Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-aj
October 20, 1998 - November 16, 1998
> >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
--
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: Hatz vs. Piet |
Once I got in the front pit of the Hatz I had plenty of room. The windscreen
wasn't tall enough for me so I had to keep hunched down a bit (no goggles).
Other than that I loved flying it.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
You mentioned using cedar for the ribs. What type of cedar? I've been doing
a little reading on woods the last few weeks and find it very interesting.
Yesterday I recieved some material from the Forest Products Laboratory in
Madison Wisconsin. In short, there appears to be several good alternatives
to Sitka Spruce for a lot less money.
Thanks, Larry
> 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 !!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
Hi Larry,
Jumping in here...would you be able to share what your resource has to
say...particularly interested in how Alaskan Yellow Cedar and Western Hemlock
compare. Found some info at EAA that certainly looks as good or better than
Sitka Spruce, for a lot less money.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Thinking of buying a Piet |
Can anyone give me some pointers as what to look for in buying a Piet.
This is not the original builder. The plane has a lycoming in it and
has been recovered once since built.
I was thinking of having a A&P do a once over on it and the engine.
What else could I do?
GY
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
Larry;;;How about sharing your findings with us???
Thnx
JoeC
>You mentioned using cedar for the ribs. What type of cedar? I've been doing
>a little reading on woods the last few weeks and find it very interesting.
>Yesterday I recieved some material from the Forest Products Laboratory in
>Madison Wisconsin. In short, there appears to be several good alternatives
>to Sitka Spruce for a lot less money.
>Thanks, Larry
>
>----------
>> 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 !!
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
In my copy of AC 43.13-1A/3, there's a table on page 22 titled "Selection
and properties of aircraft wood" that has good information about the
relative strengths, workability, and glueability of various woods. This
table uses Sitka spruce as the baseline and compares the other woods to it.
I am building a Wag-a-Bond, Wag Aero's replica of the Piper PA15/17. This
airplane has a wood wing and I am just in the rib-building stage now, doing
it per the plans. Have been thinking of using Doug Fir for the spars -- 6
1/4 inch wide forward spar and (I think) 4 3/4 inch wide rear spar. Fir is
10 percent heavier than Sitka spruce.
I too would be interested in any more information about the relative
strengths, workability and glueability of other woods.
If anyone wants this table I can scan it and email it as an attached file.
It would be a good idea for anyone who is building an airplane to have a
copy of AC 43.13-1A/3 in their builder's library, in my opinion. $16.95 from
EAA.
Regards,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
There are quite a few variables to be condidered it appears. The particular
type of fir, cedar, ect. is most important. Also the location the tree
grew, age, mosture content, etc. For our purposes specific gravity (weight)
and modulus of rupture (strength) are good benchmarks to begin with.
Alaskan Cedar (doesn't say yellow,sorry) has a specific gravity of .44 and
a modulus of rupture of 11,100 Psi. Western Hemlock shows .45 and 11,300
for those two catagories. Compare this to Sitka Spruce at .40 and 10,200.
Douglas fir varies from .46 to .50 specific gravity and 11,900 to 13,100
modolus of rupture, all depending on where it was raised in tha U.S.
Canadian Douglas fir comes in at around .45 and 12,800. Some other woods
that mught be considered are Port Orford Cedar, White Cedar, Red Pine,
Western Larch, California Red Fir, Northern White Pine, and Yellow Poplar.
Some are not as strong as Sitka Spruce and would take a bigger chunk of
wood to match it's strength. Some are real, real close and some are
stronger. Where a person is located in the US will make a lot of difference
as to availability and cost. The EAA aircraft building techniques book,
Wood, is good. The Forrest Products Laboratory, which is part of the
Department of Agriculture, has more information on wood than anyplace, and
a lot more than I can understand. There is a lot to consider when chossing
the particular pieces to purchase. I hope to get a local person that has a
lot of experience in wood to help me pick mine when the day comes.
> Hi Larry,
> Jumping in here...would you be able to share what your resource has to
> say...particularly interested in how Alaskan Yellow Cedar and Western
Hemlock
> compare. Found some info at EAA that certainly looks as good or better
than
> Sitka Spruce, for a lot less money.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
The Specific Gravity (weight) and Modulus of Rupture (strength) are two
things to look for, as well as a few others. There are a lot of varables
such as where the tree grew, moisture content, age of the tree, etc. The
particular type of cedar, fir, etc. are also very important.
> Hi Larry,
> Jumping in here...would you be able to share what your resource has to
> say...particularly interested in how Alaskan Yellow Cedar and Western
Hemlock
> compare. Found some info at EAA that certainly looks as good or better
than
> Sitka Spruce, for a lot less money.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
Hi Larry,
Thanks for the prompt response. From other readings, it appears that the
moisture content is quite important, (slow drying best) and the number of rings
per inch and the vertical grain has a very dramatic effect on the "modulus of
rupture" in that it falls off dramatically beyond 15 degrees from vertical.
Having a difficult time finding an lumber yards in So. Cal. that even carry
Western Hemlock, although have been told by a yard hand that much of what is
sold as construction grade spruce is in fact hemlock...still learning.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
To begin many other useful observations, Larry Pasley commented:
>There are quite a few variables to be condidered it appears.
Note that one of the most important variables is the plane you're building.
If we were talking about Tailwinds, the choice of wood would be critical.
Mr. Wittman didn't put a single ounce on his designs that was not absolutely
necessary. If he specified spruce, he meant it (though fir would take the
stress, at the cost of extra weight.) The Piet, OTOH, is so over-built it
hardly matters what you use, so long as it's aircraft-grade. I would not do
it without a good engineering analysis, which I'm not competent to perform,
but it would not surprise me to learn that spars made of northern white pine
were perfectly adequate. Laminate them from several pieces of pine, and
it would amaze me to learn that they were not.
In this one airplane, I don't think it matters much which wood you choose.
The worst you are likely to do is add some weight that could have been
avoided.
Of course, thinking about these things is never wasted.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
Mike,
For your project, why don't you use extruded aluminum spar blanks. It might be
cheaper than wood.
Michael Hinchman wrote:
> In my copy of AC 43.13-1A/3, there's a table on page 22 titled "Selection
> and properties of aircraft wood" that has good information about the
> relative strengths, workability, and glueability of various woods. This
> table uses Sitka spruce as the baseline and compares the other woods to it.
>
> I am building a Wag-a-Bond, Wag Aero's replica of the Piper PA15/17. This
> airplane has a wood wing and I am just in the rib-building stage now, doing
> it per the plans. Have been thinking of using Doug Fir for the spars -- 6
> 1/4 inch wide forward spar and (I think) 4 3/4 inch wide rear spar. Fir is
> 10 percent heavier than Sitka spruce.
>
> I too would be interested in any more information about the relative
> strengths, workability and glueability of other woods.
>
> If anyone wants this table I can scan it and email it as an attached file.
> It would be a good idea for anyone who is building an airplane to have a
> copy of AC 43.13-1A/3 in their builder's library, in my opinion. $16.95 from
> EAA.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
--
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: | Dave & Cheryl Wirey |
Unsubscribe trikers(at)bmmhnet.com
Thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Boynton <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
Michael:
I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the table you refer to. Thanks.
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
--
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:41:33 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>In my copy of AC 43.13-1A/3, there's a table on page 22 titled "Selection
>and properties of aircraft wood" that has good information about the
>relative strengths, workability, and glueability of various woods. This
>table uses Sitka spruce as the baseline and compares the other woods to it.
>
>I am building a Wag-a-Bond, Wag Aero's replica of the Piper PA15/17. This
>airplane has a wood wing and I am just in the rib-building stage now, doing
>it per the plans. Have been thinking of using Doug Fir for the spars -- 6
>1/4 inch wide forward spar and (I think) 4 3/4 inch wide rear spar. Fir is
>10 percent heavier than Sitka spruce.
>
>I too would be interested in any more information about the relative
>strengths, workability and glueability of other woods.
>
>If anyone wants this table I can scan it and email it as an attached file.
>It would be a good idea for anyone who is building an airplane to have a
>copy of AC 43.13-1A/3 in their builder's library, in my opinion. $16.95 from
>EAA.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Wood for wings |
Michael,
As long as you are offering, I would like a copy this table also.
Thanks.
Ed Larsen - Mapleton, UT
From: Mark Boynton [SMTP:mboynton(at)mailexcite.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 1998 4:02 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Wood for wings
Michael:
I'd be interested in seeing a copy of the table you refer to.
Thanks.
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:41:33 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>In my copy of AC 43.13-1A/3, there's a table on page 22 titled
"Selection
>and properties of aircraft wood" that has good information
about the
>relative strengths, workability, and glueability of various
woods. This
>table uses Sitka spruce as the baseline and compares the other
woods to it.
>
>I am building a Wag-a-Bond, Wag Aero's replica of the Piper
PA15/17. This
>airplane has a wood wing and I am just in the rib-building
stage now, doing
>it per the plans. Have been thinking of using Doug Fir for the
spars -- 6
>1/4 inch wide forward spar and (I think) 4 3/4 inch wide rear
spar. Fir is
>10 percent heavier than Sitka spruce.
>
>I too would be interested in any more information about the
relative
>strengths, workability and glueability of other woods.
>
>If anyone wants this table I can scan it and email it as an
attached file.
>It would be a good idea for anyone who is building an airplane
to have a
>copy of AC 43.13-1A/3 in their builder's library, in my
opinion. $16.95 from
>EAA.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Wood for wings |
Folks,
I'll scan that table from AC 43.13 tomorrow at work (don't have a scanner
here at home) and email it to those who asked for it tomorrow evening. It
will be in JPG format.
Concerning aluminum spars, I have a neighbor that has a set of good
Tri-Pacer aluminum spars that will work. I need to put a tape measure on
them to make double sure, but he will sell them to me. Wag Aero says they
should work. Was just thinking of using Fir, but obviously the aluminum
would be probably lighter. I need to see if I can find out from Wag Aero
what modifications need to be made to the ribs to fit the aluminum spars
with the I-beam cross section. I am a first-time builder, so don't have this
kind of information in my experience base yet. Anyone know the answer to
this, please speak up!
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| 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....
>
>
In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple backup system:
I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motorcycle
alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use the same
battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always goes in the
motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than the plane
:-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year, this summer
was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's battery in the
motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
I know that a new battery can fail, but....
This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more than 4 years
without any fail (nock wood :-).
Saludos
Gary Gower
PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc. acording to
Great Plains mantainance calendar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
--when I started out to build my airplane, My intention was to use a/c spruce...until
i was slapped in the face by the cost.
this turned my attention to fir. then to hemlock, as after tests, it seemed to
be stronger than fir, cut better, and is faa acceptable from my reading.
I did follow all the selection rules from the books.
Around here...Spokane, WA hemlock is as easy to find as any other lumber, so
my selection of choice pieces came from very large lots of premium wood.
As for glueing, hemlock does not glue as well as spruce, and seems to need a rough,
and very clean surface.
I have seen some of my test joints break on the glue line, and not pull wood. (t-88)
A good clean surface,that is rough makes a very strong glue joint, that does pull
wood.
hemlock and spruce take this test very well, the fir much less well.
Fir splits lengthwise with the grain, and it chips and cracks very easily. hemlock,
and spruce seem to break after much more bending, and the break is much more
centralized.
Fir however seems to be the acceptable and most used substitute for spruce though.
And as far as I know ,I am the only one who has anything critical to say about
it...
ocb
On Tue, 20 Oct 1998 07:41:33 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>In my copy of AC 43.13-1A/3, there's a table on page 22 titled "Selection
>and properties of aircraft wood" that has good information about the
>relative strengths, workability, and glueability of various woods. This
>table uses Sitka spruce as the baseline and compares the other woods to it.
>
>I am building a Wag-a-Bond, Wag Aero's replica of the Piper PA15/17. This
>airplane has a wood wing and I am just in the rib-building stage now, doing
>it per the plans. Have been thinking of using Doug Fir for the spars -- 6
>1/4 inch wide forward spar and (I think) 4 3/4 inch wide rear spar. Fir is
>10 percent heavier than Sitka spruce.
>
>I too would be interested in any more information about the relative
>strengths, workability and glueability of other woods.
>
>If anyone wants this table I can scan it and email it as an attached file.
>It would be a good idea for anyone who is building an airplane to have a
>copy of AC 43.13-1A/3 in their builder's library, in my opinion. $16.95 from
>EAA.
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
Hello Mike,
Those aluminum spars from a PA-22 Tri-Pacer should work just fine for wings
on a Wag-A-Bond (I assume this is what you are building).
I used the aluminum spars, tie rods, compression struts and fittings from a
Piper PA-16 Clipper on my Wag-A-Bond with good results. In order to satisfy
the 51% rule, I built new aluminum ribs and all other wing parts from raw
material.
The PA-16 spars have the strut attachment point a bit farther out on
the spar than the PA-15/17 Vagabonds did, making it impossible
to utilize PA-15/17 struts. However, PA-16/20/22 rear struts work
fine with the appropriate spars. The front struts from PA-16/20/22
airplanes are too heavy for the Wag-A-Bond Classic (as mine is)
using an A65 Continental, but might be OK if you build the more
powerful, heavier and faster Wag-A-Bond Traveller. I built new front
struts for mine using the tubing size called for in the plans, and I used
new Piper J3 strut forks on all four struts. Originally, PA-15/17 airplanes
used three eighths inch forks which were pretty delicate. Most, if not all,
have been replaced with the stouter J3 forks by now.
Try to obtain the rest of the hardware mentioned above along with
the spars; this will save a lot of work and make wing building much
easier. If those spars are in good condition, by all means use them.
Metal ribs would be easier to attach to the metal spars than wooden
ribs, so consider the possibility of building them from aluminum.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
{p1}
FIGURE 1.2 - Selection and properties of aircraft wood.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Key:
Species of wood
Strength properties as compared to spruce
Maximum permissible grain deviation (slope of grain)
Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Spruce (Picea) Sitka (P. Sitchensis) Red (P. Rubra) White (P. Glauca).
100%
1:15
Excellent for all uses. Considered as standard for this table.
Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga Taxifolia).
Exceeds spruce.
1:15
May be used as substitute for spruce in same sizes or in slightly
reduced sizes providing reductions are substantiated. Difficult to work with
hand tools. Some tendency to split and splinter during fabrication and
considerable more care in manufacture is necessary. Large solid pieces
should be avoided due to inspection difficulties. Gluing satisfactory.
Nobe Fir (Ables Nobiles).
Slightly exceeds spruce except 8 percent deficient in shear.
1:15
Satisfactory characteristics with respect to workability, warping, and
splitting. May be used as direct substitute for spruce in same sizes
providing shear does not become critical. Hardness somewhat less than
spruce. Gluing satisfactory.
Western Hemlock (Tsuga Heterophylla).
Slightly exceeds spruce.
1:15
Less uniform in texture than spruce. May be used as direct substitute
for spruce. Upland growth superior to lowland growth. Gluing satisfactory.
Pine, Northern White (Pinus Strobus).
Properties between 85 percent and 96 percent those of spruce.
1:15
Excellent working qualities and uniform in properties but somewhat low
in hardness and shock-resisting capacity. Cannot be used as substitute for
spruce without increase in sizes to compensate for lesser strength. Gluing
satisfactory.
White Cedar, Port Orford (Charaecyparis Lawsoniana).
Exceeds spruce.
1:15
May be used as substitute for spruce in same sizes or in slightly
reduced sizes providing reductions are substantiated. Easy to work with hand
tools. Gluing difficult but satisfactory joints can be obtained if suitable
precautions are taken.
Poplar, Yellow (Liriodendrow Tulipifera).
Slightly less than spruce except in compression (crushing) and shear.
1:15
Excellent working qualities. Should not be used as a direct substitute
for spruce without carefully accounting for slightly reduced strength
properties. Somewhat low in shock resisting capacity. Gluing satisfactory.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes for figure 1.2.
1. Defects Permitted
a. Cross grain. Spiral grain, diagonal grain, or a combination of
the two is acceptable providing the grain does not diverge from the
longitudinal axis of the material more than specified in column 3. A check
of all four faces of the board is necessary to determine the amount of
divergence. The direction of free-flowing ink will frequently assist in
determining grain direction.
b. Wavy, curly, and interlocked grain. Acceptable, if local
irregularities do not exceed limitations specified for spiral and diagonal
grain.
c. Hard knots. Sound hard knots up to 3/8 inch in maximum diameter
are acceptable providing: (1) they are not in projecting portions of
I-beams, along the edges of rectangular or beveled unrouted beams, or along
the edges of flanges of box beams (except in lowly stressed portions); (2)
they do not cause grain divergence at the edges of the board or in the
flanges of a beam more than specified in column 3; and (3) they are in the
center third of the beam and are not closer than 20 inches to another knot
or other defect (pertains to 3/8 inch knots - smaller knots may be
proportionately closer). Knots greater than 1/4 inch must be used with
caution.
d. Pin knot clusters. Small clusters are acceptable providing they
produce only a small effect on grain direction.
e. Pitch pockets. Acceptable, In center portion of a beam providing
they are at least 14 inches apart when they lie in the same growth ring and
do not exceed 1-1/2 inch length by 1/8 inch width by 1/8 inch depth and
providing they are not along the projecting portions of I-beams, along the
edges of rectangular or beveled unrouted beams, or along the edges of the
flanges of box beams.
f. Mineral streaks. Acceptable, providing careful inspection fails
to reveal any decay.
