in the rib jig to be redundant.
> Mine went straight from the boiling water to the rib jig and sat
> overnight. Glued up the following day.
> Worked great.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
I've had great luck with Aerolite. Seems to work very well for wing
ribs, as well as other structural components. Not messy or ugly when
dry. You might need the slower drying activator for fuselage sides...
-Carmen
PS - Thanks for the Ford A head info...I got a bit scared when Snyders
stopped carrying it. As a side note, the car guys avoid aluminum heads -
they say
"We recommend a 6.1 cast iron head instead of aluminum because
of the poor sealing of the aluminum and seepage problems associated with
them. Also the combustion chamber is not fully machined and they are to
be
custom fitted to your engine as the pistons may hit the head. For these
reasons we recommend the Finley head from Texas which is a much better
head."
Anyone ever had this problem? Of course, the car guys don't really care
about weight...
--
----------------------
Mr. Carmen A. Natalie
President
http://www.cana.com
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Larry- Re: warped GN-1 Ailerons........my limited knowledge about
these planes tells me that I would obtain a set of GN-1 plans
(very, very inexpensive) and either bring your ailerons up to plans
construction and re cover, or build new ailerons. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warped Ailerons |
Hi Michael,
Have a set of the GN-1 plans: There is NO cross bracing in the
ailerons on these plans. From reading this, would suggest that the good
ol' original Piet ailerons would work just fine.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
> Subj: What Glue for ribs?
> Date: 98-10-12 11:11:52 EDT
> From: mikec(at)microlandusa.com (Mike Cunningham)
> Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
> Reply-to: piet(at)byu.edu (Pietenpol Discussion)
> To: piet(at)byu.edu (Pietenpol Discussion)
>
> Hello everyone. I have been lurking out here for a few months enjoying
> all the discussion. Love the Piet but after much thought have started to
> build a Hatz. My question is which kind of glue do you guys like best for
> rib construction?
> My rib jig is built with clamps that can apply considerable pressure to
> the joints while drying. I hope not to have to leave the ribs in the jig
too
> long as I will try to build them all during a two week vacation. Also, with
> clamps to apply pressure to the joints I think I can forget about using
> nails, am I right?
> -----Original Message-----
Hi Mike,
I am also a Hatz builder who has been lurking on this group for awhile and
also love the disscussion. I hope to start on my ribs this winter and I am
leaning toward using T-88. Intersested in your jig. Will it be able to
handle multiple ribs?
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
Hi Guys,
Am building a long-fuse Piet and using T-88. This glue really does not need
high pressure clamps, and on a flat surface does not need nails or clamps of any
kind. Some folks worry about a slight surface stickiness when extremely hot,
after fully curing, as inside the wing on a hot day.. In speaking with the
manufacturer and a couple of old time builders who use T-88, this is a side effect
of the non-brittle long life of this product. For your own peace of mind, would
strongly suggest that you glue up 3-4 pieces with different intersecting faces,
let fully cure, set out in the hot sun and then self test them to destruction.
As
with all of these resin type products, it is extraordinarily important that mixing
ratios be properly observed, and that the mixing is thorough.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
I used T-88 to build my all-wood Minimax. Its structure and loads are similiar
to the Piet. I've flown many hours in the MiniMax. Some of those hours have been
in rough air when I would rather have been on the ground but I've never had
a joint failure. I think the T-88 instructions call for only light pressure when
glueing so you won't need those clamps for the ribs if you use T-88. Staples
may be better.
Safe flying,
Leo
--
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:26:33 Warren D. Shoun wrote:
>Hi Guys,
> Am building a long-fuse Piet and using T-88. This glue really does not need
>high pressure clamps, and on a flat surface does not need nails or clamps of any
>kind. Some folks worry about a slight surface stickiness when extremely hot,
>after fully curing, as inside the wing on a hot day.. In speaking with the
>manufacturer and a couple of old time builders who use T-88, this is a side effect
>of the non-brittle long life of this product. For your own peace of mind, would
>strongly suggest that you glue up 3-4 pieces with different intersecting faces,
>let fully cure, set out in the hot sun and then self test them to destruction.
As
>with all of these resin type products, it is extraordinarily important that mixing
>ratios be properly observed, and that the mixing is thorough.
>Warren
>
>
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
I used T-88 to build my all-wood Minimax. Its structure and loads are similiar
to the Piet. I've flown many hours in the MiniMax. Some of those hours have been
in rough air when I would rather have been on the ground but I've never had
a joint failure. I think the T-88 instructions call for only light pressure when
glueing so you won't need those clamps for the ribs if you use T-88. Staples
may be better.
Safe flying,
Leo
--
On Tue, 13 Oct 1998 07:26:33 Warren D. Shoun wrote:
>Hi Guys,
> Am building a long-fuse Piet and using T-88. This glue really does not need
>high pressure clamps, and on a flat surface does not need nails or clamps of any
>kind. Some folks worry about a slight surface stickiness when extremely hot,
>after fully curing, as inside the wing on a hot day.. In speaking with the
>manufacturer and a couple of old time builders who use T-88, this is a side effect
>of the non-brittle long life of this product. For your own peace of mind, would
>strongly suggest that you glue up 3-4 pieces with different intersecting faces,
>let fully cure, set out in the hot sun and then self test them to destruction.
As
>with all of these resin type products, it is extraordinarily important that mixing
>ratios be properly observed, and that the mixing is thorough.
>Warren
>
>
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
>I used T-88 to build my all-wood Minimax.
I did the same as Leo....all T-88 and all glue joint tests broke the
wood....even on some fairly poor joints. I hit some incredible turbulence
near Chicago enroute to Oshkosh too. (but severe clear otherwise).
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
I don't have anything against epoxy type glues for wood but the wings on my
Howard are 55 years old and the Resorcinol joints are still holding up on a
4500 lb airplane with a 270 mph red line. I'd like to see what the T88 looks
like in 55 years!
David Schober
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >I used T-88 to build my all-wood Minimax.
>
> I did the same as Leo....all T-88 and all glue joint tests broke the
> wood....even on some fairly poor joints. I hit some incredible turbulence
> near Chicago enroute to Oshkosh too. (but severe clear otherwise).
> MC
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
Hey, guys, I use Titebond II from the hardware store. It was recommended
at Oshkosh in one of the building sessions.
>>> "David B. Schober" 10/13 2:53 PM >>>
I don't have anything against epoxy type glues for wood but the wings on
my
Howard are 55 years old and the Resorcinol joints are still holding up on
a
4500 lb airplane with a 270 mph red line. I'd like to see what the T88
looks
like in 55 years!
David Schober
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >I used T-88 to build my all-wood Minimax.
>
> I did the same as Leo....all T-88 and all glue joint tests broke the
> wood....even on some fairly poor joints. I hit some incredible
turbulence
> near Chicago enroute to Oshkosh too. (but severe clear otherwise).
> MC
--
**
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Lamb <lamb01(at)flash.net> |
Welp, I parted company with my parasol today.
So I've started a new one. Immediately!
It will be another ChuckBird parasol, but I'm
going to detail it as a Pietenpol Scout.
Got a brand new 1300cc Honda Civic engine that will
stick up thru the cowl - just the way Bernie likes.
Got a VW Rabbit radiator for it. Stick it up front -
where it's supposed to be.
But note that this is NOT Bernie's design - although
I want it to look real old-timie authentic.
The airframe is built from rivited aluminum angle
(3/4" x 3/4" x 1/8" 6061-T6). The wings are based
on aluminum tube spars amd foam ribs. Ultralight
technology. Started the fuselage today.