2. Defects Not Permitted.
a. Cross grain. Not acceptable, unless within limitations noted in
1a.
b. Wavy, curly, and interlocked grain. Not acceptable, unless
within limitations noted in 1b.
c. Hard knots. Not acceptable, unless within limitations noted in
1c.
d. Pin knot clusters. Not acceptable, if they produce large effect
on grain direction.
e. Spike knots. These are knots running completely through the
depth of a beam perpendicular to the annual rings and appear most frequently
in quartersawed lumber. Reject wood containing this defect.
f. Pitch pockets. Not acceptable, unless within limitations noted
in 1e.
g. Mineral streaks. Not acceptable if accompanied by decay (see
1f).
h. Checks, shakes, and splits. Checks are longitudinal cracks
extending, in general, across the annual rings. Shakes are longitudinal
cracks usually between two annual rings. Splits are longitudinal cracks
induced by artificially induced stress. Reject wood containing these
defects.
i. Compression wood. This defect is very detrimental to strength
and is difficult to recognize readily. It is characterized by high specific
gravity; has the appearance of an excessive growth of summer wood; and In
most species shows but little contrast in color between spring wood and
summer wood. In doubtful cases reject the material, or subject samples to a
toughness machine test to establish the quality of the wood. Reject all
material containing compression wood.
j. Compression failures. This defect is caused from the wood being
overstressed in compression due to natural forces during the growth of the
tree, felling trees on rough or irregular ground, or rough handling of logs
or lumber. Compression failures are characterized by a buckling of the
fibers that appear as streaks on the surface of the piece substantially at
right angles to the grain, and vary from pronounced failures to very fine
hairlines that require close inspection to detect. Reject wood containing
obvious failures. In doubtful cases reject the wood, or make a further
inspection in the form of microscopic examination or toughness test, the
latter means being the more reliable.
k. Decay. Examine all stains and discolorations carefully to
determine whether or not they are harmless, or in a stage of preliminary or
advanced decay. All pieces must be free from rot, dote, red heart, purple
heart, and all other forms of decay.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
Gary, I'm flying with no backup. However, I do have all new ignition
parts, a volt meter in the panel, and a regular sized car battery (525
cold crank amps) with terrific reserve starting power. I used a smaller
lawnmower battery for a while but didn't feel good about it. It would
always run down while I was tuning the engine--lots of starts. I'm using
the regular Ford Escort alternator. I figure with the big battery the
engine will run for hours if the alternator quits. In the meantime I keep
an eye on the volt meter for 14+ volts charging. I inspect the battery
cables regularly. Naturally I pay a weight penalty--770 lb plane. I
figure how often does a car ignition fail and gain some comfort. Yeah,
I'm still concerned about it.
>>> Gary Gower 10/20 6:51 PM >>>
>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....
>
>
In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple backup
system:
I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motorcycle
alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use the same
battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always goes in the
motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than the plane
:-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year, this
summer
was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's battery in the
motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
I know that a new battery can fail, but....
This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more than 4 years
without any fail (nock wood :-).
Saludos
Gary Gower
PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc. acording
to
Great Plains mantainance calendar.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Auto ignition problems |
Funny this should come up on the list. Just last night Duane Woolsey called
me (subaru powered piet) and said that he had an inflight problem with his
charging system. During an instrument scan he noticed that the volt meter
dropped from 14 to 12 volts then began a steady drop till it was at 8 volts.
He made a hasty flight back to the airport, pulled the cowl and discovered
the alternater bolt had worked loose and slackened the belt. He is running
a motorcycle battery without a starter.
Steve (haven't been flying for 10 days!) E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Hi Guys:
This comm is a request from Ed Snyder.
His "A" powered Sky Scout is flying. He wants to move the radiator down
into the cowl. He seeks info as to how to make this installation.
Mike (Piet N687MB)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
In the last four years I made an on hand experiment:
I used to have a 1983 Datsun Station wagon, and in 3 years of everyday
driving (my wife Aida drove it) I never changed plugs or points, every year
I only regaped the points (the friction block normal use).
I made this in porpouse because I wanted to use the .009 distributor in the
airplane. I am convinced because that little engine never missed a beat!!
My other car is a 1,800 VW Bus with the 4 in line (Golf type) engine,
electronic ignition.
The only engine mantainance I give is oil change and plugs, has almost
100,000 miles and the only engine ralated failure was that the idle bearing
for the timing belt freezed and broked the timing belt (2 months ago), I
use it as my everyday transport and for vacation trips with the family.
The only backup is the spare tyre :-)
Since 6 months ago I bought for Aida a VW Golf.
The guy that bought my Datsun still has not changed the points, only the
spark plugs, the electrode from the plugs (the middle point) was completly
finished, level with the insulator but still firing!
In the plane's engine In the mantainance list its logged to replace the
points, condenser and plugs every 50 hrs or 1 year (what ever is first), I
just dont want to push start my plane in a cloud :-) ONE IMPORTANT THING is
to regap the points at the first 5 hrs of changing, for the normal wear fit
of the new points. In the points era, cars was very common to have the car
"tuned up" before a vacation trip, only to have an engine failure at the
middle of the road because the points closed.
Saludos
Gary Gower
>Gary, I'm flying with no backup. However, I do have all new ignition
parts, a volt meter in the panel, and a regular sized car battery (525 cold
crank amps) with terrific reserve starting power. I used a smaller
lawnmower battery for a while but didn't feel good about it. It would
always run down while I was tuning the engine--lots of starts. I'm using
the regular Ford Escort alternator. I figure with the big battery the
engine will run for hours if the alternator quits. In the meantime I keep
an eye on the volt meter for 14+ volts charging. I inspect the battery
cables regularly. Naturally I pay a weight penalty--770 lb plane. I figure
how often does a car ignition fail and gain some comfort. Yeah, I'm still
concerned about it.
>
>>>> Gary Gower 10/20 6:51 PM >>>
>>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....
>>
>>
>In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple backup system:
>
>I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motorcycle
>alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use the same
>battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always goes in the
>motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than the plane
>:-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year, this summer
>was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's battery in the
>motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
>
>I know that a new battery can fail, but....
>
>This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more than 4 years
>without any fail (nock wood :-).
>
>Saludos
>
>
>Gary Gower
>
>PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc. acording to
>Great Plains mantainance calendar.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Mike,
How ya doin?
I've got a drawing somewhere that Orrin Hoopman made of radiator
installation as in the Scout that Dick Roberts used to have that now belongs
to Ilsa Harmininski (sp?). You might try to get ahold of this one.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 10:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Scout
>Hi Guys:
>
>This comm is a request from Ed Snyder.
>His "A" powered Sky Scout is flying. He wants to move the radiator down
>into the cowl. He seeks info as to how to make this installation.
>
>Mike (Piet N687MB)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
while looking in the local recreational vehical dealers, i saw some
wheels and brakes for a trailer with a 1 1/2 inch axle for a reasonable
price, ie $120 per side. Has anyone used this type of gear on a Piet? If
so, what was your experience? The landing speed is such that the gear is
likely not going to reach freeway speeds. Rims were 15 inch and 16 inch.
Does any one out there have a Canadian source for a Corvair block/ or
complete motor? Seem to be not having much luck at locating anything.
Anyone know of anyone in the midwest U.S that supplies corvair engines?
The project is hanging from the ceiling for the winter and I need to get
a motor and gear under way.
Thanks,
-=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Wood for wings |
Graham,
Would you be willing to share more information on how to build aluminum
ribs? I.e. raw materials and sources, plans, costs, time to build,
assembly instructions, etc. Is there a good book out there that takes
one through the process of building aluminum ribs and assembling
aluminum wings? I am trying to decide which way to go, aluminum or
wood. I understand that the aluminum "capstrip" material is a
"T-section", while the rib "bracing?" has an angle cross section, and
they are riveted together. The part I do not understand is how you bend
the rib curvature into a piece of "T-section" without cutting away some
of the vertical section or having it buckle. I am not sure if I have
explained myself well or not. Can you help me understand how this is
accomplished? A&E Aircraft sells wing components, sells wing kits,
fuselage kits, spars, ribs, aluminum stock, etc.
www.globaldialog.com/~aeaircraft
<http://www.globaldialog.com/~aeaircraft>
I understand that there is another outfit out there called South Dakoda
Cub, that sells supplies for aluminum wings. I have searched for them
on the net, but cannot find them. Does anyone out there know how to get
a hold of them?
Are there other sources that may have better pricing or that may be
better to work with? I would appreciate any information anyone could
spare. I would also like more information about how to get in touch with
the Cub Club. I have searched for them on the net, but have been
unsuccessful. Thank you.
Best regards,
Ed Larsen - Mapleton, UT
From: Graham Hansen [SMTP:grhans@cable-lynx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 2:24 AM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: Wood for wings
Hello Mike,
Those aluminum spars from a PA-22 Tri-Pacer should work just
fine for wings
on a Wag-A-Bond (I assume this is what you are building).
I used the aluminum spars, tie rods, compression struts and
fittings from a
Piper PA-16 Clipper on my Wag-A-Bond with good results. In order
to satisfy
the 51% rule, I built new aluminum ribs and all other wing parts
from raw
material.
The PA-16 spars have the strut attachment point a bit farther
out on
the spar than the PA-15/17 Vagabonds did, making it impossible
to utilize PA-15/17 struts. However, PA-16/20/22 rear struts
work
fine with the appropriate spars. The front struts from
PA-16/20/22
airplanes are too heavy for the Wag-A-Bond Classic (as mine is)
using an A65 Continental, but might be OK if you build the more
powerful, heavier and faster Wag-A-Bond Traveller. I built new
front
struts for mine using the tubing size called for in the plans,
and I used
new Piper J3 strut forks on all four struts. Originally,
PA-15/17 airplanes
used three eighths inch forks which were pretty delicate. Most,
if not all,
have been replaced with the stouter J3 forks by now.
Try to obtain the rest of the hardware mentioned above along
with
the spars; this will save a lot of work and make wing building
much
easier. If those spars are in good condition, by all means use
them.
Metal ribs would be easier to attach to the metal spars than
wooden
ribs, so consider the possibility of building them from
aluminum.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
For all of you great people on the net, sharing so much information. I use
this net as an illstration of cooperation in my Introdction to Sociology
course where we have a unit on Groups and Interaction. I am always interested
in engine mods. A friend has built an Acro Sport, and a GP-4. The latter is of
all wood construction. I visited him many times when he was putting it
together. It lasted over 5+ years.The GP-4 is a remarkable kite, 240 kts on
200 hp.
Today I wanted to say thanks for the flying stories. I place myself in the
plane with each of you. I remember a time some 50 years ago now, flying in a
J2 Cub from Springfield, Ill to Pekin, Ill. We encountered a flight of duck at
abot or altitude
(600 ft. agl). As we passed them the lead duck turned its head and checked us
ot sort of saying "Scat, you are in our airspace." I believe fall is the best
time to fly, the cool air certainly provides a lot of extra lift. We compared
our flight to one in June, when we really had to wait as our roc was only
about 100fpm, it we could reach that!
I have followed the discussion about warmth in the flight decks.. I
received one of the come ons from Magazine people, guaranteeing money.. and
attaching several
things to order.. I see they have a set of thermal socks and gloves.. 4
payments of
only $2.49 each. Anyone use these? I know of the heated socks.
Thanks. Dr. Orville Lanham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Attaching ribs to spars |
While I'm flying my Piet, I've started on a Prober Pixie. I'm using the
book The Techniques of Aircraft Building published by Acro Sport, Inc.,
P.O. Box 462, Hales Corners, WI 53130. This passage caught my eye:
"Glue each rib into place and two or three rust proof aircraft nails of
=BD by 20 gauge through each rib vertical into the spar will do. Do not
drive nails through the cap strips into the top or bottom of the surface
of the spars for this will weaken the cap strips at a point of concentrate=
d stresses."
The underlining is mine. This is the first time I've been aware of this
advice. I nailed them on my Piet. Just thought you might be interested.
Incidentally, this is an excellent book for building wood, tube, fabric
airplanes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <duprey(at)mailexcite.com> |
Steve:
Michael Cuy reccomended I request you put me on the Piet discussion group. Please
If you would do so.
Thank you
John Duprey
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | Trouble with scanner |
You folks who asked for a copy of the table on wood from AC 43.13: I'm
having challenges with one scanner and got garbage today, but will get the
captures tomorrow on a scanner that I KNOW works properly. I'll post them
tomorrow evening, to the Pietenpol group, or if that's not possible, to each
of you individually.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Trouble with scanner |
I can't comprehend anyone trying to build an airplane without a reference like
AC43.13-1a &2a. To spend money for wood, tools, engines, steel . . . and be to
cheap to spend $18.00 to $20.00 on one of the best reference books around when
it comes to aircraft inspection, alteration and building just doesn't make
sense.
AC43.13-1a Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices - Aircraft Inspection
and Repair and AC43.13-2a Acceptable Methods, Techniques, and Practices -
Aircraft Alterations are available from the U.S. Government Printing Office or
a
combined reprint is available from Aviation Book Company, Jeppesen, Aircraft
Spruce and many other sources.
Michael Hinchman wrote:
> You folks who asked for a copy of the table on wood from AC 43.13: I'm
> having challenges with one scanner and got garbage today, but will get the
> captures tomorrow on a scanner that I KNOW works properly. I'll post them
> tomorrow evening, to the Pietenpol group, or if that's not possible, to each
> of you individually.
>
> Mike
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Interesting Museum |
I took my parents, who are visiting from Newfoundland, up to the Reynolds
Museum in Wetaskewan (just south of Edmonton, Alberta) yesterday. This is
a Museum dedicated to Stan Reynold, an avid collector of mechanical stuff
like antique cars, trucks, farm equipment, construction equipment and my
favorite, planes. The Museum was built by the provincial govt. to house
the collection. Stan still runs a scrap yard containing hundreds of old
used antique machinery including hundreds of pre 1950 vehicles (lots of
Model A and T stuff; hint, hint, nudge, nudge, say no more!)
Anyway, hanging from the ceiling of the museum is a wonderful, Model A
powered Piet! I'm not sure if it's in flying condition, but it was
beautifully restored in a red with white trim. The placard mentioned that
the engine had been modified by adding a thrust bearing and pressurized
oil system and was built in the 30's. These museum guys are used to
rebuilding show quality cars and equipment so the plane is in much better
than new condition (the finish is way too shiny for a '30's plane ;-).
Unfortunately, I had forgotten to take my flash, so I couldn't get a good
pic. However, we will be returning and I'll definitely get a picture for
the web page.
Some of the other interesting planes were the Curtis Canuck (Canadian
Jenny, I think), a 1919 homebuilt Reynold's Special (Model A powered,
Bleriot look-a like), and a beautiful C-37 Airmaster. The last was my
personal favorite. 155 mph on 145 hp radial. I had never seen one before
but it's a 4 place, rag and tube, cantilevered high wing that looks like a
miniature C-190/195. The first thing you notice is the 1' deep spar box
that runs right behind the first row of seats (right height for a headrest
for the front seats). This would make a really neat homebuilt although
you'd probably have to go to a Lyc 160-180 hp engine as the Warner radials
are getting pretty scarce.
Sorry if this is a little off topic, but if you're ever in Western Canada,
the Reynold-Alberta Museum is a definite must see.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting Museum |
Ken- thanks for the museum info. Sounds like your visit really beat a
day at work, eh ? Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark Boynton <mboynton(at)mailexcite.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Trouble with scanner |
Mike:
I downloaded the table you sent. It was a two page document that came through
just fine. Did I miss some of it? Thanks for the help.
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
--
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:54:55 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>You folks who asked for a copy of the table on wood from AC 43.13: I'm
>having challenges with one scanner and got garbage today, but will get the
>captures tomorrow on a scanner that I KNOW works properly. I'll post them
>tomorrow evening, to the Pietenpol group, or if that's not possible, to each
>of you individually.
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood for wings |
I too would like a copy of the table.
Thanks, Larry
> Folks,
>
> I'll scan that table from AC 43.13 tomorrow at work (don't have a scanner
> here at home) and email it to those who asked for it tomorrow evening. It
> will be in JPG format.
>
> Concerning aluminum spars, I have a neighbor that has a set of good
> Tri-Pacer aluminum spars that will work. I need to put a tape measure on
> them to make double sure, but he will sell them to me. Wag Aero says they
> should work. Was just thinking of using Fir, but obviously the aluminum
> would be probably lighter. I need to see if I can find out from Wag Aero
> what modifications need to be made to the ribs to fit the aluminum spars
> with the I-beam cross section. I am a first-time builder, so don't have
this
> kind of information in my experience base yet. Anyone know the answer to
> this, please speak up!
>
> Mike
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
Is your VW powered plane a Volksplane?
Thanks, Larry
> >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....
> >
> >
> In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple backup
> system:
>
> I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motorcycle
> alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use the same
> battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always goes in the
> motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than the plane
> :-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year, this
summer
> was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's battery in the
> motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
>
> I know that a new battery can fail, but....
>
> This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more than 4 years
> without any fail (nock wood :-).
>
> Saludos
>
>
> Gary Gower
>
> PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc. acording
to
> Great Plains mantainance calendar.
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
I'm building a Piet with a Ford A as the 'motor'. Wondering if anyone
out there has bothered with an alternator or generator? Maybe on the
waterpump pulley, or even a wind generator? I plan on nav and landing,
panel and 'cargo' lights, so a 12v motorcycle battery will be mounted
against the firewall (between the front rudder pedals). Shouldn't be a
huge electrical load, and I wouldn't be flying for very long at night
(dusk), but I wanted to have lights as an option just in case I stayed
out too late -
-Carmen
--
----------------------
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: Escort Powered Piet |
No, in fact is a "little" modified Ramsey Bathtub from the 1932 Flying and
Glider Manual (plans in page 60).
The modifications are:
Structure of the tail braced with tubes not with wires.
Tail a little bit shorter (2.5 times the wing chord, as in Bejoun's booklet)
Converted as a tricycle gear.
Tailfeders hinges from tube, not with plaquettes (sp?)
Wittman=B4s Tailwind type pedals.
Several "modern" safer parts that I have read from, developed since 1929.
Now (beguined last month) I am building new wings with a Ribblet airfoil,
need more climb (4997 ASL grass Aerodrome).
I sincerly NOT recomend modifying a plane... LOTS of unfinishing work, but
you need lots of patience, reading and research. At least this season flew
good and safe enough, but with not much climbing performance. Great little
airplane, I love to work in it.
I also own (in partenship) a VP-1 that will be finished this year (hope), we
bought it 90% finished, the owner lost his job and got a new job in another
State but could not take it with him, (he still owns a Share, pilots are
like brothers here).
Saludos
Gary Gower
>Is your VW powered plane a Volksplane?
>Thanks, Larry
>
>----------
>> >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....
>> >
>> >
>> In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple backup
>> system:
>>
>> I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motorcycle
>> alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use the same
>> battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always goes in the
>> motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than the=
plane
>> :-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year, this
>summer
>> was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's battery in the
>> motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
>>
>> I know that a new battery can fail, but....
>>
>> This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more than 4 years
>> without any fail (nock wood :-).
>>
>> Saludos
>>
>>
>> Gary Gower
>>
>> PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc. acording
>to
>> Great Plains mantainance calendar.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Done! welcome to the list.
Best regards
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
John Duprey
Sent: Wednesday, October 21, 1998 5:41 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet forum
Steve:
Michael Cuy reccomended I request you put me on the Piet discussion group.
Please If you would do so.
Thank you
John Duprey
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: The Tailwind |
Does anyone know of a Tailwind being built of all wood ?Did Steve Wightmen
build his first one of all wood ? If yes , does anybody know what the
differenence in price would be . just thinking out loud for now . I want to
build a plane of all wood and use a Corvair engine . I'm thinking of possible
putting the Corvair in a Tailwind . ihave 2 Corvair engine now . got to go
for know . See ya
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
Regarding the optional steel strip on the bottom of the fuselage connecting
the landing gear fittings on the split axle. You fellows that are flying,
did you install this? How necessary is this? Those of you that opt not to
install this strip, have there been any problems as a result of it not being
there?? It seems to me that the white ash pieces should be more than capable
to handle the loads imposed. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion as I'm
now mounting my gear and if it's truly not needed, why add weight.
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Hi Carmen
I started out building a "B" Ford engine for my Piet but partway through
it I found an ADC Cirrus Mk11 engine. The Cirrus is about the same weight as
the A but has 85 hp @1900 rpm. (If I can make it run again) I have been
considering methods of supplying a few light electrical loads. The Cirrus
has two Mags but Ive been thinking that I might replace one with electronic
ignition. That would require only a few amps. I also want to install Nav
lights and a strobe so the faster boys might see me better. Have you thought
about using a permanent magnet DC motor, aboout the size of a car heater
motor, fan driven? It should be reasonably light compared to a small
alternator. The excess voltage and current could be bled off through a zener
diode and heat sink the way some motorcycles and RV's do it. I haven't
actually tried wind driving a motor as a generator. But it worked using a
heater motor and a variable speed drill as the source. I mounted a diode on
the motor to act as a cut out an reved out the drill. I got it to charge at
about 8 amps at 14 volts. I've been wondering if a model airplane prop
would spin it fast enough. Hmm could hang it out of the car sunroof and try
it out at piet cruise speed.
J Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Carmen A. Natalie <carmen(at)cana.com>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ford A
>I'm building a Piet with a Ford A as the 'motor'. Wondering if anyone
>out there has bothered with an alternator or generator? Maybe on the
>waterpump pulley, or even a wind generator? I plan on nav and landing,
>panel and 'cargo' lights, so a 12v motorcycle battery will be mounted
>against the firewall (between the front rudder pedals). Shouldn't be a
>huge electrical load, and I wouldn't be flying for very long at night
>(dusk), but I wanted to have lights as an option just in case I stayed
>out too late -
>
>-Carmen
>
>--
>----------------------
>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: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
Thanks! I think the DC motor idea just might work. 8 amps would be
plenty, I should think!
A while back, I saw an article in SA about using a bicycle generator and
a model airplane prop, and the fellow had pretty good results. He had
to use a prop that was pitched to be almost 'feathered', since at 65 mph
he was burning out bearings on the little generator if the prop had too
little pitch (spinning way too fast..). Of course, some of my fellow
Piet builders think any electrical is too much...!
-Carmen
John McNarry wrote:
>
> Hi Carmen
> I started out building a "B" Ford engine for my Piet but partway through
> it I found an ADC Cirrus Mk11 engine. The Cirrus is about the same weight as
> the A but has 85 hp @1900 rpm. (If I can make it run again) I have been
> considering methods of supplying a few light electrical loads. The Cirrus
> has two Mags but Ive been thinking that I might replace one with electronic
> ignition. That would require only a few amps. I also want to install Nav
> lights and a strobe so the faster boys might see me better. Have you thought
> about using a permanent magnet DC motor, aboout the size of a car heater
> motor, fan driven? It should be reasonably light compared to a small
> alternator. The excess voltage and current could be bled off through a zener
> diode and heat sink the way some motorcycles and RV's do it. I haven't
> actually tried wind driving a motor as a generator. But it worked using a
> heater motor and a variable speed drill as the source. I mounted a diode on
> the motor to act as a cut out an reved out the drill. I got it to charge at
> about 8 amps at 14 volts. I've been wondering if a model airplane prop
> would spin it fast enough. Hmm could hang it out of the car sunroof and try
> it out at piet cruise speed.
>
> J Mc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mr. Carmen A. Natalie <carmen(at)cana.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 2:07 PM
> Subject: Ford A
>
> >I'm building a Piet with a Ford A as the 'motor'. Wondering if anyone
> >out there has bothered with an alternator or generator? Maybe on the
> >waterpump pulley, or even a wind generator? I plan on nav and landing,
> >panel and 'cargo' lights, so a 12v motorcycle battery will be mounted
> >against the firewall (between the front rudder pedals). Shouldn't be a
> >huge electrical load, and I wouldn't be flying for very long at night
> >(dusk), but I wanted to have lights as an option just in case I stayed
> >out too late -
> >
> >-Carmen
> >
> >--
> >----------------------
> >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
> >----------------------
> >
--
----------------------
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: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Trouble with scanner |
Mark,
I didn't send it. I am unable to get a clean copy. Some other kind soul did
the deed. My thanks to him.
Someone else said that AC 43.13 is a good addition to our builder's
libraries. I agree with that and suggest that everyone who builds airplanes
get one. They are only $16.95 from EAA. If someone thinks that's too much
money for what it contains, get far away from airplanes, because they are an
expensive hobby!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
Boynton
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 11:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Trouble with scanner
Mike:
I downloaded the table you sent. It was a two page document that came
through just fine. Did I miss some of it? Thanks for the help.
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
--
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:54:55 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>You folks who asked for a copy of the table on wood from AC 43.13: I'm
>having challenges with one scanner and got garbage today, but will get the
>captures tomorrow on a scanner that I KNOW works properly. I'll post them
>tomorrow evening, to the Pietenpol group, or if that's not possible, to
each
>of you individually.
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Regarding the optional steel strip on the bottom of the fuselage connecting
Joe- I put it there just for piece of mind on my straight axle gear too.
I used fairly thin 4130 strip....maybe .015" or so.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Escort Powered Piet |
Gary,
Would you please send me your e-mail address? Thanks, Larry
> No, in fact is a "little" modified Ramsey Bathtub from the 1932 Fly=
ing and
> Glider Manual (plans in page 60).
>
> The modifications are:
>
> Structure of the tail braced with tubes not with wires.
> Tail a little bit shorter (2.5 times the wing chord, as in Bejoun's
booklet)
> Converted as a tricycle gear.
> Tailfeders hinges from tube, not with plaquettes (sp?)
> Wittman=B4s Tailwind type pedals.
> Several "modern" safer parts that I have read from, developed since=
1929.
>
> Now (beguined last month) I am building new wings with a Ribblet ai=
rfoil,
> need more climb (4997 ASL grass Aerodrome).
>
> I sincerly NOT recomend modifying a plane... LOTS of unfinishing wo=
rk, but
> you need lots of patience, reading and research. At least this sea=
son
flew
> good and safe enough, but with not much climbing performance. Grea=
t
little
> airplane, I love to work in it.
>
> I also own (in partenship) a VP-1 that will be finished this year (=
hope),
we
> bought it 90% finished, the owner lost his job and got a new job in
another
> State but could not take it with him, (he still owns a Share, pilot=
s are
> like brothers here).
>
> Saludos
>
> Gary Gower
>
> >Is your VW powered plane a Volksplane?
> >Thanks, Larry
> >
> >----------
> >> >What is everyone doing for a backup on power plants like the es=
cort?
I
> >would
> >> >want to use a circuit that would allow for a backup jell-cell b=
attery
so
> >if
> >> my
> >> >alternator or main battery died my engine wouldn't stop turning=
....
> >> >
> >> >
> >> In my actual plane (not a Piet of course) I am using this simple=
backup
> >> system:
> >>
> >> I use a VW 1,850 cc. engine with normal .009 distributor, motor=
cycle
> >> alternator (from a Honda 125 cc) and a 12 volt battery. I use
the
same
> >> battery as the one in my motorcycle, the older battery always go=
es in
the
> >> motorcycle, that way is easyer to push-start the motorcycle than=
the
plane
> >> :-) I service both batteries the same saturday 3 times a year,=
this
> >summer
> >> was the first motorcycle's battery fail, I put the plane's batte=
ry in
the
> >> motorcycle and a brand new one in the plane.
> >>
> >> I know that a new battery can fail, but....
> >>
> >> This system has worked in another friends volkplane for more tha=
n 4
years
> >> without any fail (nock wood :-).
> >>
> >> Saludos
> >>
> >>
> >> Gary Gower
> >>
> >> PS Of course, we do mantainance to the plugs, change oil, etc.
acording
> >to
> >> Great Plains mantainance calendar.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A Beautiful Piet |
Mike,
I just found the excellent pics of your fine looking Piet on the BPA site.
Truly enjoyable. Do I see a little dihedral in your wings? Maybe a degree or
two, or is it just the camera angle? If yes, does this improve stability?
Since your plane has so many of the features I wish to incorporate in my
project, ( wire wheels, spreader bar gear, etc.) I will probably have more
questions for you as my plane progresses. Thanx for the inspiration!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: A Beautiful Piet |
>Mike,
>I just found the excellent pics of your fine looking Piet on the BPA site.
>Truly enjoyable. Do I see a little dihedral in your wings? Maybe a
degree or
>two, or is it just the camera angle? If yes, does this improve stability?
Don ! Thanks for the nice comments. The plane is just a riot.
Can't seem to get enough of it.
Yes, yes- about 1.5 to 2.0 degrees of diehedral were intentionally
put into the wings. Flown some without and this one seems more
stable. Also if you go with 0 deg.'s it almost gives the illusion of
a 'wing droop'. Like one guy here told me, " birds have diehedral
don't they ?"
>Since your plane has so many of the features I wish to incorporate in my
>project, ( wire wheels, spreader bar gear, etc.) I will probably have more
>questions for you as my plane progresses. Thanx for the inspiration!
No problem ! (Naturally I like your choices !)
God Bless ! Mike Cuy
>Don Cooley
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system system
with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs, you
can't afford the weight.
Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Carmen A. Natalie <carmen(at)cana.com>
Date: Thursday, October 22, 1998 3:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ford A
>I'm building a Piet with a Ford A as the 'motor'. Wondering if anyone
>out there has bothered with an alternator or generator? Maybe on the
>waterpump pulley, or even a wind generator? I plan on nav and landing,
>panel and 'cargo' lights, so a 12v motorcycle battery will be mounted
>against the firewall (between the front rudder pedals). Shouldn't be a
>huge electrical load, and I wouldn't be flying for very long at night
>(dusk), but I wanted to have lights as an option just in case I stayed
>out too late -
>
>-Carmen
>
>--
>----------------------
>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
>----------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I had mixed feelings on this strip. I didn't install it simply because I
didn't realize there was the option when I made my landing gear attach
plates. If I were to do it again I would integrate the strap in the plate
construction and fasten it to the ash member in a couple of places in the
middle. I finally decided not to redo the LG plates and installed them as
it. I have not had a problem with it. Another Piet builder here did add
the strips and actually ground looped the aircraft after a landing hard
enough to fold one wheel. His strap bowed down from the fuse an inch or so,
but there was no damage to the wood or ash member. Take your pick.
Regardless it is one tough bird.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
fishin
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 7:17 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: steel strip
Regarding the optional steel strip on the bottom of the fuselage connecting
the landing gear fittings on the split axle. You fellows that are flying,
did you install this? How necessary is this? Those of you that opt not to
install this strip, have there been any problems as a result of it not being
there?? It seems to me that the white ash pieces should be more than capable
to handle the loads imposed. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion as I'm
now mounting my gear and if it's truly not needed, why add weight.
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Trouble with scanner |
Speaking of information sources. I have the Summit Aviation Computerized
Aviation Reference Library (where I instantly pulled a copy of AC 43.13-1a)
It is just about everything that the FAA has ever published on CD. I think
it is about $99. Saved my butt several times during the FAA inspection too.
I was able to quickly pull up the regs regarding NX registration, which my
inspector was completely unfamilliar with, and something about seat belts he
had issue with, and I was able to print every AD ever on my A-65 and have a
hard copy of compliance there for him too. Easily saved me over $100 on
that day in frustration! You will not be dissapointed. It is availible
through sporty's and a couple other mail order houses, or call direct
1-800-328-6280 and talk to Jon. OK, ok he is my uncle, but you will not
find a better product.
Check,
www.summitaviation.com
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Michael Hinchman
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 8:39 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Trouble with scanner
Mark,
I didn't send it. I am unable to get a clean copy. Some other kind soul did
the deed. My thanks to him.
Someone else said that AC 43.13 is a good addition to our builder's
libraries. I agree with that and suggest that everyone who builds airplanes
get one. They are only $16.95 from EAA. If someone thinks that's too much
money for what it contains, get far away from airplanes, because they are an
expensive hobby!
Mike
-----Original Message-----
Boynton
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 11:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Trouble with scanner
Mike:
I downloaded the table you sent. It was a two page document that came
through just fine. Did I miss some of it? Thanks for the help.
Mark Boynton, Phoenix, AZ
--
On Wed, 21 Oct 1998 19:54:55 Michael Hinchman wrote:
>You folks who asked for a copy of the table on wood from AC 43.13: I'm
>having challenges with one scanner and got garbage today, but will get the
>captures tomorrow on a scanner that I KNOW works properly. I'll post them
>tomorrow evening, to the Pietenpol group, or if that's not possible, to
each
>of you individually.
>
>Mike
>
>
http://www.mailexcite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
What may be junk to one could be important to another.
One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
> ----------
> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Ford A
>
> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
>
> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
> system
> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs,
> you
> can't afford the weight.
>
> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
>
> John
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
Good a.m.
Brakes are on my list of useless junk. Most especially if you are using a
Ford A.
The controls in the front are on the plans.........
Stick to the plans. Keep it light.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 11:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Ford A
>What may be junk to one could be important to another.
>One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
>
>> ----------
>> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
>> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Ford A
>>
>> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
>>
>> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
>> system
>> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
>> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs,
>> you
>> can't afford the weight.
>>
>> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
>> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
>> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
>>
>> John
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building per plans Was: Re: Ford A |
Changes are fine for those that know what they're doing, but anyone
who is listening who may be a beginner like me, DONT CHANGE THE PLANS
unless you know exactly what you are doing, or have your change looked
at and approved by an expert. I thought about changing one or two
things on mine, then had myself a little daydream about my amateur
airplane dropping out of the sky in a little ball and decided to
listen only to Mr. Pietenpol. He knew EXACTLY what he was doing, and I
don't.
Richard
---John Greenlee wrote:
>
> Good a.m.
>
> Brakes are on my list of useless junk. Most especially if you are
using a
> Ford A.
>
> The controls in the front are on the plans.........
>
> Stick to the plans. Keep it light.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 11:14 AM
> Subject: RE: Ford A
>
>
> >What may be junk to one could be important to another.
> >One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in
front.
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
> >> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: Ford A
> >>
> >> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless
junk?