Should be up on the gear by this time next week.
But the deal is that the entire airplane weighs less
than the Ford motor! And my first plane cost less
than $3000 to build (and sold for $7000!).
Anybody interested in a simple - quick build -
nice flying parasol, drop me a line. But right
now, I've got to go bang some rivets......
Later,
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | to the hatz buildsrs |
I could make one complete rib per day...
Good airplanes are built slow.
ocb
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: What Glue for ribs? |
Hey Scott,
The rib jig I have in mind will only handle one rib at a time. This will be
somewhat of a hinderance as I hope to build the ribs in a matter of weeks
(as opposed to months). Have you seen a Jig for multiple ribs?
T88 looks good to me so far, seems like it must be a fairly standard
two part epoxy like I have used for years in RC model construction.
It should be pretty easy to work with.
-----Original Message-----
From: Hatz630(at)aol.com <Hatz630(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 9:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: What Glue for ribs?
>
>> Subj: What Glue for ribs?
>> Date: 98-10-12 11:11:52 EDT
>> From: mikec(at)microlandusa.com (Mike Cunningham)
>> Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>> Reply-to: piet(at)byu.edu (Pietenpol Discussion)
>> To: piet(at)byu.edu (Pietenpol Discussion)
>>
>> Hello everyone. I have been lurking out here for a few months enjoying
>> all the discussion. Love the Piet but after much thought have started to
>> build a Hatz. My question is which kind of glue do you guys like best
for
>> rib construction?
>> My rib jig is built with clamps that can apply considerable pressure to
>> the joints while drying. I hope not to have to leave the ribs in the jig
>too
>> long as I will try to build them all during a two week vacation. Also,
with
>> clamps to apply pressure to the joints I think I can forget about using
>> nails, am I right?
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>Hi Mike,
>I am also a Hatz builder who has been lurking on this group for awhile and
>also love the disscussion. I hope to start on my ribs this winter and I am
>leaning toward using T-88. Intersested in your jig. Will it be able to
>handle multiple ribs?
>
>Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
Your point is well made and well taken. After further consideration I
figured that a rib-a-day would probably be more realistic. Wouldn't want to
do a rush job, rush jobs always take twice as long! Just want to set
reasonable (but aggressive) schedules and then make every effort to stick to
them.
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 13, 1998 7:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: to the hatz buildsrs
>About building those wing ribs in 2 weeks. When I started out building
ribs, my intention was to get them made, and off the jig quick.
out over again, and found that I could in real tearms build one rib on the
jig, and "back side gusset" the yesterday's rib each day.
>
> I could make one complete rib per day...
>
> Good airplanes are built slow.
>
>ocb
>
>
>http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
My best intention was to do a set of ribs in two weeks also. The best I
did was 1 rib per day working with aerolite. Lots of small nails etc. I
don't think you want to stress the T-88 glue joints until they are well
set. Realistically, you are likely looking at a month of building.
On the upside, when it came to hanging the ribs on the spar, everything
fit exactly. When it came to long bar sanding, there was very little
required, maybe 30 minutes per wing. Unless your multiple jigs were
EXACTLY the same, you may pay the time price later.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | 0-290G for Pietenpol |
Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I got a
good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
Thanks much Robert Bozeman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
Robert,
If you are going to go from 65 hp to 125 hp you had better do some
calculations for stress and tail volume. The O-290 only weighs the same
as the Ford "A" but the added horsepower will put additional stress on
the structure. The additional power will cause problems with directional
control unless you increase the verticle fin area.
As far as your question about distance to prop flange, that dimension has
no relavence. The point you need to look for is the CG lacation of the
engine prop combination and mount the new engine at the same CG location.
I hope this helps.
David Schober
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I got a
> good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
>
> Thanks much Robert Bozeman
>
>
--
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: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
Please explain. How did you run out of power with 65 horses?
>
> Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I got a
> good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
>
> Thanks much Robert Bozeman
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
Flying with 120 hp engine would make the piet a completely different
airplane. I would like to fly one to find out, but I imagine that TO would
be immediate, climb would be spectacular, cruise would be increase by 5mph
:) Don't know that the piet would suffer problems with tail volume however.
90-100 hp would seem ideal. You could always throttle back I guess.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
alan.green
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 1998 9:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol
Please explain. How did you run out of power with 65 horses?
>
> Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I got a
> good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
>
> Thanks much Robert Bozeman
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
To those who may be interested, my Pietenpol site has had a major
facelift. Not much content chage, but it looks better.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
Richard DeCosta
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
Personal site: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Richard,
Congratulations on your progress, both with the "real deal" and
with your contribution to the cause, which for me is extremely
enjoyable, informative and inspirational. Thanks.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Titebond II (was: NW Area Piets) |
>Bud,
>Sorry, it's Titebond II glue. Not Pliobond...Silly me! Don
>
>
I have used it (Titebond II) for 3 years in my project wings (sorry tube
fuselage), and have, (for testing) two pieces glued outside since then (in
the shade of a tree to protect the wood from direct sun) but recieves the
water from the gardening 3 times a week plus raining season and still cant
brake the joint!
I also have 2 pieces (test broked 2 more the first and 3rd year separated
from the wood, not the glue) using the Elmers Carpenters Wood Glue "All
purpose". They were glued 4 years ago, this samples were Uretane barnish
covered with 3 layers, still perfect in the same garden. (this glue was the
only one available imported and advertized as "great glue" here at that
time, next year I found Titebond II in the same store).
This glue (Elmers) and the barnish was used in a propeller I made for our
Trike Ultralight. It is still flying and has 160 hours in more than 3 years
with normal tip repairs (pusher prop near the ground). The barnish and the
glue are in perfect shape and we check it and balance it twice a year (dry
and raining season endings).
Hope this helps,
Saludos
Sail
Almost ready!=09
EAA Chapter 1039 President
Delegado Regional FEMEDA-FAI 1,800 VW 2 place "Gtub"(80%)(own design)FAI=
legal
ggower(at)informador.com.mx Ultralight (224 Kg dry)
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
ICQ # 12376307
Chapala Aerodrome Alt 4,997 asl N 20=BA19.506' W 103=BA08.203'
"Cuando inducimos a alguien a nuestro deporte debemos ser firmes tambien en
que mantenga optimo su estado fisico, entrenamiento y aeronave" - Julian=
Taber
(When we involve anyone else in our flying we should be held to a higher
standard in term of physical health, trainnig and airplane maintenance. -
Julian Taber)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net> |
Mike & Scott, Was curious to know why you picked the Hatz over the
Piet. As I like both but really like biplanes.
phil
--
Check out Crusader Toys @
http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
had peaked-out yet or not. We took off about 4:30 pm and headed out
south away from the suburbs and towards the corn, soybean, and wheat
fields. I had forgotten how much horsepower and rate of climb the
fall temperatures will add to any Pietenpol ever built ! Climbing
wasn't on my 'to do' list though today. I was looking for land.
Farmland. About 300 ft. wide by 2,000 feet long would be fine.