> >>
> >> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical
system
> >> system
> >> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a
Corvair or
> >> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system
weighs,
> >> you
> >> can't afford the weight.
> >>
> >> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used.
I can't
> >> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark,
just be
> >> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Engine thrustline offset |
I'm starting to think about the A-65 motor mount and would like to
hear from builders who have completed and flown their planes.
Did you build in any offset to the thrustline?
Plans show some downward thrust but no offset to the right.
I know some people build it in but I don't know how much.
One experienced builder says "Down 1 inch and to the right 1 inch."
That's fine until you think about the angle of offset.
If shims are used at the motor mount to engine case connection to
achieve 1" the angle is greater than if you used a pivot point farther
aft.
So, the questions are:
1. How much offset did you build in?
2. How did you achieve your offset?
3. How does it fly?
Thanks,
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Front brakes: nah ( on grass,you don't need any brakes)
Lights on a Piet: silly
Steel strip: take your choice, yes or no. I used an aluminum strip.
Mike ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Engine thrustline offset |
Usually the measurment of "an inch" is taken at the prop end of the crank
from center. I built my mount square and shimmed with washers at the mount
attach point.
Flies great. I also added 1/2" offset at the front edge of the vertical
fin.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
Greg Cardinal
Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine thrustline offset
I'm starting to think about the A-65 motor mount and would like to
hear from builders who have completed and flown their planes.
Did you build in any offset to the thrustline?
Plans show some downward thrust but no offset to the right.
I know some people build it in but I don't know how much.
One experienced builder says "Down 1 inch and to the right 1 inch."
That's fine until you think about the angle of offset.
If shims are used at the motor mount to engine case connection to
achieve 1" the angle is greater than if you used a pivot point farther
aft.
So, the questions are:
1. How much offset did you build in?
2. How did you achieve your offset?
3. How does it fly?
Thanks,
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<<<
1. How much offset did you build in?
2. How did you achieve your offset?
3. How does it fly?
Thanks,
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis>>
Hey Greg:
After two years flying behind an A engine I converted to a C-100. The
initial installation was without offset. The first flight,don't ask. I was
lucky to get the airplane on the ground. I had to use fwd right stick,( a
lot of fwd right stick) just to keep the airplane somewhere near straight &
level. I then put in a down & right offset. I did that by inserting
aluminum washers between the engine & mount.If I can remember,two 1/4 in on
the left & one on the right.
Believe this-in calm air the airplane flys hands off.
Of course a C-100 is not an A - 65, but the idea is the same.There are
guys flying with A-65's, perhaps they have a differnt idea.
One thing more, a bigger problem will be your CG with the light engine.
Mike B (N687MB)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Anything I've heard about changing plans or not can be weighed both ways. If
no one every changed plans would we be flying Wright Flyers or maybe
Lillenthal gliders? I accept the cautions to keep it light. Brakes on grass
aren't necessary, but can you always be sure to land on grass? Tail skids
don't provide much directional control on pavement. I really hate the
thought of having taxied to a ramp with no brakes and find the aircraft
slowly rolling into someones high priced iron! Nav lights may be silly but a
strobe at dusk would sure help. I was out a dusk in a Citabria last evening
and heard other traffic on the radio, but it sure is hard to pick them out
even when the annouce were they are. There are small battery powered stobes
available. Anything to prevent a faster airplane from running over me is a
good idea. Well maybe encoding transponders on a Piet is too much!
J Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 10:13 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Ford A
>What may be junk to one could be important to another.
>One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
>
>> ----------
>> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
>> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: Ford A
>>
>> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
>>
>> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
>> system
>> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
>> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs,
>> you
>> can't afford the weight.
>>
>> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
>> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
>> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
>>
>> John
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
I see the thought on this runs pro, maybe, but no con. Since the slightest
hint of additional insurance exists, I think it's presence gives piece of
mind. However,,,Since I already added a fairing strip down the center of the
bottom, would the placement of the strip on the inside, on top of the ash
pieces offer the same effect since they would still be bolted to the landing
gear mounting brackets???
JoeC
>I had mixed feelings on this strip. I didn't install it simply because I
>didn't realize there was the option when I made my landing gear attach
>plates. If I were to do it again I would integrate the strap in the plate
>construction and fasten it to the ash member in a couple of places in the
>middle. I finally decided not to redo the LG plates and installed them as
>it. I have not had a problem with it. Another Piet builder here did add
>the strips and actually ground looped the aircraft after a landing hard
>enough to fold one wheel. His strap bowed down from the fuse an inch or so,
>but there was no damage to the wood or ash member. Take your pick.
>Regardless it is one tough bird.
>
>Steve E.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>fishin
>Sent: Thursday, October 22, 1998 7:17 PM
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: steel strip
>
>
>Regarding the optional steel strip on the bottom of the fuselage connecting
>the landing gear fittings on the split axle. You fellows that are flying,
>did you install this? How necessary is this? Those of you that opt not to
>install this strip, have there been any problems as a result of it not being
>there?? It seems to me that the white ash pieces should be more than capable
>to handle the loads imposed. I'm looking for a consensus of opinion as I'm
>now mounting my gear and if it's truly not needed, why add weight.
>JoeC
>Zion, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
| Subject: | brakes& electrical |
I would agree -
my field is a hard surface, and only a few of my possible local
destinations are grass strips.
As for the strobes - I'd be interested in finding small light battery
units. Being seen by other traffic is important even if you travel
faster than 65mph.
Case in point; I fly a Jodel (once owned many years ago by Mike
Brusilow..) that now sports a camo paint job (see it at
http://www.cana.com/jodel)
I'm told that at times other pilots have had a hard time spotting me as
I fly around here in upstate NY. A strobe might make some sense, even
though I'm at 120mph.
-Carmen
John McNarry wrote:
>
> Anything I've heard about changing plans or not can be weighed both ways. If
> no one every changed plans would we be flying Wright Flyers or maybe
> Lillenthal gliders? I accept the cautions to keep it light. Brakes on grass
> aren't necessary, but can you always be sure to land on grass? Tail skids
> don't provide much directional control on pavement. I really hate the
> thought of having taxied to a ramp with no brakes and find the aircraft
> slowly rolling into someones high priced iron! Nav lights may be silly but a
> strobe at dusk would sure help. I was out a dusk in a Citabria last evening
> and heard other traffic on the radio, but it sure is hard to pick them out
> even when the annouce were they are. There are small battery powered stobes
> available. Anything to prevent a faster airplane from running over me is a
> good idea. Well maybe encoding transponders on a Piet is too much!
>
> J Mc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 10:13 AM
> Subject: RE: Ford A
>
> >What may be junk to one could be important to another.
> >One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
> >> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: Ford A
> >>
> >> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
> >>
> >> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
> >> system
> >> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
> >> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs,
> >> you
> >> can't afford the weight.
> >>
> >> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
> >> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
> >> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >
--
----------------------
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
----------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
The steel strap between lift strut/landing gear fittings was deemed
"optional" on the plans because the wing was built in one piece and
the loads on lift stuts and fittings were reduced accordingly.
If one builds a three piece wing with outer panels hinged on the center
section (as I did on my Pietenpol), these loads will be increased and
it would be prudent to install a steel tie strap between these fittings.
These are aptly called "chicken straps". On my a/c the straps are in- tegral
with the strut/landing gear fittings, being edge welded together. This
weldment will certainly handle any tension created by lift loads---and the
ash (I used oak) crosspiece to which it is bolted will handle the
compression created by the weight of the wings and landing loads.
A retrofit to incorporate a "chicken strap" is not too difficult to accom-
plish if one has not faired in the belly. Simply pick up existing bolt holes
in the fittings and use slightly longer (and preferably one size larger)
bolts to attach the strap. The strap is most effective when placed on the
outside of the belly, rather than inside on top of the ash crosspiece.
The fuselage fittings as shown in the plans tend to place the bolts very
close to the corners inside the fuselage. This makes holes tricky to drill
and bolts difficult to install. I made mine a bit larger and was able to
drill holes and install bolts easily without coming too close to the
lowerlongerons. These changes have served well for 28 years, nearly 700
hours, and literally thousands of takeoffs and landings while bas-ed at a
pretty rough grass airstrip.
I hope this is of some use. Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
I've seen a small handheld strobe powered by a D cell. Be great to attach
to airframe when flying at dusk.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: John McNarry <jmcnarry(at)techplus.com>
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 5:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ford A
>Anything I've heard about changing plans or not can be weighed both ways.
If
>no one every changed plans would we be flying Wright Flyers or maybe
>Lillenthal gliders? I accept the cautions to keep it light. Brakes on grass
>aren't necessary, but can you always be sure to land on grass? Tail skids
>don't provide much directional control on pavement. I really hate the
>thought of having taxied to a ramp with no brakes and find the aircraft
>slowly rolling into someones high priced iron! Nav lights may be silly but
a
>strobe at dusk would sure help. I was out a dusk in a Citabria last evening
>and heard other traffic on the radio, but it sure is hard to pick them out
>even when the annouce were they are. There are small battery powered stobes
>available. Anything to prevent a faster airplane from running over me is a
>good idea. Well maybe encoding transponders on a Piet is too much!
>
>J Mc
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 10:13 AM
>Subject: RE: Ford A
>
>
>>What may be junk to one could be important to another.
>>One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
>>
>>> ----------
>>> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
>>> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
>>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>> Subject: Re: Ford A
>>>
>>> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless junk?
>>>
>>> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
>>> system
>>> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair or
>>> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system weighs,
>>> you
>>> can't afford the weight.
>>>
>>> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I can't
>>> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just be
>>> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: brakes& electrical |
I found some small battery powered storbes at a farm equipment dealers. They
are light weight and operate on a 9v battery.They also come with red, white
or amber lenses. The base is magnetic so that they came be stuck onto the
equiptment to warn motorists. I don't see any reason why the stobes couldn't
be removed from their original cases and mounted in a lighter fixture.
J Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Carmen A. Natalie <carmen(at)cana.com>
Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 6:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: brakes& electrical
>I would agree -
>my field is a hard surface, and only a few of my possible local
>destinations are grass strips.
>As for the strobes - I'd be interested in finding small light battery
>units. Being seen by other traffic is important even if you travel
>faster than 65mph.
>Case in point; I fly a Jodel (once owned many years ago by Mike
>Brusilow..) that now sports a camo paint job (see it at
>http://www.cana.com/jodel)
>I'm told that at times other pilots have had a hard time spotting me as
>I fly around here in upstate NY. A strobe might make some sense, even
>though I'm at 120mph.
>
>-Carmen
>
>
>John McNarry wrote:
>>
>> Anything I've heard about changing plans or not can be weighed both ways.
If
>> no one every changed plans would we be flying Wright Flyers or maybe
>> Lillenthal gliders? I accept the cautions to keep it light. Brakes on
grass
>> aren't necessary, but can you always be sure to land on grass? Tail skids
>> don't provide much directional control on pavement. I really hate the
>> thought of having taxied to a ramp with no brakes and find the aircraft
>> slowly rolling into someones high priced iron! Nav lights may be silly
but a
>> strobe at dusk would sure help. I was out a dusk in a Citabria last
evening
>> and heard other traffic on the radio, but it sure is hard to pick them
out
>> even when the annouce were they are. There are small battery powered
stobes
>> available. Anything to prevent a faster airplane from running over me is
a
>> good idea. Well maybe encoding transponders on a Piet is too much!
>>
>> J Mc
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sayre, William G <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Friday, October 23, 1998 10:13 AM
>> Subject: RE: Ford A
>>
>> >What may be junk to one could be important to another.
>> >One might ask why carry the extra weight of brakes or controls in front.
>> >
>> >> ----------
>> >> From: John Greenlee[SMTP:jgreenlee(at)morgan.net]
>> >> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> >> Sent: Friday, October 23, 1998 9:33 PM
>> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> >> Subject: Re: Ford A
>> >>
>> >> Why screw up a perfectly good airplane by adding all that useless
junk?
>> >>
>> >> Mike Brusilow had some negative experience using an electrical system
>> >> system
>> >> with an A. My thoughts are that if you want electrics, use a Corvair
or
>> >> some other motor. I don't care how little your electric system
weighs,
>> >> you
>> >> can't afford the weight.
>> >>
>> >> Step back and think about how the airplane will really be used. I
can't
>> >> imagine needing lights. If you insist on being out after dark, just
be
>> >> careful to avoid landing in full view of any FAA personell.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >
>
>--
>----------------------
>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: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine thrustline offset |
>So, the questions are:
>
>1. How much offset did you build in?
Greg- I tried to build in a degree or two off set and
about 1/2" downthrust into my jig. Final result is that
I had to use washers behind the motor mount to get
it close to the above figures. It hardly has any offset
or downthrust and flies just fine. I do need a little more
right rudder on climb out though than I should require.
>2. How did you achieve your offset?
>3. How does it fly?
>
>Thanks,
>Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: engine offset |
Greg- The bigger issue with a Piet is are your wings and tail surfaces
true ? My Piet drifted left hands off and just a few turns on the rear
fork end made a huge difference. Engine offset and downthrust are
important though...not to slight that issue. Pietenpol himself wrote in
on of the Flying and Glider articles something like " a twisted horizontal
stabilizer can be a most vexing problem."
Wing setback for a 200 lb. pilot, short fuse Cont. 65 Piet ? Set mine
back 4.0 " aft of vertical and most rear CG came out at 19.68" which
is fine. I think 21 or 22" is rear limit. (ps, I've got a 6" solid rubber
tailwheel and two leaf spring deal back there)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
One more comment here and I'll stop for a while.....:)
I wanted brakes and a tailwheel with leaf springs on my Piet. I do 90%
of my flying off of grass, but wanted the option of going into paved
strips on cross country trips for fuel, etc. The plane still came in
at 632 lbs. empty. You can do it if you don't over do it !
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engine offset |
Conventional wisdom for an A piet is 1" down and 1/2" right. I spent some
time talking with the builder of a well -known Piet who is also a retired
McDonnel Douglas engineer about this. He indicated he thought the theory
was good but the draggy, low-powered Piet just wasn't very sensitive to
anything. He put his motor on straight ahead and, I think, 1" downthrust.
Said it flew fine.
I set out to get 1" downthrust, but ended up with about 1/2" due to
inadequate jigging. Otherwise my motor is straight ahead. Hopefully, any
difficulties can be overcome with a small trim tab on the rudder.
The same builder also mounted his vertical fin straight, no offset. The fin
would be easier to change on a finished airplane than the motor mount and
cowling.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 9:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: engine offset
>Greg- The bigger issue with a Piet is are your wings and tail surfaces
>true ? My Piet drifted left hands off and just a few turns on the rear
>fork end made a huge difference. Engine offset and downthrust are
>important though...not to slight that issue. Pietenpol himself wrote in
>on of the Flying and Glider articles something like " a twisted horizontal
>stabilizer can be a most vexing problem."
>
>Wing setback for a 200 lb. pilot, short fuse Cont. 65 Piet ? Set mine
>back 4.0 " aft of vertical and most rear CG came out at 19.68" which
>is fine. I think 21 or 22" is rear limit. (ps, I've got a 6" solid
rubber
>tailwheel and two leaf spring deal back there)
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 3-piece center section width |
These questions are addressed to Steve E., and to anyone else who has increased
the width of the center section of a 3-piece wing. With the benefit of your
20/20 hindsight, can you tell me if there are any disadvantages to increasing
this width? Are there any advantages that are not so obvious? Have you
thought carefully about changes in the loads distributed to attachment
fittings? Were there changes made to the way the spars are connected, or were
the standard Pietenpol fittings (drawn by Kapler) used without adjustment
(except in the position on the spars).
I'm curious because of the availability of local, high quality spar stock in 12
foot lengths. Would be nice to use this without having to scarf, but if
there's even the slightest loss of strength or dependability, I would naturally
ante up for the traditional length spar. I'm still a LONG way from assembling
wing parts, but I need to make decisions soon about the use of material I
presently have on hand.
Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated!
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
Please change my address from:
jcmjones(at)mci.com
to:
jcmjones(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
the width of the center section of a 3-piece wing. With the benefit of
your
20/20 hindsight, can you tell me if there are any disadvantages to
increasing
this width? Are there any advantages that are not so obvious? Have you
thought carefully about changes in the loads distributed to attachment
fittings? Were there changes made to the way the spars are connected, or
were
the standard Pietenpol fittings (drawn by Kapler) used without adjustment
(except in the position on the spars).>
I have a three foot Chad Willie designed center section. The wing attach
fittings & cabane struts are of his design. The advantage of course, is a
larger fuel tank. I have a 16 gal tank. My Piet has been flying since
1988.I am happy with the mod.
If you write to Chad, I am sure he still has prints available.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Conkling <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engine offset |
I guess you could think of your Piet as a really big model plane -- my
freeflight models usually have some down thrust to tame the initial power
burst of the rubber motor (not the usual problem in a Piet!) & some right
thrust to keep it in a turn.(Yes, Mike, that is how my peanut-sized Piet is
set-up!) Our plans for our big Piet will start with 1" downthrust & no
side thrust at the start of testing and we'll see how that works out.
Has any thing more been heard about the "Iron Duke" engine in the "Popular
Piet"?
"the other" Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
> From: John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: engine offset
> Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 11:55 AM
>
> Conventional wisdom for an A piet is 1" down and 1/2" right. I spent
some
> time talking with the builder of a well -known Piet who is also a retired
> McDonnel Douglas engineer about this. He indicated he thought the theory
> was good but the draggy, low-powered Piet just wasn't very sensitive to
> anything. He put his motor on straight ahead and, I think, 1"
downthrust.
> Said it flew fine.
>
> I set out to get 1" downthrust, but ended up with about 1/2" due to
> inadequate jigging. Otherwise my motor is straight ahead. Hopefully,
any
> difficulties can be overcome with a small trim tab on the rudder.
>
> The same builder also mounted his vertical fin straight, no offset. The
fin
> would be easier to change on a finished airplane than the motor mount and
> cowling.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 9:06 AM
> Subject: Re: engine offset
>
>
> >Greg- The bigger issue with a Piet is are your wings and tail surfaces
> >true ? My Piet drifted left hands off and just a few turns on the rear
> >fork end made a huge difference. Engine offset and downthrust are
> >important though...not to slight that issue. Pietenpol himself wrote
in
> >on of the Flying and Glider articles something like " a twisted
horizontal
> >stabilizer can be a most vexing problem."
> >
> >Wing setback for a 200 lb. pilot, short fuse Cont. 65 Piet ? Set mine
> >back 4.0 " aft of vertical and most rear CG came out at 19.68" which
> >is fine. I think 21 or 22" is rear limit. (ps, I've got a 6" solid
> rubber
> >tailwheel and two leaf spring deal back there)
> >
> >Mike C.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: center section |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Monday, October 26, 1998 7:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section
>
>the width of the center section of a 3-piece wing. With the benefit of
>your
>20/20 hindsight, can you tell me if there are any disadvantages to
>increasing
>this width? Are there any advantages that are not so obvious? Have you
>thought carefully about changes in the loads distributed to attachment
>fittings? Were there changes made to the way the spars are connected, or
>were
>the standard Pietenpol fittings (drawn by Kapler) used without adjustment
>(except in the position on the spars).>
>
>I have a three foot Chad Willie designed center section. The wing attach
>fittings & cabane struts are of his design. The advantage of course, is a
>larger fuel tank. I have a 16 gal tank. My Piet has been flying since
>1988.I am happy with the mod.
>If you write to Chad, I am sure he still has prints available.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jcmjones <jcmjones(at)mci2000.com> |
| Subject: | Change of address |
Piet list
Current address: jcmjones(at)mci.com
Change to: jcmjones(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I am in the process of deciding which kit or plans built plane to build
and have been lurking in this discussion group for a couple of weeks. I
have been seriously considering ordering the plans and starting a Piet,
probably of the 3 piece wing and Corvair persuasion. What sort of
useful load could I expect from such a configuration? I would need the
capacity to carrry a fairly heavy pilot and heavier passenger.
title: electrical engineer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 3-piece center section width |
Sorry this took so long to reply too. It took me all day yesterday to get
my van registered and passing the safety and emmissions test. It would have
been a good day to go flying too. I did make the center section 48" rather
than the plans width. I did it for the very reason you stated. 12' spars.
I have had no problems with the design and benefit from a 14.5 gal center
section tank. I could have gone larger, but didn't see the need. One of
the advantages it that the cabane strut fittings are now separate from the
wing attach fittings. Eliminating some fabrication and welding. One thing
I should have done however is extend the wing flop across the whole width of
the center section. Would have been much easier to build and would look
better. Bending loads at the joint are a non issue since the loads are
nearly identical at the new location and the old. 80 hours in the past 11
months.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Peter P Frantz
Sent: Monday, October 26, 1998 5:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 3-piece center section width
These questions are addressed to Steve E., and to anyone else who has
increased
the width of the center section of a 3-piece wing. With the benefit of your
20/20 hindsight, can you tell me if there are any disadvantages to
increasing
this width? Are there any advantages that are not so obvious? Have you
thought carefully about changes in the loads distributed to attachment
fittings? Were there changes made to the way the spars are connected, or
were
the standard Pietenpol fittings (drawn by Kapler) used without adjustment
(except in the position on the spars).
I'm curious because of the availability of local, high quality spar stock in
12
foot lengths. Would be nice to use this without having to scarf, but if
there's even the slightest loss of strength or dependability, I would
naturally
ante up for the traditional length spar. I'm still a LONG way from
assembling
wing parts, but I need to make decisions soon about the use of material I
presently have on hand.
Your thoughts will be greatly appreciated!
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-290G for Pietenpol |
-----Original Message-----
From: Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman
Date: Wednesday, October 14, 1998 2102 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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
>
>
ROBERT,
IM LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING A RIDE IN THIS SOUPED UP PETE!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: center section |
ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE BULKHEADS FROM 9" TO
12" SINCE I'M SO TALL. THE UPPER PORTION OF MY TORSO GETS BLASTED BY THE
WIND
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE COMFORT AND LESS
DRAG, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SMALL SWING DOWN DOORS TO THE LONGERON
AND INTERGATE THIS IN TO THE
INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE FUSELAGE, THIS I''M TOLD WOULD INTERFERE WITH
RUDDER AND TAIL FIN SO I WOULD INCREASE HEIGHT ONE BAY..
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: center section |
I'm 6'2" with a long back. With the combing I've installed around the
front of the cockpit and pad I picked up several more inches in height and
feel the cockpit is cosy. Like others have advised you, I'd be very
concerned about the impact on the horizontal and vertical stablilizer.
I'm now building a Prober Pixie--another highwing parasole. I notice in
advice to the builder that some people have simply installed larger
windshields and this has had an adverse effect on the tail section--and
handling. This suggests to me that this is a sensitive matter. On the
other hand, maybe just your bod sticking up may do the same thing as the
larger windshield--how tall are you?
>>> Kyle Ray 10/28 10:17 AM >>>
ANYONE SEE A PROBLEM WITH INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE BULKHEADS FROM 9"
TO
12" SINCE I'M SO TALL. THE UPPER PORTION OF MY TORSO GETS BLASTED BY THE
WIND
AND IT LOOKS LIKE IT WOULD BE MORE COMFORT AND LESS
DRAG, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SMALL SWING DOWN DOORS TO THE LONGERON
AND INTERGATE THIS IN TO THE
INCREASED HEIGHT OF THE FUSELAGE, THIS I''M TOLD WOULD INTERFERE WITH
RUDDER AND TAIL FIN SO I WOULD INCREASE HEIGHT ONE BAY..
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: center section |
William Conway wrote:
>
> I'm 6'2" with a long back. With the combing I've installed around the front
of the cockpit and pad I picked up several more inches in height and feel the
cockpit is cosy. Like others have advised you, I'd be very concerned about the
impact on the horizontal and vertical stablilizer.
Another option is to lower the seat a little, which sits you down a bit
lower in the cockpit. This is probably the mod with the fewest
ramifications, since the airframe itself is unchanged. It also helps
position the shoulder harness higher up on your back to conform to the
approved practices (not less that 40 degree angle downward..).
-Carmen
--
----------------------
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: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: center section |
Hi Kyle,
Couple of things to consider:
For more general room for a tall guy, consider the long fuselage version of
the plans..gives more leg room in the cockpit. On mine, I'm also widening the
fuse 2", increasing the radius of the panel the proportionate amount, which
gives more windscreen area, raising the "turtledeck" to match the panel and
adding 2" to the height of the fin & rudder.
Personal opinion is that the rear cockpit probably does not need a swing
down door. The front cockpit probably does: check the door plans available from
YESTERDAY'S WINGS AEROPLANE WORKS, INC. Historic Hampton Airfield, Lafayette
Road, Route-1, North Hampton, NH 08362-9998, Phone (603) 436-7360 or 964-6749.
These plans are by Gary S. Price and are very professional and are accompanied
by 8 color photographs.
You can see this plane in some detail on Richard DeCosta's web page at
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
go to Images and then to Gary Price.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Warren
Hi Kyle,
Couple of things to consider:
For more general room for a tall guy, consider the
long fuselage version of the plans..gives more leg room in the cockpit.
On mine, I'm also widening the fuse 2", increasing the radius of the panel
the proportionate amount, which gives more windscreen area, raising the
"turtledeck" to match the panel and adding 2" to the height of the fin
rudder.
Personal opinion is that the rear cockpit probably
does not need a swing down door. The front cockpit probably does:
check the door plans available from YESTERDAY'S WINGS AEROPLANE WORKS,
INC. Historic Hampton Airfield, Lafayette Road, Route-1, North Hampton,
NH 08362-9998, Phone (603) 436-7360 or 964-6749. These plans
are by Gary S. Price and are very professional and are accompanied by 8
color photographs.
You can see this plane in some detail on Richard
DeCosta's web page at
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
go to Images and then to Gary Price.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Kyle- I raised all my bulkheads by one inch over plans and to do it again
I'd probably go 2 or 3 max, but anything more than that and she will
look much different than plans. You will have more inst. panel space
and the windshield will at least block the wind from hitting your forehead
being higher. A cardboard mock up might help you decide what's best
for you.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
re: getting out of the wind.
I lowered the seat as far down as it would go & installed a larger
windshield.
When the temp drops I wear a jet helmet, You know, the kind with the
sliding face mask. That works!
Mike ( Piet N687MB)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Jones <jcmjones(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | SUBSCRIBE PIET CHAT GROUP |
Subscribe Piet chat group
jcmjones(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Jones <jcmjones(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | SUBSCRIBE PIET CHAT GROUP |
Subscribe Piet chat group
jcmjones(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Jones <jcmjones(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | SUBSCRIBE PIET CHAT GROUP |
Subscribe Piet chat group
jcmjones(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | James Jones <jcmjones(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | SUBSCRIBE PIET CHAT GROUP |
Subscribe Piet chat group
jcmjones(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | duprey(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: center section |
I have seen Gary's Piet in person and can speak to the professionalism of
design and construction of his swing down door. It is Beautifull!! I would
consider it a must have Item. Realy make enterance and egress easier. Just
my 2 cents.
John Duprey
> Hi Kyle,
> Couple of things to consider:
> For more general room for a tall guy, consider the long fuselage
version of
> the plans..gives more leg room in the cockpit. On mine, I'm also widening
the
> fuse 2", increasing the radius of the panel the proportionate amount,
which
> gives more windscreen area, raising the "turtledeck" to match the panel
and
> adding 2" to the height of the fin & rudder.
> Personal opinion is that the rear cockpit probably does not need a
swing
> down door. The front cockpit probably does: check the door plans
available from
> YESTERDAY'S WINGS AEROPLANE WORKS, INC. Historic Hampton Airfield,
Lafayette
> Road, Route-1, North Hampton, NH 08362-9998, Phone (603) 436-7360 or
964-6749.
> These plans are by Gary S. Price and are very professional and are
accompanied
> by 8 color photographs.
> You can see this plane in some detail on Richard DeCosta's web page
at
> http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
> go to Images and then to Gary Price.
> Hope this helps.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: center section |
John,
I can only envy the fact that you have seen the "real deal"! I purchased
the plans and spoke with Gary on the phone and am now a "true believer" in this
addition to an already delightful design. I have several years experience as an
architectural draftsman, and I would sincerely assure one and all that these
plans are very thoughtful in design and very professional in presentation.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sprouting wing roots |
Many thanks to the gentlemen who answered my question about extending the
center section width. Its good to know I have options that have flown. Any
advice on how to get in touch with Chad Willie?
Now, a related question: I'm finishing up my wing ribs; just four or five to
go. I've built two ribs with the extra bracing for the wing tips, which I
suppose will provide extra support during ground loops. Next, I'll finish with
the wing root ribs and the ribs for the center section. It appears that there
are many different ways to handle these ribs. It looks like Mike C. might have
used plywood to reinforce the entire length of the root ribs (or maybe the
plywood is on the center section ribs). Some people have built wing root ribs
that are identical to the wing tip ribs drawn in the '33 plans (with extra cap
strip bracing). On the other extreme, Garry Price uses solid spruce ribs sawn
from a 1/2" piece of spruce for both root ribs *and* center section ribs. That
will add a lot of weight to the center section, but the added strength would be
comforting in case my wing strikes another corn crib while I'm waving at
farmers. (It suprised me that the various center section plans have no cross
bracing; there's just no room with the fuel tank in the middle.)
So how have you folks handled these ribs? Is it enough for me to build four
extra (total of six) reinforced ribs identical to the wing tip ribs drawn in
the plans? Or do you recommend extra plywood or solid wood reinforcement?
Thanks for your help,
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Sprouting wing roots |
Peter wrote:
Next, I'll finish with
>the wing root ribs and the ribs for the center section. It appears that
there are many different ways to handle these ribs. It looks like Mike C.
might have used plywood to reinforce the entire length of the root ribs (or
maybe the plywood is on the center section ribs).
Peter- Yes, I covered my wing root and center section ribs with 1/16"
birch plywood for strength and a place to wrap the dacron over when
covering. Upon advice from those who built Piets before me I also
incorporated a few diagonal braces of spruce positioned so that the
powerful forces of the fabric taughtening process would not 'bow'
the end rib faces inward. This is also not a bad thing to add out
at the wingtip ribs.....at least the end one from being distorted by
the fabric twisting that rib towards the tip bow.
A cheap, easy (I know everyone is listening now !) way to keep
your ribs aligned vertically when fabric taughtening is to glue two
1/4" x 3/8" or so wood strips at mid-wing chord the whole length of
the wing. Do this near the top and bottom capstrips at some diagonal
rib intersection. The alternative is to use this 'inter-rib' lacing fabric
but I'm told that mice find that a nice snack. No need to worry though
as the wood strips or inter-rib lacing only serve a purpose until the
rib stitching is done. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sprouting wing roots |
What am I misunderstanding? I thought that by gluing the ribs to the front
and rear wing spars that this woudld take care of any twisting during
covering. Did I miss something?
Al Swanson
>Peter wrote:
> Next, I'll finish with
>>the wing root ribs and the ribs for the center section. It appears that
>there are many different ways to handle these ribs. It looks like Mike C.
>might have used plywood to reinforce the entire length of the root ribs (or
>maybe the plywood is on the center section ribs).
>
>Peter- Yes, I covered my wing root and center section ribs with 1/16"
>birch plywood for strength and a place to wrap the dacron over when
>covering. Upon advice from those who built Piets before me I also
>incorporated a few diagonal braces of spruce positioned so that the
>powerful forces of the fabric taughtening process would not 'bow'
>the end rib faces inward. This is also not a bad thing to add out
>at the wingtip ribs.....at least the end one from being distorted by
>the fabric twisting that rib towards the tip bow.
> A cheap, easy (I know everyone is listening now !) way to keep
>your ribs aligned vertically when fabric taughtening is to glue two
>1/4" x 3/8" or so wood strips at mid-wing chord the whole length of
>the wing. Do this near the top and bottom capstrips at some diagonal
>rib intersection. The alternative is to use this 'inter-rib' lacing fabric
>but I'm told that mice find that a nice snack. No need to worry though
>as the wood strips or inter-rib lacing only serve a purpose until the
>rib stitching is done. Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sprouting wing roots |
> From: Peter P Frantz
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Sprouting wing roots
> Date: Friday, October 30, 1998 10:49 AM
>
> Many thanks to the gentlemen who answered my question about extending the
> center section width. Its good to know I have options that have flown.
Any
> advice on how to get in touch with Chad Willie?
>
> Now, a related question: I'm finishing up my wing ribs; just four or
five to
> go. I've built two ribs with the extra bracing for the wing tips, which
I
> suppose will provide extra support during ground loops. Next, I'll
finish with
> the wing root ribs and the ribs for the center section. It appears that
there
> are many different ways to handle these ribs. It looks like Mike C.
might have
> used plywood to reinforce the entire length of the root ribs (or maybe
the
> plywood is on the center section ribs). Some people have built wing root
ribs
> that are identical to the wing tip ribs drawn in the '33 plans (with
extra cap
> strip bracing). On the other extreme, Garry Price uses solid spruce ribs
sawn
> from a 1/2" piece of spruce for both root ribs *and* center section ribs.
That
> will add a lot of weight to the center section, but the added strength
would be
> comforting in case my wing strikes another corn crib while I'm waving at
> farmers. (It suprised me that the various center section plans have no
cross
> bracing; there's just no room with the fuel tank in the middle.)
>
> So how have you folks handled these ribs? Is it enough for me to build
four
> extra (total of six) reinforced ribs identical to the wing tip ribs drawn
in
> the plans? Or do you recommend extra plywood or solid wood
reinforcement?
>
> Thanks for your help,
> --Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<<
> Many thanks to the gentlemen who answered my question about extending the
> center section width. Its good to know I have options that have flown.