With my roadmap tucked between the mahogany plywood seat bottom
and my thigh, we went from open field to open field. Maybe one of
these farmers would be willing to part with a slice of land off of one
edge next spring ? Maybe I should get to know them first, then
ask questions ? So many farmers were out on their huge combines
harvesting the golden soybean fields. The dust from the separators
gave us a perfect picture of the wind direction. I buzzed low
toward a slow moving combine on a large, large bean field about
eye level with the farmer. Slowed down to about 55 mph and off
to his side by maybe 150 feet. He waved back ! No obscene gestures
either ! I'd climb up to maybe 200 feet to clear trees and wires, then
scope out the next open field with a combine on it. Time after time
each farmer waved back as if to thank us for breaking up the
monotony of his job that day. What a hoot. Some of those fields
were so smooth and so flat that I was tempted to just touch and go
on several of them. Maybe tonight. After an hour or so I felt the
56 F outside air temperature starting to work its way thru my jacket
and clothes. It seemed odd to slip on a pair of gloves before the
flight while standing in warm sunshine after the preflight, but now
those gloves paid off in being able to fly longer today !
Seems like you never know how dirty or scratched your windshield is
until you drive or fly right into the sun. Are there any towers out
there ? Pull down your goggles and do a slight s-turn and stick your
head out into that blast of icy cold air to find out. Whew, just like
a spoonful of fresh horseradish- clears your whole head out right now.
Wow, is the sunset getting early ! Better fly as much as possible
before they make us turn our clocks back for fall. After coming
down for a landing an pushing the airplane back into it's spot I went
thru the usual routine. Chocks, cockpit covers snapped on, pitot
tube flag and cover installed, make sure the wood prop is horizontal,
and this time, use the built-in hand warmer !! Standing in front of the
prop hub I placed both cold hands on top of the two front cylinder
head fins. Ahhh....that feels good.
If you like building a Piet, you will absolutely love flying it.
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
You take off from a 6000' runway with 2(150lb.each) on borad and 8
or 10 gals. of fuel on borad, at about 80-85 degrees and then start
wondering if your going to get over those power lines, with alittle
more power you don't eventhink about power lines, a friend of my put a
0-200 on his Piet and it made all the differace in the world We'er
both running 72x42 props and my plane wieghs out 648 lbs..
But other than that I just love my Piet, I've got 105 TT on her
now,,,,I guess what it is, Is I don't like 100 or 200 ft. per min.
climb!!!!!anyway I wont ever sell my Piet
Robert
---"alan.green" wrote:
>
> Please explain. How did you run out of power with 65 horses?
>
> ----------
> >
> > Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I
got a
> > good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> > or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> > on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> > I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
> >
> > Thanks much Robert Bozeman
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
Was with you all the way. You perked up my morning. And where are these
corn, soybean, and wheat fields located?
When will you put it away for the season--or will you?
Ed
Connecticut
PS: Perhaps we could use a signature block on our emails with our location.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::
> Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
>had peaked-out yet or not. We took off about 4:30 pm and headed out
>south away from the suburbs and towards the corn, soybean, and wheat
>fields. I had forgotten how much horsepower and rate of climb the
>fall temperatures will add to any Pietenpol ever built ! Climbing
>wasn't on my 'to do' list though today. I was looking for land.
>Farmland. About 300 ft. wide by 2,000 feet long would be fine.
>With my roadmap tucked between the mahogany plywood seat bottom
>and my thigh, we went from open field to open field. Maybe one of
>these farmers would be willing to part with a slice of land off of one
>edge next spring ? Maybe I should get to know them first, then
>ask questions ? So many farmers were out on their huge combines
>harvesting the golden soybean fields. The dust from the separators
>gave us a perfect picture of the wind direction. I buzzed low
>toward a slow moving combine on a large, large bean field about
>eye level with the farmer. Slowed down to about 55 mph and off
>to his side by maybe 150 feet. He waved back ! No obscene gestures
>either ! I'd climb up to maybe 200 feet to clear trees and wires, then
>scope out the next open field with a combine on it. Time after time
>each farmer waved back as if to thank us for breaking up the
>monotony of his job that day. What a hoot. Some of those fields
>were so smooth and so flat that I was tempted to just touch and go
>on several of them. Maybe tonight. After an hour or so I felt the
>56 F outside air temperature starting to work its way thru my jacket
>and clothes. It seemed odd to slip on a pair of gloves before the
>flight while standing in warm sunshine after the preflight, but now
>those gloves paid off in being able to fly longer today !
>Seems like you never know how dirty or scratched your windshield is
>until you drive or fly right into the sun. Are there any towers out
>there ? Pull down your goggles and do a slight s-turn and stick your
>head out into that blast of icy cold air to find out. Whew, just like
>a spoonful of fresh horseradish- clears your whole head out right now.
> Wow, is the sunset getting early ! Better fly as much as possible
>before they make us turn our clocks back for fall. After coming
>down for a landing an pushing the airplane back into it's spot I went
>thru the usual routine. Chocks, cockpit covers snapped on, pitot
>tube flag and cover installed, make sure the wood prop is horizontal,
>and this time, use the built-in hand warmer !! Standing in front of the
>prop hub I placed both cold hands on top of the two front cylinder
>head fins. Ahhh....that feels good.
>
>If you like building a Piet, you will absolutely love flying it.
>
>MC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard DeCosta" <Richard DeCosta> |
Great idea! I always wonder if there are more peope in my neck of the
woods.
> PS: Perhaps we could use a signature block on our emails with our
> location.
Richard DeCosta, Portland, Maine
Web/CGI Programming - Auto Europe, LLC
Web: http://www.autoeurope.com
Ph: 207-842-2064
Fax: 207-842-2239
Personal site: http://207.140.1.221/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Was with you all the way. You perked up my morning. And where are these
>corn, soybean, and wheat fields located?
>
Ed- I live about 25 southwest of Cleveland, OH. You know, the same
town where you can live a whole lifetime and not see the Indians
win a world series ! (but I still love em.)
>When will you put it away for the season--or will you?
Not a chance. I hope to build a set of wood snow skis with 4130
tubular pylon mounts that slip right over the 1 1/2" axle. Frank P.
has an antique set of them on Sky Gypsy and they work great.
About 10" wide I'd say and laid up in a few layers of wood bent
up at the tips....almost like how we bend the rib capstrips. No, there
are no plans that I know of. Just wing it, about any ski design will
work. (for those so inclined.....brrrr) MC
>Ed
>Connecticut
>
>PS: Perhaps we could use a signature block on our emails with our location.
>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>:::::::::::
>
>> Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
>>had peaked-out yet or not. We took off about 4:30 pm and headed out
>>south away from the suburbs and towards the corn, soybean, and wheat
>>fields. I had forgotten how much horsepower and rate of climb the
>>fall temperatures will add to any Pietenpol ever built ! Climbing
>>wasn't on my 'to do' list though today. I was looking for land.
>>Farmland. About 300 ft. wide by 2,000 feet long would be fine.
>>With my roadmap tucked between the mahogany plywood seat bottom
>>and my thigh, we went from open field to open field. Maybe one of
>>these farmers would be willing to part with a slice of land off of one
>>edge next spring ? Maybe I should get to know them first, then
>>ask questions ? So many farmers were out on their huge combines
>>harvesting the golden soybean fields. The dust from the separators
>>gave us a perfect picture of the wind direction. I buzzed low
>>toward a slow moving combine on a large, large bean field about
>>eye level with the farmer. Slowed down to about 55 mph and off
>>to his side by maybe 150 feet. He waved back ! No obscene gestures
>>either ! I'd climb up to maybe 200 feet to clear trees and wires, then
>>scope out the next open field with a combine on it. Time after time
>>each farmer waved back as if to thank us for breaking up the
>>monotony of his job that day. What a hoot. Some of those fields
>>were so smooth and so flat that I was tempted to just touch and go
>>on several of them. Maybe tonight. After an hour or so I felt the
>>56 F outside air temperature starting to work its way thru my jacket
>>and clothes. It seemed odd to slip on a pair of gloves before the
>>flight while standing in warm sunshine after the preflight, but now
>>those gloves paid off in being able to fly longer today !
>>Seems like you never know how dirty or scratched your windshield is
>>until you drive or fly right into the sun. Are there any towers out
>>there ? Pull down your goggles and do a slight s-turn and stick your
>>head out into that blast of icy cold air to find out. Whew, just like
>>a spoonful of fresh horseradish- clears your whole head out right now.
>> Wow, is the sunset getting early ! Better fly as much as possible
>>before they make us turn our clocks back for fall. After coming
>>down for a landing an pushing the airplane back into it's spot I went
>>thru the usual routine. Chocks, cockpit covers snapped on, pitot
>>tube flag and cover installed, make sure the wood prop is horizontal,
>>and this time, use the built-in hand warmer !! Standing in front of the
>>prop hub I placed both cold hands on top of the two front cylinder
>>head fins. Ahhh....that feels good.
>>
>>If you like building a Piet, you will absolutely love flying it.
>>
>>MC
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
>>And where are these corn, soybean, and wheat fields located?
>Ed- I live about 25 southwest of Cleveland, OH.
Ahh! The Paris of northeast Ohio, hio, hio, hio. 8
) Sorry, couldn't
resist. Have to blame that on Drew Carey.
>>When will you put it away for the season--or will you?
>Not a chance.
Battery operated thermals, huh? How many other brave souls in the colder
climes fly theirs from Dec. through March? Recommendations for keeping warm?
Is yours hangared?
I hope to build a set of wood snow skis with 4130
>tubular pylon mounts that slip right over the 1 1/2" axle. Frank P.
>has an antique set of them on Sky Gypsy and they work great.
>About 10" wide I'd say and laid up in a few layers of wood bent
>up at the tips....almost like how we bend the rib capstrips. No, there
>are no plans that I know of. Just wing it, about any ski design will
>work. (for those so inclined.....brrrr) MC
>
>
>>Ed
>>Connecticut
>>
>>PS: Perhaps we could use a signature block on our emails with our location.
>>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>>:::::::::::
>>
>>> Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
>>>had peaked-out yet or not. We took off about 4:30 pm and headed out
>>>south away from the suburbs and towards the corn, soybean, and wheat
>>>fields. I had forgotten how much horsepower and rate of climb the
>>>fall temperatures will add to any Pietenpol ever built ! Climbing
>>>wasn't on my 'to do' list though today. I was looking for land.
>>>Farmland. About 300 ft. wide by 2,000 feet long would be fine.
>>>With my roadmap tucked between the mahogany plywood seat bottom
>>>and my thigh, we went from open field to open field. Maybe one of
>>>these farmers would be willing to part with a slice of land off of one
>>>edge next spring ? Maybe I should get to know them first, then
>>>ask questions ? So many farmers were out on their huge combines
>>>harvesting the golden soybean fields. The dust from the separators
>>>gave us a perfect picture of the wind direction. I buzzed low
>>>toward a slow moving combine on a large, large bean field about
>>>eye level with the farmer. Slowed down to about 55 mph and off
>>>to his side by maybe 150 feet. He waved back ! No obscene gestures
>>>either ! I'd climb up to maybe 200 feet to clear trees and wires, then
>>>scope out the next open field with a combine on it. Time after time
>>>each farmer waved back as if to thank us for breaking up the
>>>monotony of his job that day. What a hoot. Some of those fields
>>>were so smooth and so flat that I was tempted to just touch and go
>>>on several of them. Maybe tonight. After an hour or so I felt the
>>>56 F outside air temperature starting to work its way thru my jacket
>>>and clothes. It seemed odd to slip on a pair of gloves before the
>>>flight while standing in warm sunshine after the preflight, but now
>>>those gloves paid off in being able to fly longer today !
>>>Seems like you never know how dirty or scratched your windshield is
>>>until you drive or fly right into the sun. Are there any towers out
>>>there ? Pull down your goggles and do a slight s-turn and stick your
>>>head out into that blast of icy cold air to find out. Whew, just like
>>>a spoonful of fresh horseradish- clears your whole head out right now.
>>> Wow, is the sunset getting early ! Better fly as much as possible
>>>before they make us turn our clocks back for fall. After coming
>>>down for a landing an pushing the airplane back into it's spot I went
>>>thru the usual routine. Chocks, cockpit covers snapped on, pitot
>>>tube flag and cover installed, make sure the wood prop is horizontal,
>>>and this time, use the built-in hand warmer !! Standing in front of the
>>>prop hub I placed both cold hands on top of the two front cylinder
>>>head fins. Ahhh....that feels good.
>>>
>>>If you like building a Piet, you will absolutely love flying it.
>>>
>>>MC
>>>
>>
>>
>
Ed
Connecticut
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Ed- Thankfully I have a spot in a hangar at a local grass strip labeled
Valley City on the Detroit sectional. I dunno how best to stay warm
really. I like your battery operated thermal idea though !
When flying Franks on skis, we all took about 10 min. at the controls
and in between warmed up in the airport office with coffee. It was
about 18 F that day as I recall. The wild thing about it was that
on takeoff when you applied full power the loose powdered snow got
sucked up into the prop and swirled around the fuselage for the first
3 or 4 seconds virtually giving you zero vis. ! What a riot !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
The madien voyage on my aircamper was Nov 19, 97' and believe me I was
flying all through the winter. My coldest flying day was 22 degrees. I
bundled up in a snow parka thermals jeans and boots. I recall that with the
front pit covered it was just a concern of keeping my feet warm. I will
try this winter with my oversize sneakers with lots of socks. I kept my
head warm by using 12' scarf, a stocking cap and leather helmet. That
worked well. Gloves were just ski gloves.
I have been toying with the idea of making my own set of skiis. I would
like to have the wheel thru the ski type however since my runway gets
plowed. Off field ski landings would be a blast!
Stevee Provo (Greatest Snow on Earth) Utah
-----Original Message-----
Michael D Cuy
Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 9:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Snow Skis
Ed- Thankfully I have a spot in a hangar at a local grass strip labeled
Valley City on the Detroit sectional. I dunno how best to stay warm
really. I like your battery operated thermal idea though !
When flying Franks on skis, we all took about 10 min. at the controls
and in between warmed up in the airport office with coffee. It was
about 18 F that day as I recall. The wild thing about it was that
on takeoff when you applied full power the loose powdered snow got
sucked up into the prop and swirled around the fuselage for the first
3 or 4 seconds virtually giving you zero vis. ! What a riot !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
I originally hooked up to this Discussion group for the technical input
to help out a green-bean novice at building a plane (ME). That has been an
enormous help.
However, these stories, like yours Michael, are a shining light to the
spirit and a genuine inspiration for focused determination to get mine built
and join this rather exclusive club of self-built Piet flyers. Keep the
stories coming!!!
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
>I recall that with the
>front pit covered it was just a concern of keeping my feet warm.
Any chance of running heat into the space?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
Hi Phil...
That is a tough question. I love the Piet also, for reasons known to all,
and I was just inches away from starting to build one. Down here in TX most
of our summer days top 100 degrees (it's still 85 today) with very high
humidity. Temp only falls to mid 80's most nights. So in the final analysis
(factoring in my 240 pound butt) climb performance was reason I nixed the
Piet. (Please Guys.. I don't mean to come on your
discussion group and knock your airplanes in any way, I just want to answer
the man's question).