Any
> advice on how to get in touch with Chad Willie?>>
Hi Pete: The address you requested is as follows:
Chad Willie
1139 State Hwy 148
Corning IA 50841
515-3224041
As far as the ribs go I agree with Mike C. That's how I did mine. I should
like to point out that the diagonal bracing at the root rib & tip rib is
most important. Absent them & the ribs will distort when the fabric is
tightened. The plywood facing serves as an attach point for the fabric at
the center section & wing root ribs.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Gussets and Glue |
Gentlemen, (and Gentleladies if appropriate),
As I study my drawings, (Improved Aircamper, 1933), preparatory to building
the fuselage, something is unclear to me. I hope that this question does not
qualify me for residence at the Home of the Terminally Stupid, but here it is:
Once the two sides of the fuselage are glued and gusseted, and ready to join,
does one glue the cross members to the inside gussets, or should they be glued
directly to the wood of the longeron? This would require a gusset of fairly
complex shape. My hope is that the gussets applied to the cross members
provide the needed strength in the joint. Izzatso? Thanx for your advice.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<>>
Don Asked the above question. I glued the cross members to the gussets.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Svetlana V. Dominguez" |
Unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
I am in the process of deciding which kit or plans built plane to build
and have been lurking in this discussion group for a couple of weeks. I
have been seriously considering ordering the plans and starting a Piet,
probably of the 3 piece wing and Corvair power plant. What sort of
useful load could I expect from such a configuration?
title: electrical engineer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
in my Piet, with 65hp cont.pilot 150lb. passenger 200lb and 12 gal. of
fuel but with 0-200 a friend of my , has 265 in backseat and passenger
200 and 16 gall. of fuel, it hard to say what the usfull is
---John Knight <jknigh_nospam_@mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> I am in the process of deciding which kit or plans built plane to
build
> and have been lurking in this discussion group for a couple of
weeks. I
>
> have been seriously considering ordering the plans and starting a
Piet,
> probably of the 3 piece wing and Corvair power plant. What sort of
> useful load could I expect from such a configuration?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> begin: vcard
> email;internet: jknigh_nospam_@mediaone.net
> title: electrical engineer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | turnbuckle source |
Has anyone here checked Grant MacLaren's BPA web site notes lately? There's a
fellow there who says he has found a source of new surplus AN 130 turnbuckles
for $6.00 a pop. Now, I haven't yet started to shop for hardware, but its easy
to see that these are about half of what AS&S and Wicks are asking for the same
assembly. I know that others here have suggested places like Dillsburg,
Spencer, and B&B, but can I expect to find a price this low? Can I get lower
than $6.00 by scrounging?
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: turnbuckle source |
If you need turnbuckle you will be hard pressed to beat $6. I found mine
for 5.95 several years ago. I would say buy! If I recall right I used 36
on my piet.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Peter P Frantz
Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 9:12 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: turnbuckle source
Has anyone here checked Grant MacLaren's BPA web site notes lately? There's
a
fellow there who says he has found a source of new surplus AN 130
turnbuckles
for $6.00 a pop. Now, I haven't yet started to shop for hardware, but its
easy
to see that these are about half of what AS&S and Wicks are asking for the
same
assembly. I know that others here have suggested places like Dillsburg,
Spencer, and B&B, but can I expect to find a price this low? Can I get
lower
than $6.00 by scrounging?
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: turnbuckle source |
Could you please repeat the source of these turnbuckles? Thanks!!
---steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
> If you need turnbuckle you will be hard pressed to beat $6. I found
mine
> for 5.95 several years ago. I would say buy! If I recall right I
used 36
> on my piet.
>
> Steve E.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Peter P Frantz
> Sent: Monday, November 02, 1998 9:12 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: turnbuckle source
>
>
> Has anyone here checked Grant MacLaren's BPA web site notes lately?
There's
> a
> fellow there who says he has found a source of new surplus AN 130
> turnbuckles
> for $6.00 a pop. Now, I haven't yet started to shop for hardware,
but its
> easy
> to see that these are about half of what AS&S and Wicks are asking
for the
> same
> assembly. I know that others here have suggested places like
Dillsburg,
> Spencer, and B&B, but can I expect to find a price this low? Can I
get
> lower
> than $6.00 by scrounging?
>
> --Peter
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Gross weight of Piets |
I know that Spruce is still the best material for construction of an
airplane. In the reprinted articles about the Piet by the patron Saint Bernie,
he also mentions the steel tube fuselage, and give instructions for that. He
says something about he could find someone to weld one up for a few bucks. Of
all Piets flying, does anyone know how many have steel tube fuses? I wonder
about the weight differential. But, most amateurs would not have the skills
nor the equipment to do the weldin. Besides, the completed wood plane is a
real work of art.
Dr. Orville Lanham, Bellevue, Ne.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Piet Ailerons |
O.K., Gang,
I have read consistent comments about the Piet having poor aileron response.
I know that sealing the gaps is an improvement, but has anyone explored the
idea of adding a smidgin of area to the ailerons...say 20 per cent, by making
the chord of the aileron about fourteen inches, instead of eleven and one half
inches. Or, how about extending the aileron one additional rib inboard? Or,
is this a non-issue...don't spoil a good thing and all that. Just wonderin'.
Keep Pietin' along!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Ailerons |
Have flown in a couple of Piets. From my limited experience, there really
is
a significant improvement with the gap seal. The important point of the seal is
not drag reduction. The real issue is keeping the air flow on the side of the
wing it belongs on. If you can properly seal the hinge point, the upper air flow
goes over the aileron without disruption of air being sucked up thru the gap, and
it really does work quite adequately at these ferocious speeds we are looking at
here.
Rather than spend any creative time in redesign, I would suggest you look
carefully at how to build it so the airflow stays where it belongs.
Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | William Conway <conwayw(at)ricks.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Ailerons |
I used piano hinges on my plane. I think the response is fine. I can
make 30 degree turn just by thinking about it with almost no control
input.
>>> Warren Shoun 11/02 10:25 PM >>>
Have flown in a couple of Piets. From my limited experience, there
really is
a significant improvement with the gap seal. The important point of the
seal is
not drag reduction. The real issue is keeping the air flow on the side of
the
wing it belongs on. If you can properly seal the hinge point, the upper
air flow
goes over the aileron without disruption of air being sucked up thru the
gap, and
it really does work quite adequately at these ferocious speeds we are
looking at
here.
Rather than spend any creative time in redesign, I would suggest you
look
carefully at how to build it so the airflow stays where it belongs.
Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Dan Colley wrote:
"I have read consistent comments about the Piet having poor aileron
response."
Hey Dan, where did you hear that? Seal the gaps & they work fine.
Mikle B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | General- control response |
>I used piano hinges on my plane. I think the response is fine. I can
make 30 degree turn just by thinking about it with almost no control input.
Bill- I did the same thing. Full length alum. piano hinges and they
work fine. A Piet rolls about like a Champ or Cub. The FUN part
though is that the overall control harmony of a Piet is very, very nice.
It just flies really nice. It's lighter overall on the controls than those
Cubs and Champs. Less control movement, more agile. The rudder
bar too is comfortable...... after 1/2 hour or so you don't even notice
there are no rudder pedals. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: General- control response |
Questions for ya'll on the piano hinges you guys are using.... I am pretty
sure that the "extruded" (more expensive) style hinge would be required, or
is the cheaper "open loop" kind adequate? Also, are there any established
guidelines for hinge width and method of attachment to the wood spars? I
have yet to find anything published on installation standards for piano
hinges.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 2:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: General- control response
>>I used piano hinges on my plane. I think the response is fine. I can
>make 30 degree turn just by thinking about it with almost no control
input.
>
>Bill- I did the same thing. Full length alum. piano hinges and they
>work fine. A Piet rolls about like a Champ or Cub. The FUN part
>though is that the overall control harmony of a Piet is very, very nice.
>It just flies really nice. It's lighter overall on the controls than
those
>Cubs and Champs. Less control movement, more agile. The rudder
>bar too is comfortable...... after 1/2 hour or so you don't even notice
>there are no rudder pedals. Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Unsubscribe- Piet |
Please unsubscribe me from the piet chat group,
It has been a great resource, but I will be computer less for a while.
Will be in touch.
Thanks, Paris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: wings of wood |
Larry, awhile ago you asked me about using cedar for my ribs, and I apologize
for taking so long to respond.
I used hand picked wood (it took me about 1 1/2 hrs. to find eleven pieces)
from a local lumber store. I found out that ya just can't stack it back up
the same way that it comes from the saw mill !!! I selected straight grain,
few knots, and the ol' finger nail test for density. After ripping the 1/4 X
1/2 on the table saw, I did a bend analyist. I weighted one end, and allowed
exactly 50" to hang out over, and used a clamp ( a couple of ounces) at the
same arm on each piece, so it would bend. I measured up from the floor how
far each piece bent, and wrote the measurement on the end of the piece. This
way I could come up with a trend, so I could discarded the weakest ones
(survival of the fittest). This done, I cut, sanded and fit the ends of the 13
pieces to make up one rib, making sure the angles were precise. I numbered
them, 1 thru 13 and wrote 'PAT' on each one. I cut about 35 or 40 pieces of
each pattern, and placed the stacks on the table behind the jig. I did the
same thing for the gussets. Now when I got home from work, I popped the rib
out of the jig, (for the first rib ya gotta put the gussets on while its in
the jig) flipped it over, installed new pieces in the jig, block sanded them,
as well as the second side of the rib I just removed, vacuumed the dust, mixed
up the epoxy, removed each piece from the jig, one at a time, to dip the butt
end in the little cup of T88 epoxy. I used as little epoxy as possible,
because excess epoxy only adds weight. The element we must deal with is
gravity. A drop of epoxy only weights a gram, or so, but it really does add
up. I wiped off all excess epoxy, and proceded to spread out just enough at
each joint, to saturate the gusset, wiggled the gusset down in place but
didn't weight it down yet and wiped off the excess. Soon ya get feel for how
much is needed. Then I applied epoxy to the flipped rib, wiggled the gussetts
down a little, and went back to the jigged rib for final straightening of the
gussets, and weighted them with 1/2" heavy duty sockets, lead, small pieces of
iron, or whatever I could find. Repeating the straightening process on the
flipped rib, I then added weight to those gussets. Using this process allows
the epoxy time to soak in a little, before adding weight and oozing alot back
out - to be wiped off, of course. It took me about six weeks, but I now have
31 ribs built. I'm going to use the one piece wing (to save weight) which
only requires 29, but I'll have a couple to choose from to leave out of the
assembly, and hang on the wall of the hanger, to monitor, over time, the aging
process of the wood & epoxy. The local wood airplane 'Guru' gave his approval
of the ribs, and I had him cut the 3/4" X 4 3/4" Douglas Fir spars, with a
scarf at about the 20' station. I also have the Spruce leading & trailing
edge material, but haven't cut it yet, and 1 X 1 longerons. I do all of my
sawing outside, and it's been raining for about a week. So...that's where
I'm at on my project. How's everyone else doin'?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| 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
>
Here we dont really need heating in winter, just a good jacket and a
complete wool hat ("head and face" type) under the helmet and goggles will
do, even for the Quicksilver ultralight pilots.
But take a look at the VW Rabbit heater the core is small.
Here is an idea: If you dont have an electric system to run the tiny heater
motor, make a little adjustable "window" and duct a tiny "adjustable" breezy
through the core and to the feet... will work great with very little water
weight, it will heat the cabin well enough. Even in an open coptit (sp?)
make the window in the other side of the exhaust mufflers...
Saludos
-------------------
initial=
testing!=09
EAA Chapter 1039 President | -------- working on:
Delegado Regional FEMEDA-FAI | 1,835 VW 2 place "modified" 1929 Ramsey=
Bathtub
ggower(at)informador.com.mx | FAI Legal Ultralight (224 Kg dry) (90%=
finished
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO | modifying wings)
Aerodromo "Paco Yerena" in Chapala: Alt 4,997' ASL N 20=BA18.610' W=
103=BA09.606'
(Grass) Main Strip 14/32 700 mts (2,300') (PAK 123.45) Right pattern to 14=
(avoid flying over town) only light airplanes, check ASL & power available!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
I wasat a truck stop this summer and saw a heater used in big rigs . It' 12v
with a small fan . it only weighs 4.5 lbs. also i've seen ciramic heaters 12v
with a fan . it was very small and weighs very little .
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Re:Piet Ailerons |
Don,
I'll reiterate what a lot of people have already told you:
Don't change the design of the ailerons. Just make sure
the gap is sealed either with tape or by using a piano
hinge.
I have flown four different Pietenpols (including my own
for nearly 700 hours) and all have needed sealed aileron
gaps. Without gap seals, aileron response is poor and
a loss of lift was apparent when flying with one aileron
unsealed (I definitely don't recommend this experiment
because it was a bit scary). Gap seals provide aileron
response comparable to, or even better than, that of pro-
duction lightplanes---especially if care is exercised to mini-
mize control system friction through the use of ball bearing
pulleys, proper cable tension, etc.
Good luck with your project.
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: General- control response |
Thanx to all!
This is just the kind of info I was seeking. Is this group great, or what?
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
Chuck Gantzer -
Where are you?
CJ Beck
Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: leading edge plywood sources |
Russell -
Regarding your note of 9/11/98 please help me locate the marine grade
1/16 ply. I can't seem to find company you mentioned in Detroit's web
yellow pages. Thanks very much.
CJ Beck
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Joe, I'm right here in Wichita !! Doug Bryant introduced us in your shop
earlier this year. He's quite a Pietenpol enthuiast. I'd like to stop out
sometime soon, to see how you're doin' on your plane, and maybe take some
pictures. We have similar goals: Long version, Corvair engine. See ya soon.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: General- control response |
>Questions for ya'll on the piano hinges you guys are using.... I am pretty
>sure that the "extruded" (more expensive) style hinge would be required,
or is the cheaper "open loop" kind adequate?
Mike- As recommended in the Tony Bingelis books I forked over
more $ for the extruded hinges rather than the loop type. I think it
worked out to 30-35 $ per wing.
Width of the hinge you buy is up to you. Wider makes them
easier to install though. I prefit the aileron hinge drilling holes about
every 8" to accept 6-32 countersunk head stainless steel phillips
machine screws into glued and screwed 6-32 self-locking nutplates
with two ears on each side. You screw the ears in with brass wood
screws and a dab of glue while the whole affair is in place assuring
the alignment you want. Too long of a machine screw and you will
poke out towards the fabric though, so do some measuring before
buying em. I put my ailerons on during final assy. and it took about
3 min. per wing. If using a cordless drill with a phillips bit though
you have to watch where the 'clutch' setting is otherwise you can
torque the nutplates off behind the aileron and root spar areas.
Mike C.
Also, are there any established
>guidelines for hinge width and method of attachment to the wood spars? I
>have yet to find anything published on installation standards for piano
>hinges.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 2:51 PM
>Subject: General- control response
>
>
>>>I used piano hinges on my plane. I think the response is fine. I can
>>make 30 degree turn just by thinking about it with almost no control
>input.
>>
>>Bill- I did the same thing. Full length alum. piano hinges and they
>>work fine. A Piet rolls about like a Champ or Cub. The FUN part
>>though is that the overall control harmony of a Piet is very, very nice.
>>It just flies really nice. It's lighter overall on the controls than
>those
>>Cubs and Champs. Less control movement, more agile. The rudder
>>bar too is comfortable...... after 1/2 hour or so you don't even notice
>>there are no rudder pedals. Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit heating |
That sounds great but what about that 12v battery that runs it.
>I wasat a truck stop this summer and saw a heater used in big rigs . It' 12v
>with a small fan . it only weighs 4.5 lbs. also i've seen ciramic heaters
12v
>with a fan . it was very small and weighs very little .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: General- control response |
Ok Mike, thanks for the info. This looks like a very good way to go on the
Hatz as well. A better installation and a lot less work than hand making all
those hinges.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, November 04, 1998 6:53 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: General- control response
>>Questions for ya'll on the piano hinges you guys are using.... I am pretty
>>sure that the "extruded" (more expensive) style hinge would be required,
>or is the cheaper "open loop" kind adequate?
>
>Mike- As recommended in the Tony Bingelis books I forked over
>more $ for the extruded hinges rather than the loop type. I think it
>worked out to 30-35 $ per wing.
> Width of the hinge you buy is up to you. Wider makes them
>easier to install though. I prefit the aileron hinge drilling holes about
>every 8" to accept 6-32 countersunk head stainless steel phillips
>machine screws into glued and screwed 6-32 self-locking nutplates
>with two ears on each side. You screw the ears in with brass wood
>screws and a dab of glue while the whole affair is in place assuring
>the alignment you want. Too long of a machine screw and you will
>poke out towards the fabric though, so do some measuring before
>buying em. I put my ailerons on during final assy. and it took about
>3 min. per wing. If using a cordless drill with a phillips bit though
>you have to watch where the 'clutch' setting is otherwise you can
>torque the nutplates off behind the aileron and root spar areas.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
>Also, are there any established
>>guidelines for hinge width and method of attachment to the wood spars? I
>>have yet to find anything published on installation standards for piano
>>hinges.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Date: Tuesday, November 03, 1998 2:51 PM
>>Subject: General- control response
>>
>>
>>>>I used piano hinges on my plane. I think the response is fine. I can
>>>make 30 degree turn just by thinking about it with almost no control
>>input.
>>>
>>>Bill- I did the same thing. Full length alum. piano hinges and they
>>>work fine. A Piet rolls about like a Champ or Cub. The FUN part
>>>though is that the overall control harmony of a Piet is very, very nice.
>>>It just flies really nice. It's lighter overall on the controls than
>>those
>>>Cubs and Champs. Less control movement, more agile. The rudder
>>>bar too is comfortable...... after 1/2 hour or so you don't even notice
>>>there are no rudder pedals. Mike C.
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
>>>If using a cordless drill with a phillips bit though
>you have to watch where the 'clutch' setting is otherwise you can
>torque the nutplates off behind the aileron and root spar areas.