Biplanes have always been my primary interest but most of them (the 2
seaters especially) are just too much.... Too much project, horsepower,
performance, $$$, and so on. I chose the Hatz for a lot of the same reasons
one would choose a Piet including reasonable cost and amount of work,
classic good looks, wide choice of moderately priced engines. Now all I have
to do is learn to weld!
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Peck <crusader(at)thegrid.net>
Date: Thursday, October 15, 1998 10:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hatz
>Mike & Scott, Was curious to know why you picked the Hatz over the
>Piet. As I like both but really like biplanes.
>phil
>
>--
>Check out Crusader Toys @
>http://www.thegrid.net/crusader/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm sure you could, especially if you are water cooled. More weight though.
I have now dug out my D cell battery operated socks, plan to try them when
the snow flies.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Nolan
Sent: Friday, October 16, 1998 11:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Snow Skis
>I recall that with the
>front pit covered it was just a concern of keeping my feet warm.
Any chance of running heat into the space?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
This was one of the several considerations when I decided to try the
GeoMetro 4 cylinder as my engine for the Piet. It is a sleeved all aluminum
overhead cam engine, with what appears to be great reliability. Have a 1996
engine with 14,000 miles for $850.00. Have not yet decided on what type of
cockpit heater to use. In the EAA monthly magazines, there have been several
finished planes that mention that they have water-cooled engines with cockpit
heat exchangers connected for heat. Plan on contacting these builders and
compiling a selection of solutions.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
The Geo engine is interesting. Knew there were three cyn. Geo engines, but
not four. What is your engine weight?
> This was one of the several considerations when I decided to try the
> GeoMetro 4 cylinder as my engine for the Piet. It is a sleeved all
aluminum
> overhead cam engine, with what appears to be great reliability. Have a
1996
> engine with 14,000 miles for $850.00. Have not yet decided on what type
of
> cockpit heater to use. In the EAA monthly magazines, there have been
several
> finished planes that mention that they have water-cooled engines with
cockpit
> heat exchangers connected for heat. Plan on contacting these builders and
> compiling a selection of solutions.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
Hi Larry,
The weight of the engine alone, without radiator, prop or redrive unit is
right at 160 pounds. Am putting it on the long-fuse version, and expect to need
to place the battery box in the engine area for weight & balance
considerations....have a ways to go before know that for sure.
Warren
Larry Pasley wrote:
> The Geo engine is interesting. Knew there were three cyn. Geo engines, but
> not four. What is your engine weight?
>
> ----------
> > This was one of the several considerations when I decided to try the
> > GeoMetro 4 cylinder as my engine for the Piet. It is a sleeved all
> aluminum
> > overhead cam engine, with what appears to be great reliability. Have a
> 1996
> > engine with 14,000 miles for $850.00. Have not yet decided on what type
> of
> > cockpit heater to use. In the EAA monthly magazines, there have been
> several
> > finished planes that mention that they have water-cooled engines with
> cockpit
> > heat exchangers connected for heat. Plan on contacting these builders and
> > compiling a selection of solutions.
> > Best Regards,
> > Warren
> >
> >
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: congratulations! |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Friday, October 16, 1998 8:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Farmers
Hi Mike,
I think we talked before, about a year or so. Congratulations on your recent
completion. Saw your name in the experimenter. Just missed you at Oshkosh
this year. I'm about a week or so away from final inspection, as soon as I
finish the prop. Everything else is now complete.
regards,
Domenic Bellissimo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
Hi Warren,
> This was one of the several considerations when I decided to try the
>GeoMetro 4 cylinder as my engine for the Piet.
What's been the history of this engine in planes? Any idea of how many are
being used/reliability? What HP is the four cylinder?
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
Hi Ed,
I am not an absolute expert on these things. The best I can do is point
you in a couple of directions for information.
Some of the office courier services here in So.Cal. have very successfully
used the GeoMetro autos for 150,000 miles of hard use and little maintenance
and 45-55 mpg. at freeway speeds. Horsepower appears to be 65 for 3 cylinder
and 85 for 4 cylinder. With 6 psi boost from water-cooled Subaru turbo goes up
to as much as 120 HP. Direct transfer to aircraft may not be applicable.
Two web-page sources of info that you might find interesting:
1. www.raven-rotor.com
2. www.flash.net/~swagaero
Have most of the parts and gradually working up a useable engine while
doing the wood work at the same time.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rdecosta(at)autoeurope.com (Richard DeCosta) |
Well it's been 6 long year since I actually got somw PIC time, and
today I finally got current again. Wow! I forgot how much fun it was.
Im in Cessna now, but after a few hours of refresher flying, I am
going to be taking lessons in a Champ. Cant wait!
As for Piete, I have started a new page on my Website for
Pietenpol flying stories, like the kind Michael Cuy just sent us
about buzzing farmers. So... I need you guys to email the group
some more. We love them! It's what keeps us building.
Heres the page:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/FlyinStories.shtml
Richard
________________________________________________________________________________
Phil,
The reason I am going to build a Hatz is because I have a love affair with
biplanes. Particularly old biplanes. Now my biggest dream is to own a Travel
Air or a Waco, but they are completely out of my price range. So that leaves
a smaller homebuilt. And of all the homebuilt bipes out there I beleive that
the Hatz is the only one that really looks like it came from 1929.
Now just because I like biplanes doesn't mean that I don't like the Pietenpol.
I think that the Piet is a great plane and its only shortcoming is that it
doesn't have two wings. ;-) Actually I did think about building a Piet and I
would like to own one. I am currently selling my Stinson 108-1 and will be in
the market for a smaller plane, like a Piet......
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Just keep it up Mike we will someday be flying too.
> Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
>had peaked-out yet or not. We took off about 4:30 pm and headed out
>south away from the suburbs and towards the corn, soybean, and wheat
>fields. I had forgotten how much horsepower and rate of climb the
>fall temperatures will add to any Pietenpol ever built ! Climbing
>wasn't on my 'to do' list though today. I was looking for land.
>Farmland. About 300 ft. wide by 2,000 feet long would be fine.
>With my roadmap tucked between the mahogany plywood seat bottom
>and my thigh, we went from open field to open field. Maybe one of
>these farmers would be willing to part with a slice of land off of one
>edge next spring ? Maybe I should get to know them first, then
>ask questions ? So many farmers were out on their huge combines
>harvesting the golden soybean fields. The dust from the separators
>gave us a perfect picture of the wind direction. I buzzed low
>toward a slow moving combine on a large, large bean field about
>eye level with the farmer. Slowed down to about 55 mph and off
>to his side by maybe 150 feet. He waved back ! No obscene gestures
>either ! I'd climb up to maybe 200 feet to clear trees and wires, then
>scope out the next open field with a combine on it. Time after time
>each farmer waved back as if to thank us for breaking up the
>monotony of his job that day. What a hoot. Some of those fields
>were so smooth and so flat that I was tempted to just touch and go
>on several of them. Maybe tonight. After an hour or so I felt the
>56 F outside air temperature starting to work its way thru my jacket
>and clothes. It seemed odd to slip on a pair of gloves before the
>flight while standing in warm sunshine after the preflight, but now
>those gloves paid off in being able to fly longer today !
>Seems like you never know how dirty or scratched your windshield is
>until you drive or fly right into the sun. Are there any towers out
>there ? Pull down your goggles and do a slight s-turn and stick your
>head out into that blast of icy cold air to find out. Whew, just like
>a spoonful of fresh horseradish- clears your whole head out right now.
> Wow, is the sunset getting early ! Better fly as much as possible
>before they make us turn our clocks back for fall. After coming
>down for a landing an pushing the airplane back into it's spot I went
>thru the usual routine. Chocks, cockpit covers snapped on, pitot
>tube flag and cover installed, make sure the wood prop is horizontal,
>and this time, use the built-in hand warmer !! Standing in front of the
>prop hub I placed both cold hands on top of the two front cylinder
>head fins. Ahhh....that feels good.
>
>If you like building a Piet, you will absolutely love flying it.
>
>MC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Jim,
If you liked Mike's writing, ask him to send you the air-to-air photo of his Piet.
The photo is poetry too; one of the best I've seen. Don't blame me if it makes
you head back out to the workshop.
Leo
--
On Fri, 16 Oct 1998 21:23:44 Jim Sury wrote:
>Just keep it up Mike we will someday be flying too.
>
>
>> Yesterday afternoon NX48MC and I went out to see if the leaf colors
>>had peaked-out yet or not.........
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
A London-based ATC friend just sent me a couple of Popular Flying
Association magazines. Lots stuff on the popularity of Piets over there.
Anyone have any idea what the level of building activity is of the Piet
outside of these shores?
Ed
>Phil,
>The reason I am going to build a Hatz is because I have a love affair with
>biplanes. Particularly old biplanes. Now my biggest dream is to own a
Travel
>Air or a Waco, but they are completely out of my price range. So that leaves
>a smaller homebuilt. And of all the homebuilt bipes out there I beleive that
>the Hatz is the only one that really looks like it came from 1929.
>Now just because I like biplanes doesn't mean that I don't like the
Pietenpol.
>I think that the Piet is a great plane and its only shortcoming is that it
>doesn't have two wings. ;-) Actually I did think about building a Piet
and I
>would like to own one. I am currently selling my Stinson 108-1 and will
be in
>the market for a smaller plane, like a Piet......
>Scott
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead, 1999 |
Hello "Piet Pals",
I'm beginning planning for journey by Ercoupe from Sonoma, CA to Brodhead, WI,
along I-80 corridor. Would like to use this trip as an opportunity to visit
Piet builders/owners en-route. If you're within a hundred miles or so of the
I-80 area, and wouldn't object to a couple of old codgers drooling on your
plane, or project, e-mail me at ADonJr(at)AOL.com.
My Piet is progressing s-l-o-w-l-y, but I am ready to build the vertical fin,
now.
Keep Pietin' along.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
This is exactly what I have been doing, too. I travel a lot and built a
case around my jig that holds all my tools and wood, then check it in as
baggage. I'll get the rib glued up with gussets on one side, raise it
off the jig surface just enough to keep it from glueing itself to the
jig, then put on the rest of the gussets the next day. So far I average
about 5 hours per rib, which includes all the cutting, sanding, etc. I
tried pulling the rib out of the jig right after putting on the first
side gussets, but found that sometimes the rib capstrips would try and
twist a bit, and I didn't like that with the glue still wet. Before I
glue on the gussets I start all the little nails, just enough to hold
them upright in the gusset with two of them poking the capstrip so I can
put them back where I had them.
When I started I was using Weldwood Plastic Resin Glue and it works
well, but I have been experimenting with a polyurethane glue similar to
what Roger Mann uses in his Rag Wing designs. Nice part about it is it
is already mixed, just squeeze it and go, and it handles the cooler
temperatures in the garage better than Weldwood. My test samples showed
better adhesion than Weldwood on prepared and unprepared surfaces,
spruce and birch plywood. It is a funny glue as the squeeze out foams a
bit and expands, but it doesn't hurt anything. I still have to try it
at elevated and cold temps, and make sure it is compatible with varnish
and covering materials, so I can't recommend it, but I'll let you know.
oil can wrote:
tearms build one rib on the jig, and "back side gusset" the yesterday's
rib each day.
>
> I could make one complete rib per day...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
Scott,
You should really enjoy the Hatz. I've been up in a Piet and in Bob
Eicher's prize winning Hatz and they were both a blast. The Hatz
controls were heavier than I thought they would be, especially the
rudder, but they were still adding gap seals at the time. There is more
room in the Hatz, too.
Mike
Hatz630(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Phil,
> The reason I am going to build a Hatz is because I have a love affair with
> biplanes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
About holding all those little nails, OUCH! I found by using a push button
type electronic probe clip. I could pick up the nail with the clip, position
it and tap it in with out hitting my thick fingers.
Tony Bengalis has a cute trick of placing a handful of nails on a tray and
tapping the tray while it is slightly inclined. This aligns all the nails
head end down and makes picking them up even easier. Less heads on the wrong
end! ;-)
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com>
Date: Saturday, October 17, 1998 9:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: to the hatz buildsrs
>This is exactly what I have been doing, too. I travel a lot and built a
>case around my jig that holds all my tools and wood, then check it in as
>baggage. I'll get the rib glued up with gussets on one side, raise it
>off the jig surface just enough to keep it from glueing itself to the
>jig, then put on the rest of the gussets the next day. So far I average
>about 5 hours per rib, which includes all the cutting, sanding, etc. I
>tried pulling the rib out of the jig right after putting on the first
>side gussets, but found that sometimes the rib capstrips would try and
>twist a bit, and I didn't like that with the glue still wet. Before I
>glue on the gussets I start all the little nails, just enough to hold
>them upright in the gusset with two of them poking the capstrip so I can
>put them back where I had them.
>
>When I started I was using Weldwood Plastic Resin Glue and it works
>well, but I have been experimenting with a polyurethane glue similar to
>what Roger Mann uses in his Rag Wing designs. Nice part about it is it
>is already mixed, just squeeze it and go, and it handles the cooler
>temperatures in the garage better than Weldwood. My test samples showed
>better adhesion than Weldwood on prepared and unprepared surfaces,
>spruce and birch plywood. It is a funny glue as the squeeze out foams a
>bit and expands, but it doesn't hurt anything. I still have to try it
>at elevated and cold temps, and make sure it is compatible with varnish
>and covering materials, so I can't recommend it, but I'll let you know.
>
>
>oil can wrote:
>tearms build one rib on the jig, and "back side gusset" the yesterday's
>rib each day.
>>
>> I could make one complete rib per day...
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piets in the UK |
Hi Ed,
Have an internet friend in Brazil who recently finished and is flying his
Model A Piet down there.
Warren.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
Just be sure to save the ones with heads on the wrong end, for the other side!
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
I've been building ribs, ribs, and more ribs, and I'm looking for some
opinions...anybody got any? I'm using cedar, which readily takes shape in the
jig by just wetting the top surface of the top piece. I now have 22 done, and
will build a couple of extras, just in case I don't like one of 'em, and also
will use one for a wall hanging, in the hanger, to monitor the wood and
adhesive over the years. I'm ready to purchase spar material, and I'm
considering 3/4" X 4-3/4" Douglas Fir for the spars. So...waddya al' think ?
ps Richard DeCosta, ya got an excellent web page !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: to the hatz buildsrs |
>About holding all those little nails, OUCH! I found by using a push button
>type electronic probe clip. I could pick up the nail with the clip, position
>it and tap it in with out hitting my thick fingers.
>Tony Bengalis has a cute trick of placing a handful of nails on a tray and
>tapping the tray while it is slightly inclined. This aligns all the nails
>head end down and makes picking them up even easier. Less heads on the wrong
>end! ;-)
>
>John Mc
I use a wire brad pusher it looks like a awl and the nail fits in a hole in
the end and the outer sleve slides back when you push the nail in.