>
>Mike C.
Hey Mike: been there, done that.
Mike B ( Piet N687 MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Cockpit heating |
I would think that with a water cooled engine you could run a duct
from behind the main radiator to the cockpit for heating. This would save
the weight of the extra radiator, tubing, valve, fan , and water in the
system.
Marc Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>
>>>>If using a cordless drill with a phillips bit though
>>you have to watch where the 'clutch' setting is otherwise you can
>>torque the nutplates off behind the aileron and root spar areas.
>>
>>Mike C.
>
>Hey Mike: been there, done that.
>>Mike B ( Piet N687 MB )
Mike B. That's a lonely feeling, ain't it ?? Just like when I bent
a Champ wingtip bow last week pushing into it's hangar. Geeeezz.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | Builders in Phoenix Metro Area |
Took my first ride in a Piet this past weekend, courtesy of Steve Eldredge.
Words cannot describe... either Steve's generosity or the ride. About the
ride, here's an attempt - solid, nimble, and more fun than... Well, skip
it, you just have to experience it. Does anyone know of any Piet
builders/owners in the Phoenix metropolitan area?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | Engine thrust offset |
Attention all aerodynamicists: Could someone out there help me understand
why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to making
trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for a
general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, Arizona
P.S. Still looking for builders/owners in the Phoenix area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Engine thrust offset |
The short and hopefully most easily understood answer is "Drag Reduction"
Thrust angle, incidence, dihederal, are all means of design and rigging
meant to reduce drag on the airframe so the controls dont have to be trimmed
constantly. These fixed settings are set for optimum drag reduction in the
cruise configuration.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
mboynton(at)mailexcite.com
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 1998 12:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine thrust offset
Attention all aerodynamicists: Could someone out there help me understand
why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to making
trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for a
general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, Arizona
P.S. Still looking for builders/owners in the Phoenix area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<<
understand
why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to making
trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for a
general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, Arizona>>>>
Simple answer- The Piet does not have adjustable trim tabs.
Mike B ( Piet N 687 MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Certifiying your Piet |
The FAA guy who inspected my homebuilt passed this web site to me
which can help answer lots of questions for those of you who
anticipate going thru this exercise down the road.
>> http://www.provide.net/~pratt/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
The guy that developed it is an inspector
>>in the Detroit office. It is not an official FAA site but better than
anything I've see thus far.
Mike C.
Flurries in Clev.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Certifiying your Piet |
> The FAA guy who inspected my homebuilt passed this web site to me
> which can help answer lots of questions for those of you who
> anticipate going thru this exercise down the road.
>
> >> http://www.provide.net/~pratt/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
>
> The guy that developed it is an inspector
> >>in the Detroit office. It is not an official FAA site but better than
> anything I've see thus far.
>
>
> Mike C.
> Flurries in Clev.
Great site. Everyone should download it.
Mike B ( Piet M687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Certifiying your Piet |
Thanks Mike this is really helpful. I appreciate you passing it on to me.jas
>The FAA guy who inspected my homebuilt passed this web site to me
>which can help answer lots of questions for those of you who
>anticipate going thru this exercise down the road.
>
>>> http://www.provide.net/~pratt/ambuilt/faqhmblt.htm
>
> The guy that developed it is an inspector
>>>in the Detroit office. It is not an official FAA site but better than
>anything I've see thus far.
>
>
>Mike C.
>Flurries in Clev.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
Engine offset is used too counteract engine torque. The nice thing about it
is that the amount of offset thrust you get changes with the power setting.
Engine at idle-(aircraft gliding) = no side thrust generated and none
needed. Engine at or near full power-(cruise or climb) =maximum side thrust
generated when it is needed. So the amount of thrust generated works with
the throttle.
The effect of a given control surface trim is primarily related to aircraft
speed. For example, the amount of rudder trim required to counteract engine
torque in cruise flight would be way too much when the throttle is reduced
(less torque) for descent (about the same airspeed).
Also, think about the take-off. When the power is advanced torque increases
right away but the rudder is not very effective until considerable forward
speed is attained. In the meantime offset thrust is still doing it's job to
help counteract that torque that is pulling you toward the runway lights.
Hope this helps.
it's job to help keep
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: trim
>
><<
>understand
>why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to making
>trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for a
>general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
>Thanks.
>
>Mark Boynton
>Phoenix, Arizona>>>>
>
>Simple answer- The Piet does not have adjustable trim tabs.
>
>Mike B ( Piet N 687 MB )
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | FAA Inspection Web Page |
Hey Mike,
Another great contribution. Thanks again.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Thanks Micheal
The other nice advantage of properly set engine offset is that the
requirement to trim out the aircraft by deflecting control surfaces is
lessened and therefore so is the induced drag. Piets are draggy enough.
Has anyone though about making adjustable engine mounts to allow
experimenting with thrust angles? With all the different engines, engine
weights and wing positioning to set C of G, how would any of us be sure that
what we have is optimum?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com>
Date: Friday, November 06, 1998 9:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: trim
>Engine offset is used too counteract engine torque. The nice thing about it
>is that the amount of offset thrust you get changes with the power setting.
>Engine at idle-(aircraft gliding) = no side thrust generated and none
>needed. Engine at or near full power-(cruise or climb) =maximum side thrust
>generated when it is needed. So the amount of thrust generated works with
>the throttle.
>The effect of a given control surface trim is primarily related to aircraft
>speed. For example, the amount of rudder trim required to counteract
engine
>torque in cruise flight would be way too much when the throttle is reduced
>(less torque) for descent (about the same airspeed).
>Also, think about the take-off. When the power is advanced torque increases
>right away but the rudder is not very effective until considerable forward
>speed is attained. In the meantime offset thrust is still doing it's job to
>help counteract that torque that is pulling you toward the runway lights.
>Hope this helps.
>it's job to help keep
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:08 PM
>Subject: trim
>
>
>>
>><<
>>understand
>>why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to making
>>trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for
a
>>general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Mark Boynton
>>Phoenix, Arizona>>>>
>>
>>Simple answer- The Piet does not have adjustable trim tabs.
>>
>>Mike B ( Piet N 687 MB )
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
>>> With all the different engines, engine
weights and wing positioning to set C of G, how would any of us be sure
that
what we have is optimum?
John Mc>
Hi John:
There is over 60 yrs of experience building & flying this airplane. No need
to experiment. Ask the guy who owns one.
Mike B ( Piet N 687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)mailexcite.com |
Thanks, Mike.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, Arizona
> Engine offset is used too counteract engine torque. The nice thing about
it
> is that the amount of offset thrust you get changes with the power
setting.
> Engine at idle-(aircraft gliding) = no side thrust generated and none
> needed. Engine at or near full power-(cruise or climb) =maximum side
thrust
> generated when it is needed. So the amount of thrust generated works with
> the throttle.
> The effect of a given control surface trim is primarily related to
aircraft
> speed. For example, the amount of rudder trim required to counteract
engine
> torque in cruise flight would be way too much when the throttle is
reduced
> (less torque) for descent (about the same airspeed).
> Also, think about the take-off. When the power is advanced torque
increases
> right away but the rudder is not very effective until considerable
forward
> speed is attained. In the meantime offset thrust is still doing it's job
to
> help counteract that torque that is pulling you toward the runway
lights.
> Hope this helps.
> it's job to help keep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Thursday, November 05, 1998 5:08 PM
> Subject: trim
>
>
> >
> ><<
> >understand
> >why adding engine thrust offset is standard practice as opposed to
making
> >trim adjustments with the control surfaces or trim tabs. I'm looking for
a
> >general answer and any special considerations applicable to the Piet.
> >Thanks.
> >
> >Mark Boynton
> >Phoenix, Arizona>>>>
> >
> >Simple answer- The Piet does not have adjustable trim tabs.
> >
> >Mike B ( Piet N 687 MB )
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Fw: Santa's check ride |
This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Santa's check ride
>
>
>Here's one you guys should enjoy.
>
>
>Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
Federal
>Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the
pre-
>Christmas flight check.
>
>In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
>reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was in
>order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly put
>Santa's flying skills to the test.
>
>The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
>harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked Santa's
>weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
>
>Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
compass
>and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner hopped in
>carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
>
>"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa incredulously.
>
>The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this ahead of
>time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're gonna
lose
>an engine on takeoff. "
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Santa's check ride |
Based on my experiance with the FAA, I'm suprised they had an examiner qualified
in a sleigh!
John Greenlee wrote:
> This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
> Subject: Santa's check ride
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Here's one you guys should enjoy.
> >
> >
> >Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
> Federal
> >Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the
> pre-
> >Christmas flight check.
> >
> >In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
> >reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was in
> >order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly put
> >Santa's flying skills to the test.
> >
> >The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
> >harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked Santa's
> >weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
> >
> >Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
> compass
> >and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner hopped in
> >carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
> >
> >"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa incredulously.
> >
> >The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this ahead of
> >time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're gonna
> lose
> >an engine on takeoff. "
> >
--
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: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't fit anymore, so
I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
email me...
---"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
> > >
> > >
> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
eyes
> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
always be.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> David B.Schober, CPE
> Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> Fairmont State College
> National Aerospace Education Center
> Rt. 3 Box 13
> Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> (304) 842-8300
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
What are you asking for the prop. Will it fir a C85-12 flanged crankshaft?jas
>Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't fit anymore, so
>I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
>email me...
>
>
>---"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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
>eyes
>> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
>always be.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
I'm interested in the J3 nosebowl, what are you asking for it???
JoeC
>Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't fit anymore, so
>I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
>email me...
>
>
>---"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
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
>eyes
>> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
>always be.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> 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: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
I am interested in your Hegy propeller. My son has a Pietenpol
with a Continental A65 and needs a propeller. Please E-mail
me at
---indicating your price, location and phone number (if you
haven't sold it already). Thanks,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jerry Guyer <cigognes(at)oz.sunflower.org> |
Please
unsubscribe
for a while
thanks
Jerry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | One Happy (Air) Camper |
Finally, after 2 1/2 months of no building progress, we have finally
settled into our new house, and I am set up in my new 34'x30' shop! I
have all of my tools organized, and my rib jig/oak door set up, and
have my ribs lined up in the larger portion of the garage (the car
part) to look just like a Pietenpol wing. I have an order of spruce
from Wicks on the way as I type this- enough for me to finish the 16
remaining wing ribs, and the entire empennage, and I am one happy
camper!
Anyone bored enough to want to see pics of my new setup may do so here:
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/MyProgress.shtml
There you will find an exact copy of the above text, with links to the
pictures (4 of them).
Richard DeCosta
One Happy (Air) Camper
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
I am quite a distance away from needing a
prop yet, but what amount of money
does it take to make you happy to rid
of it?
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
> Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't fit anymore, so
> I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
> email me...
>
> ---"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
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
> eyes
> > > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
> always be.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> > 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(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
I am quite a distance away from needing a
prop yet, but what amount of money
does it take to make you happy to rid
of it?
Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman wrote:
Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't
fit anymore, so
I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
email me...
---"David B. Schober" dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> 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" dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> 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
> > >
> > >
> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
eyes
> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
always be.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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
eyes
> turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
be.
>
>
--
/--------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
|DAVID SCOTT |______ \______====== )-+
|scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
\--------------------/ (O)
title: Design Engineer
tel;work: 309-672-7706
tel;fax: 309-672-7753
tel;home: not posted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
>Finally, after 2 1/2 months of no building progress, we have finally
>settled into our new house, and I am set up in my new 34'x30' shop!
RICHARD !! You da man ! Wow, most of us would kill for a shop
that size. Congratulations !!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
newbie at this.
TIA
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
It doesn't matter if an A-65 has a tapered or flanged shaft. With the taper
shaft, you mount the prop to a prop hub assembly part number A3746 which is
then installed on the taper shaft.
Ed Nolan wrote:
> I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
> benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
> other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
> newbie at this.
>
> TIA
> Ed
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
if the price is right grab it. my C65 has a tapered shaft, easier to pull
the prop/hub. they stay attached when pulled.
JoeC
>I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
>benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
>other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
>newbie at this.
>
>TIA
>Ed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
David-
The main difference between tapered shaft and flanged crankshafts on
Continental A-65's is your propellor has to match the type of shaft you
have on your particular engine. They are not interchangeable.
(at least that I'm aware of..)
Note that if you purchase a tapered shaft engine make sure you get the
propellor hub too because to purchase the hub alone is about $500.
Nobody makes those anymore. A flanged A-65 engine does not have
a separate prop hub-the flange is cast right with the crank on those
engines. The main concern here is that the flange hasn't been bent by
a prop strike, etc. This can be fixed by a good engine overhaul shop
though if not too severe.
ps- that's a good engine with either crank !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
Hi Richard,
Congratulations on your new home and your new shop. If I may pass
along some info that helped me. Check your dimensions on your new rib cap
strip material so that it matches your previous cut dimensions exactly.
Otherwise your new ribs will not match your previous ones as closely as you
may think and you will have a new "educational experience" when you begin
to assemble the wing.
I go to your image collection quite often, and I am very grateful for
all of your reference and resource work that you are providing to our
group. Thanks Richard.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
Thanks. That's something I hadn't thought of. You're talking about
making sure the new capstrip is exactly the same size as I used on my
1st 12 ribs, right? How close to they need to be? Am I in for some
planing if they are not exact? Is it a weight concern or a shape
concern?
Thanks,
Richard
---Warren Shoun wrote:
>
> Hi Richard,
> Congratulations on your new home and your new shop. If I may pass
> along some info that helped me. Check your dimensions on your new
rib cap
> strip material so that it matches your previous cut dimensions
exactly.
> Otherwise your new ribs will not match your previous ones as closely
as you
> may think and you will have a new "educational experience" when you
begin
> to assemble the wing.
> I go to your image collection quite often, and I am very
grateful for
> all of your reference and resource work that you are providing to our
> group. Thanks Richard.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
Thanks, guys, for the information on the tapered shaft. Twenty years ago
this was removed from a Funk that hadn't flown in the previous ten years.
The original logs were lost so the thing was majored/magnafluxed, zero
timed and pickled (oil poured in all the holes). A recent inspection in
prep to sell it indicated everything was still OK. Guy's asking $3,800.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
>Thanks, guys, for the information on the tapered shaft. Twenty years ago
>this was removed from a Funk that hadn't flown in the previous ten years.
>The original logs were lost so the thing was majored/magnafluxed, zero
>timed and pickled (oil poured in all the holes). A recent inspection in
>prep to sell it indicated everything was still OK. Guy's asking $3,800.
>Ed
Ed- That is a decent price for what you described. Hopefully the big
dollar items are there too: Magnetoes, carb, exhaust, and prop hub.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
Richard,
The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching up
to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit and
rig properly.
I watched this happen on a group project where several different people
worked on the Piet, even using the same jigs, and it required a lot of work
to fit and rig. Good luck.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <CARDIGJ(at)mail.startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
I just purchased an overhauled, tapered shaft A-65 for $ 3000.00. Logs go
back to 1941. Engine hasn't flown in 27 years and is disassembled. Lots of
new parts included.
$ 3800.00 might be on the high side but it isn't outrageous. Offer $
3500.00 and enjoy.
Greg Cardinal, fuselage on wire wheels and working on engine mount.
>>> Ed Nolan 11/10 9:50 AM >>>
Thanks, guys, for the information on the tapered shaft. Twenty years ago
this was removed from a Funk that hadn't flown in the previous ten years.
The original logs were lost so the thing was majored/magnafluxed, zero
timed and pickled (oil poured in all the holes). A recent inspection in
prep to sell it indicated everything was still OK. Guy's asking $3,800.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
I dont have my spars yet, but would putting the finished ribs on fake
spars (pine or something), or in some kind of "'multiple rib' jig" as
I finish them help at all in keeping them lined up right? or do I just
have to wait til I am ready to assemble my wing?
RD
---Warren Shoun wrote:
>
> Richard,
> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off
even a
> small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs
matching up
> to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to
fit and
> rig properly.
> I watched this happen on a group project where several different
people
> worked on the Piet, even using the same jigs, and it required a lot
of work
> to fit and rig. Good luck.
> Warren
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Richard,
> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching up
>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit and
>rig properly.
I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice set of
ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
admitting this purchase.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: One Happy (Air) Camper |
Richard,
I didn't mean to cause you an undue amount of anxiety here. I think
if it is just something to be aware of, especially on matching the
dimensions of your rib cap strip material, that you will be fine. If as
you finish your ribs, and check them against each other for match, your
finished wing will be in good shape. Most wings seem to require at least
a small amount of long board sanding anyway...and this isn't a high speed
laminar flow wing anyway.
Warren
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I dont have my spars yet, but would putting the finished ribs on fake
> spars (pine or something), or in some kind of "'multiple rib' jig" as
> I finish them help at all in keeping them lined up right? or do I just
> have to wait til I am ready to assemble my wing?
>
> RD
>
> ---Warren Shoun wrote:
> >
> > Richard,
> > The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off
> even a
> > small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs
> matching up
> > to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to
> fit and
> > rig properly.
> > I watched this happen on a group project where several different
> people
> > worked on the Piet, even using the same jigs, and it required a lot
> of work
> > to fit and rig. Good luck.