Robert Roach
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Piets in the UK |
Hi Warren,
In reading another article on Piets in the UK, it said that there are
around 60 under construction.
Ed
>Hi Ed,
> Have an internet friend in Brazil who recently finished and is flying his
>Model A Piet down there.
> Warren.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | 0-290G for Pietenpol |
Davis B. Schober
Back when I first built my aircamper I had lots of problems with vert.
fin. I ended up adding 45 sq. inches to tail, this helped me out a
hole lot. I've had it in 20 kts. strieght cross wind, don't recomend
to get in such a x-wind but it can be done safely,in a pinch..
Afew weeks ago a friend of mine put a 0-200 on his
Piet. and what a differance that made, no more wondering if your going
to get over that wire or out of a short field
as far as CG on Piet, when your building old Piet you can move the
main wing for or aft to maintain propor CG
For the lighter Cont 65 you aft aprox. 3 1/2-41/2" back, for heavey
ford cabanes are strieght up and down
I talk to members in the BPA about differant engines used on the
Piet---anywhere from 39hp--------220hp.
could use some more discussion on what I'm doing
thanks Robert B.
---"David B. Schober" wrote:
>
> Robert,
> If you are going to go from 65 hp to 125 hp you had better do some
> calculations for stress and tail volume. The O-290 only weighs the
same
> as the Ford "A" but the added horsepower will put additional stress on
> the structure. The additional power will cause problems with
directional
> control unless you increase the verticle fin area.
>
> As far as your question about distance to prop flange, that
dimension has
> no relavence. The point you need to look for is the CG lacation of the
> engine prop combination and mount the new engine at the same CG
location.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> David Schober
>
> Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>
> > Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I
got a
> > good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> > or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> > on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> > I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
> >
> > Thanks much Robert Bozeman
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
> Scott,
> You should really enjoy the Hatz. I've been up in a Piet and in Bob
> Eicher's prize winning Hatz and they were both a blast. The Hatz
> controls were heavier than I thought they would be, especially the
> rudder, but they were still adding gap seals at the time.
I've flown in Al Sherman's Hatz at the Cottage Grove Hatz-in. I found the
controls much heavier than in my Stinson, but really didn't think they were
much more than in a Cub or Champ.
> There is more room in the Hatz, too.
I found the rear pit on the Hatz to be a good fit, but man it is a trick to
get into the front cockpit. Kinda sorta twist and turn and contort to get in.
:-)
I have never been in a Piet before. How does it compare with the Hatz?
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
My partner and I are going to plant at Poseche 914 2.2 litre , 115 hp in a
Piet .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Hatz vs. Piet |
Scott,
You are right about having to bend over and climb into the front pit of
the Hatz, with your back against the bottom of the wing, but having the
lower wing to stand on helped a little. Kind of typical of small two
seater biplanes without doors or large wing gaps. I'm 5'10" and 170
lbs, so it wasn't too bad. The Piet I flew in is actually a Grega
version with a small door on the right side of the front cockpit. To
get in the front cockpit you climbed up through the right wing struts X
cable bracing, grabbed the right front cabane strut with your right
hand, put the left hand on the coaming between the two cockpits, right
foot on the wire spoked wheel (make sure it is chocked!), then swing the
left leg over the door sill and in you go. Not difficult, but I'm not
sure how it would be without that little door. Some of the other guys
can probably comment on that.
Once in the Grega cockpit the fit was snug with the jacket I had on,
with my arms touching the upper longerons. The Hatz front cockpit
seemed to have another inch or two of room at the shoulders and was a
little deeper. The Hatz also had a slightly larger windscreen and was
less drafty.
On the fun scale they were both a blast to fly, with the Hatz being the
aerobat of the two. Both were sensitive in pitch (compared to an
Aeronca) with the Grega more so than the Hatz, both had heavy but
responsive ailerons, and the Grega had a lighter rudder. It is easier
to wave at people from the Piet, though! Now a Hatz with some wire
spoked wheels would be slick!
Mike
Hatz630(at)aol.com wrote:
> I found the rear pit on the Hatz to be a good fit, but man it is a trick to
> get into the front cockpit. Kinda sorta twist and turn and contort to get in.
> :-)
> I have never been in a Piet before. How does it compare with the Hatz?
>
> Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
220 hp on a Piet! That must have had some climb performance.
I've flown "A" powered, Corvair powered and A-65 powered Piets. The Corvair and
"A" I flew solo and the A-65 dual. When I flew the A-65 powered Piet dual it was
early morning, summer, 400-500 foot field elevation. Climb performance was about
the same or a little better than a Champ. I weigh about 220 and the person with
me was about 130. I can sympothize with you about density altitude and climb
performance. I've been hauling rides out of a 3200 ft elevation strip here in WV
this summer. Thank God for tthe supercharger on the R985 or the Howard would have
had a hard time on those days with density altitudes over 5000'.
To get the best performance out of the Piet is to keep the airframe as light as
possible. The structure is overbuilt for a low hp engine but with the O-290 be
conservitive. The fact that you already added area to the verticle fin is good.
Keep us posted on your progress.
David Schober
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> Davis B. Schober
> Back when I first built my aircamper I had lots of problems with vert.
> fin. I ended up adding 45 sq. inches to tail, this helped me out a
> hole lot. I've had it in 20 kts. strieght cross wind, don't recomend
> to get in such a x-wind but it can be done safely,in a pinch..
>
> Afew weeks ago a friend of mine put a 0-200 on his
> Piet. and what a differance that made, no more wondering if your going
> to get over that wire or out of a short field
>
> as far as CG on Piet, when your building old Piet you can move the
> main wing for or aft to maintain propor CG
> For the lighter Cont 65 you aft aprox. 3 1/2-41/2" back, for heavey
> ford cabanes are strieght up and down
>
> I talk to members in the BPA about differant engines used on the
> Piet---anywhere from 39hp--------220hp.
> could use some more discussion on what I'm doing
>
> thanks Robert B.
>
> ---"David B. Schober" wrote:
> >
> > Robert,
> > If you are going to go from 65 hp to 125 hp you had better do some
> > calculations for stress and tail volume. The O-290 only weighs the
> same
> > as the Ford "A" but the added horsepower will put additional stress on
> > the structure. The additional power will cause problems with
> directional
> > control unless you increase the verticle fin area.
> >
> > As far as your question about distance to prop flange, that
> dimension has
> > no relavence. The point you need to look for is the CG lacation of the
> > engine prop combination and mount the new engine at the same CG
> location.
> >
> > I hope this helps.
> >
> > David Schober
> >
> > Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> >
> > > Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I
> got a
> > > good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
> > > or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
> > > on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
> > > I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
> > >
> > > Thanks much Robert Bozeman
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > David B.Schober, CPE
> > Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> > Fairmont State College
> > National Aerospace Education Center
> > Rt. 3 Box 13
> > Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> > (304) 842-8300
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corvair engine codes and event announcement |
For you corvair powered flight enthusiasts, here's a little guidance for
distinguishing a 110hp engine from others which may be less desirable. The
engine suffix codes listed below refer to a number which was stamped on the
crankcase of every corvair engine on the date that it was assembled for a
particular car. The number appears on the same surface that the blower housing
(fan shroud) is attached to, and it is in plain view (under years of old
grease) just behind the area where you will find the oil filler hole. It's
behind and to the left of the distributor, if you're looking at an engine from
the back of a car. The following text is pasted from a letter I received after
having trouble identifying engines.
Before I paste the letter, I just thought I'd mention that for you folks in So.
Cal., the greatest corvair show (and swap meet) on earth takes place in just a
few weeks in Palm Springs. I've been told there are often many whole engines
and countless parts available from people whose wives have demanded they clean
out the garage. Here's a link:
http://www.integrators.com/sdcc/GWFBT&SM.html
Here's how to pick a 110 hp engine, quoted from Brent at the Corvair Center
Forum:
"fully half the Corvairs built from 1965-67 have a 110 HP Powerglide and the
suffix code for this engine is RH-
its common and a good engine. A worn out core that still runs is worth a couple
hundred dollars, a really good
used one is worth about a grand. I'd buy the best you can find, its cheaper in
the long run.
T1214RH would be an example, all will have a number like this-the number
indicates the date of engine
manufacture, in this case, December 14 of whatever year-
Powerglide engines are superior rebuild candidates generally speaking, as the
automatic limits the abuse
potential. Things like connecting rods have significantly greater service life
left in them on Powerglides of
equivalent history to manual transmission engines of similar type.
The RH code means also that the engine had neither factory Air Conditioning,
nor an Air Injection Reactor- this
is a plus, as ( the latter especially, ) they both increase engine temperatures
somewhat.
Normal lifespan of this engine in normal service is 150,000 ish miles. Many
have gone twice that far. Also,
many 1966 versions of this engine have the 95 HP cam, as Chevrolet apparently
swapped it in production for a
while-
here are all the suffix codes for 95-110 hp engines for 1965-1969
RA,RD,RE,RF,RG,RH,RJ,RK,RR,RS,RU,RV,RW,RX,QO,QP,QS,AC,AD,AE
most combinations are oddballs, like AIR or A/C combos, or manual transmission
jobs.
Theres not too much risk of getting a 140/145 cid engine in a later case, but
things can happen."
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Boynton <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
David:
You mentioned that you flew a Piet with Corvair power. do you recall which type
of engine it was (as in horsepower rating), and how was the performance? How
was the performance compared to the A-65?
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
--
On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:52:08 David B. Schober wrote:
>220 hp on a Piet! That must have had some climb performance.
>
>I've flown "A" powered, Corvair powered and A-65 powered Piets. The Corvair and
>"A" I flew solo and the A-65 dual. When I flew the A-65 powered Piet dual it was
>early morning, summer, 400-500 foot field elevation. Climb performance was about
>the same or a little better than a Champ. I weigh about 220 and the person with
>me was about 130. I can sympothize with you about density altitude and climb
>performance. I've been hauling rides out of a 3200 ft elevation strip here in
WV
>this summer. Thank God for tthe supercharger on the R985 or the Howard would have
>had a hard time on those days with density altitudes over 5000'.
>
>To get the best performance out of the Piet is to keep the airframe as light as
>possible. The structure is overbuilt for a low hp engine but with the O-290 be
>conservitive. The fact that you already added area to the verticle fin is good.
>
>Keep us posted on your progress.
>
>David Schober
>
>Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>
>> Davis B. Schober
>> Back when I first built my aircamper I had lots of problems with vert.
>> fin. I ended up adding 45 sq. inches to tail, this helped me out a
>> hole lot. I've had it in 20 kts. strieght cross wind, don't recomend
>> to get in such a x-wind but it can be done safely,in a pinch..
>>
>> Afew weeks ago a friend of mine put a 0-200 on his
>> Piet. and what a differance that made, no more wondering if your going
>> to get over that wire or out of a short field
>>
>> as far as CG on Piet, when your building old Piet you can move the
>> main wing for or aft to maintain propor CG
>> For the lighter Cont 65 you aft aprox. 3 1/2-41/2" back, for heavey
>> ford cabanes are strieght up and down
>>
>> I talk to members in the BPA about differant engines used on the
>> Piet---anywhere from 39hp--------220hp.
>> could use some more discussion on what I'm doing
>>
>> thanks Robert B.
>>
>> ---"David B. Schober" wrote:
>> >
>> > Robert,
>> > If you are going to go from 65 hp to 125 hp you had better do some
>> > calculations for stress and tail volume. The O-290 only weighs the
>> same
>> > as the Ford "A" but the added horsepower will put additional stress on
>> > the structure. The additional power will cause problems with
>> directional
>> > control unless you increase the verticle fin area.
>> >
>> > As far as your question about distance to prop flange, that
>> dimension has
>> > no relavence. The point you need to look for is the CG lacation of the
>> > engine prop combination and mount the new engine at the same CG
>> location.
>> >
>> > I hope this helps.
>> >
>> > David Schober
>> >
>> > Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
>> >
>> > > Anyone, ever run out of power with a 65 Cont.? I have!!!!!!! I
>> got a
>> > > good deal on a 0-290G, and it wieghs the same as the model A 244 lb.
>> > > or so. Can any one tell me the distance from firewall to prop flange
>> > > on the moden A, I can't seem to find my prints.
>> > > I've got 105.6hrs. on Piet and she realy flies great,
>> > >
>> > > Thanks much Robert Bozeman
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > David B.Schober, CPE
>> > Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>> > Fairmont State College
>> > National Aerospace Education Center
>> > Rt. 3 Box 13
>> > Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>> > (304) 842-8300
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>David B.Schober, CPE
>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
>Fairmont State College
>National Aerospace Education Center
>Rt. 3 Box 13
>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
>(304) 842-8300
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
The corvair was in NX899H "The Last Original". I don't recall the hp but Andrew
Pietenpol owns the airplane now and should be able to give you the details. The
"A" powered Piet was NX83WK owned by Bill
Knight. The A-65 powered one was owned by Alex Whitmore, I don't recall the N Number.
As far as performance, they seemed to be comperable. The "A" nad the Corvair I
flew solo and the A-65 was dual. It was about 12 to 15 years ago so my memory
may not be accurate, but as I recall, the A-65
seemed to have the best performance followed by the "A", then the Corvair. Even
though the Corvair is supposed to have more HP, that big slow turning prop on
the "A" seems to do a better job. I don't know
if Bill had a basically stock "A" or if it was set up for higher HP.
Hope this helps. BTW, I just had someone tell me today that they are giving me
an "A" engine. I guess it's time to get serious about building a Piet rather than
just make comments.
Mark Boynton wrote:
> David:
>
> You mentioned that you flew a Piet with Corvair power. do you recall which type
of engine it was (as in horsepower rating), and how was the performance?
How was the performance compared to the A-65?
>
> Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
> --
>
> On Mon, 19 Oct 1998 09:52:08 David B. Schober wrote:
> >220 hp on a Piet! That must have had some climb performance.
> >
> >I've flown "A" powered, Corvair powered and A-65 powered Piets. The Corvair
and
> >"A" I flew solo and the A-65 dual. When I flew the A-65 powered Piet dual it
was
> >early morning, summer, 400-500 foot field elevation. Climb performance was about
> >the same or a little better than a Champ. I weigh about 220 and the person with
> >me was about 130. I can sympothize with you about density altitude and climb
> >performance. I've been hauling rides out of a 3200 ft elevation strip here in
WV
> >this summer. Thank God for tthe supercharger on the R985 or the Howard would
have
> >had a hard time on those days with density altitudes over 5000'.
> >
> >To get the best performance out of the Piet is to keep the airframe as light
as
September 05, 1998 - October 20, 1998
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ai