> > Warren
> >
> >
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> "All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
> is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
> not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
Not to pick nit's, but I don't believe there was a C-65. The original line
of Cont. engines included the A-65, A-75 and A-80. Later, the C-75, C-85
and C-90 were introduced with a different crankcase. The 0-200 is simular
to the C- lines but the cas was again modified to take the vac. pump.
Ken
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Ed Nolan wrote:
> I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
> benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
> other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
> newbie at this.
>
> TIA
> Ed
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
Graham, I'd like to get $375.00 out of the prop,
I'm in Washburn, Mo. Phone 417-826-5409 (southwest Mo.)
---Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
>
> I am interested in your Hegy propeller. My son has a Pietenpol
> with a Continental A65 and needs a propeller. Please E-mail
> me at
>
> ---indicating your price, location and phone number (if you
> haven't sold it already). Thanks,
>
> Graham Hansen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
Graham, I'd like to get $375.00 out of the prop,
I'm in Washburn, Mo. Phone 417-826-5409 (southwest Mo.)
---Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
>
> I am interested in your Hegy propeller. My son has a Pietenpol
> with a Continental A65 and needs a propeller. Please E-mail
> me at
>
> ---indicating your price, location and phone number (if you
> haven't sold it already). Thanks,
>
> Graham Hansen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | 65-cont for sale |
David Atnip
at davida@mo-net.com has a 65 he took of his Piet and wants to sell or
trade for AC part
---Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> >Thanks, guys, for the information on the tapered shaft. Twenty
years ago
> >this was removed from a Funk that hadn't flown in the previous ten
years.
> >The original logs were lost so the thing was majored/magnafluxed,
zero
> >timed and pickled (oil poured in all the holes). A recent
inspection in
> >prep to sell it indicated everything was still OK. Guy's asking
$3,800.
> >Ed
>
> Ed- That is a decent price for what you described. Hopefully the big
> dollar items are there too: Magnetoes, carb, exhaust, and prop
hub.
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds like that
buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an entire
winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
JoeC
>>Richard,
>> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
>>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching up
>>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit and
>>rig properly.
>
>I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice set of
>ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
>Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
>I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
>sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
>PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
>I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
>'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
>admitting this purchase.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: J-3 nose bowl and 72X42 heggy prop |
The bowl is atached to the cowl with cherrymax and would like to get
$120.oo out of it
---fishin wrote:
>
> I'm interested in the J3 nosebowl, what are you asking for it???
> JoeC
>
> >Beings I've put on the 0-290, myJ-3 nose bowl doen't fit anymore, so
> >I'd like to sell it and my 72X42 heggy prop, anyone interested please
> >email me...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >---"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
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with
your
> >eyes
> >> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
> >always be.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >>
>
> >> 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
eyes
> >> turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will always
be.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
I've got a set of those ribs for the St. Criox( Chad Willy)
biPiet...... anyone interested?
---fishin wrote:
>
> Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds
like that
> buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an
entire
> winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
> mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
> JoeC
>
>
> >>Richard,
> >> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off
even a
> >>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs
matching up
> >>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work
to fit and
> >>rig properly.
> >
> >I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice
set of
> >ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
> >Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
> >I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
> >sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
> >PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
> >I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
> >'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
> >admitting this purchase.
> >
> >Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
fishin wrote:
>
> Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds like that
> buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an entire
> winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
> mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
> JoeC
Lat I heard, he was still assembling them, but you need to pick them up
in Brodhead. I'm pretty sure that I heard Charlie won't ship the
ribs...
-Carmen
----------------------
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: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds like that
>buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an entire
>winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
>mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
>JoeC
Joe- Thanks....I do feel better now :) Hey, I'll e-mail Grant MacLaren
and see if he has Charlie's address and phone.
Speaking of Grant, the latest BPA newsletter arrived yesterday and
1999 will mark the 70th year Anniversary of the Piet design. Wouldn't
it be nice to have the biggest Piet turn out at EAA and Brodhead
ever ?? Also this being Grant's final year (1999) as newsletter editor.
ps- IT IS VERY easy to fly into Oshkosh with NO radio.
I did it this year an it's a no brainer. The radio guys do all the work.
Anywho, I can fill those interested next April/May on how to mail
EAA to get your no radio waiver. Piece of cake.
MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
I've got a set of those ribs for the St. Criox( Chad Willy)
biPiet...... anyone interested?
---fishin wrote:
>
> Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds
like that
> buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an
entire
> winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
> mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
> JoeC
>
>
> >>Richard,
> >> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off
even a
> >>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs
matching up
> >>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work
to fit and
> >>rig properly.
> >
> >I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice
set of
> >ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
> >Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
> >I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
> >sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
> >PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
> >I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
> >'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
> >admitting this purchase.
> >
> >Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
>The original line of Cont. engines included the A-65, A-75 and A-80.
Later, the C-75, >C-85 and C-90 were introduced with a different crankcase.
Yes, the engine with the tapered shaft is an A65. It has the mags, carb, &
exhaust but no prop hub. I guess my next question is "what must be done to
install a starter?" Can a generator be hung on it without difficulty? Are
prop hubs difficult to get? Reasonable price for one? Basic questions, I
know.
Ed
The 0-200 is simular
>to the C- lines but the cas was again modified to take the vac. pump.
>
>Ken
>
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Ed Nolan wrote:
>
>> I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
>> benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
>> other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
>> newbie at this.
>>
>> TIA
>> Ed
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Ok, I talked with Charlie Rubeck's wife this afternoon and here is the
scoop:
For a complete set of Air Camper ribs:
$300 plus $25 shipping parcel post.
812-829-2069
Spencer, IN s-w of Indianapolis.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Tapered shaft |
If it is a -8 there is not a spot on the accesory case for either a starter
or a generator. Why add the weight? I think I have heard that the C-85-12
has starter and generator holes that might interchange. I would keep it as
light as possible with 65 hp however.
Steve E. Provo UT>
-----Original Message-----
Nolan
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:42 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tapered shaft
>The original line of Cont. engines included the A-65, A-75 and A-80.
Later, the C-75, >C-85 and C-90 were introduced with a different crankcase.
Yes, the engine with the tapered shaft is an A65. It has the mags, carb, &
exhaust but no prop hub. I guess my next question is "what must be done to
install a starter?" Can a generator be hung on it without difficulty? Are
prop hubs difficult to get? Reasonable price for one? Basic questions, I
know.
Ed
The 0-200 is simular
>to the C- lines but the cas was again modified to take the vac. pump.
>
>Ken
>
>On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Ed Nolan wrote:
>
>> I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
>> benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
>> other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
>> newbie at this.
>>
>> TIA
>> Ed
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Tapered shaft |
If the engine you have is a -8 there is no economical way of installing a
starter or generator. The A65-9 uses a different accessory housing and the
crankcase has additional machining for the appropriate gears for the starter
drive. Looking in the parts catalog for the A-65, it doesnt look like even the
-9 can use a generator.
If you can find the parts, a McDowel starter can be installed on any of the A
series engines. This is a mechanical starter that connects a flex cable to a
flywheel behind the prop and a lever in the cockpit. You set the engine to
where it is coming up on compression and pull the handle which rotates the prop
through the compression stroke. Simple and efficient. Unfortunatly parts are
hard to find.
Another point. If the engine is a -3 you probobly want to stay away from it.
Parts for the up exhaust engines are hard to find.
As far as hand propping a small engine like this, no problem. Just have a lot
of respect for the prop. I've been hand propping airplanes for over 30 years
without incident. That's not to say I haven't seen incedents happen, just not
to me. Again use lots of respect!
Ed Nolan wrote:
> >The original line of Cont. engines included the A-65, A-75 and A-80.
> Later, the C-75, >C-85 and C-90 were introduced with a different crankcase.
>
> Yes, the engine with the tapered shaft is an A65. It has the mags, carb, &
> exhaust but no prop hub. I guess my next question is "what must be done to
> install a starter?" Can a generator be hung on it without difficulty? Are
> prop hubs difficult to get? Reasonable price for one? Basic questions, I
> know.
>
> Ed
>
> The 0-200 is simular
> >to the C- lines but the cas was again modified to take the vac. pump.
> >
> >Ken
> >
> >On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Ed Nolan wrote:
> >
> >> I was offered a C65 with a tapered shaft (should it be flange?). What
> >> benefits/problems are there with this type of arrangement? What is the
> >> other option? If the terminology isn't correct, please forgive. I'm a
> >> newbie at this.
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> Ed
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
>Hi Guys:
>
>This comm is a request from Ed Snyder.
>His "A" powered Sky Scout is flying. He wants to move the radiator down
>into the cowl. He seeks info as to how to make this installation.
>
>Mike (Piet N687MB)
>
The best working example comes in the 1933 Glider & Flying Manual, page 18
(GERE Sport Biplane) just put the radiator 45=B0 and put light aluminum
deflectors (as venecian curtains (sp?) it works great.
I am planning to use this system in my Flying Flea project next year
Saludos
----------------
initial testing!=09
--------------
Delegado Regional FEMEDA-FAI | 1,835 VW 2 place "modified" 1929 Ramsey=
Bathtub
ggower(at)informador.com.mx | FAI Legal Ultralight (224 Kg dry) (90%=
finished
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO | modifying wings)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flying from:
Aerodromo "Paco Yerena" in Chapala: Alt 4,997' ASL N 20=BA18.610' W=
103=BA09.606'
(Grass) Main Strip 14/32 700 mts (2,300'Long 60'W) CT: PAK 123.45. For
Ultralights and light planes only. Right pattern to 14 (flying over town
forbidden) IMPORTANT: check ASL & power available for take off!
________________________________________________________________________________
While we are on the subject of A-65's, does anyone know the steps on
converting a Cont a-65 to an A-75? (or where to get it?)
I have a factory new A-65 that has been in a crate for 37 years. Crank,
cam, carb, case etc. all new, not rebuilt. The only problem all four
pistons have four cracks on each side radiating out from the wrist pin
holes. Go figure! The engine was all in cosmoline and in a crate with a
shingle roof like a dog house. All holes covered with leather patches. The
spark wires have a permanate "set" in position, but quess I could afford new
ones.
Thought if I were to buy new pistons, I would just buy the ones for a 75hp
instead 65hp. Haven't bought a prop yet either.
Barry Davis
bed(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ? It
is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts, and a
washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this picture
scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
________________________________________________________________________________
I also bought a set of Charlie's ribs last summer, for $300. And they are
perfect- built with T-88 epoxy.
Al S.
>>Richard,
>> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
>>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching up
>>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit and
>>rig properly.
>
>I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice set of
>ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
>Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
>I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
>sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
>PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
>I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
>'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
>admitting this purchase.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
When I bought mine, he offered to ship them- but it was easier to pick them
up at Brodhead.
Al S.
>fishin wrote:
>>
>> Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds like that
>> buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an entire
>> winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
>> mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
>> JoeC
>
>Lat I heard, he was still assembling them, but you need to pick them up
>in Brodhead. I'm pretty sure that I heard Charlie won't ship the
>ribs...
>
>-Carmen
>
>----------------------
>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: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
>Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
>(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ?
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:::::::::::::
According to the current owner is Howard Holman of
Riverside, CA.
Where are you located, Chuck?
Ed
Connecticut
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Hi Chuck,
Could you send me a copy?
Thanks
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Pasley <lpasley(at)aristotle.net> |
| Subject: | Vertical stab off set |
My purchased GN 1 has the vertical stabilizer cocked to the left about 3/4
inch at the top when viewed from behind the plane. Was this built in or is
it just warped? I know my vertical stabilizer is a bit warped and I can
take this out. Comments?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck,
Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 1999 calendar
>Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
>(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ?
It
>is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts,
and a
>washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
>mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this picture
>scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: Vertical stab off set |
the offset is built in for engine tork, mine is set 1"off set and
flies straight without any right rudder
---Larry Pasley wrote:
>
> My purchased GN 1 has the vertical stabilizer cocked to the left
about 3/4
> inch at the top when viewed from behind the plane. Was this built in
or is
> it just warped? I know my vertical stabilizer is a bit warped and I
can
> take this out. Comments?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Newbie\1999 calendar |
Hi Group
I was first on this list yesterday after finding you via the Pietenpol
Club which I will join as soon as I get all my Nickles counted.
I have been searching for a good design for a few months, trying to
educate myself after many years of Inactivity on the HomeBuilt front. We
went back and visited the EAA last June and it relit the dream of
wanting to build my own. I joined the EAA in Sept.
Way back in 1955 I did a scrapbook in the 7th grade with a picture of
the Pietenpol and other planes I liked, Lost the scrapbook years ago but
when I ran into the website it sparked me and brought back those
memories.
I say why not a Pietenpol? I still have all my Model "A" Ford
restoration books I had when I restored my 31 Town Sedan (Which I sold)
in 1993. What a natural to build a Pietenpol and find another Model
"A" Ford, Make a great combination to drive in to a local Fly-In. A
Model "A" Ford pulling a trailer with a Model "A" Powered Pietenpol on
it. But would need the folding wings.
Anyway it is nice to find this group and I hope to be building in 1999
as I have to get my workshop in order, just moved here in late 95 after
retireing from the Govt. I have exp as a Aircraft & Marine Machinist so
maybe those skills can be used. Also I worked in the Babbitt section at
the Long Beach Naval Shipyard doing small 2" to large 35" Spring "Shaft"
Bearings, still have all my scraping tools and such. Later in life I
ended up in Production Engineering and a Computer Spec which I retired
from in 1994 due to Base Closure.
Calendar, If they are giving out new 1999 calendars with a picture of
the Pietenpol I sure would like one also, that will be on my wall real
fast.
Thanks
Gordon Brimhall
High Desert, So. Calif
EAA 595215
Ham Radio KB6IE 1977
Past Member Acorn "A"s
Mpj01(at)aol.com wrote:
> Hi Chuck,
> Could you send me a copy?
> Thanks
> Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Santa's check ride |
FAA?? The last time I sent a letter to Santa, it was in the North Pole and
everyone knows the North Pole is in Canada. So, the inspection would have
been carried out by Transport Canada.
Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 12:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>Based on my experiance with the FAA, I'm suprised they had an examiner
qualified
>in a sleigh!
>
>John Greenlee wrote:
>
>> This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
>> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
>> Subject: Santa's check ride
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Here's one you guys should enjoy.
>> >
>> >
>> >Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
>> Federal
>> >Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the
>> pre-
>> >Christmas flight check.
>> >
>> >In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
>> >reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork was
in
>> >order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly
put
>> >Santa's flying skills to the test.
>> >
>> >The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
>> >harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked Santa's
>> >weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
>> >
>> >Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
>> compass
>> >and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner hopped
in
>> >carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
>> >
>> >"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa
incredulously.
>> >
>> >The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this ahead
of
>> >time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're gonna
>> lose
>> >an engine on takeoff. "
>> >
>
>
>--
>
**
>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: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
How can one go about getting one of these calenders???I'd sure like to have one
JoeC
>>Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
>>(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ?
>::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
>:::::::::::::
>
>According to the current owner is Howard Holman of
>Riverside, CA.
>
>Where are you located, Chuck?
>
>Ed
>Connecticut
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Santa's check ride |
Not if it was a Homebuilt Dom. The RAA's AIR ABA (Airworthiness Inspector
Representative Amateur Built Aircraft) would probably have that job. What
would Santa's share of the travel expenses be?
That discussion yesterday about Tapered crankshafts has me wondering. I
measured the A 65 and C80 in my shop and found they are both the same. My
ADC Cirrus engine has tha same design and taper but the diameters are
larger. Does anyone have a list of shaft sizes? Are they SAE standards?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 4:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>FAA?? The last time I sent a letter to Santa, it was in the North Pole and
>everyone knows the North Pole is in Canada. So, the inspection would have
>been carried out by Transport Canada.
>
>Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
>-----Original Message-----
>From: David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 12:23 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>
>
>>Based on my experiance with the FAA, I'm suprised they had an examiner
>qualified
>>in a sleigh!
>>
>>John Greenlee wrote:
>>
>>> This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
>>> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
>>> Subject: Santa's check ride
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Here's one you guys should enjoy.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
>>> Federal
>>> >Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the
>>> pre-
>>> >Christmas flight check.
>>> >
>>> >In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
>>> >reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork
was
>in
>>> >order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly
>put
>>> >Santa's flying skills to the test.
>>> >
>>> >The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
>>> >harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked
Santa's
>>> >weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
>>> >
>>> >Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
>>> compass
>>> >and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner
hopped
>in
>>> >carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
>>> >
>>> >"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa
>incredulously.
>>> >
>>> >The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this ahead
>of
>>> >time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're gonna
>>> lose
>>> >an engine on takeoff. "
>>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>
*
>**
>>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: 1999 calendar |
Hey Ed, I'm located in the 'Air Capital of the World' - Wichita KS. I got
that site from the software 'Pro Pilot', but I've never seen this Piet there.
Thanks for the info.
p.s. Years ago, I knew of a guy named Ed Nolan from Whg. W V .
________________________________________________________________________________
I have been planning all along to use a 110 hp Corvair in my Piet,
which I found in Pennsylvania (a 15 hour drive from my house).
However, my father, who has connections in the auto repair business,
recently told me he knows of a 140 hp Corvair engine in Maine (where I
live) that I can get for a song.
I know 110 is prefered for a Piet, but can a 140 be made to work, or
should I get my travelling music...?
Richard
p.s. any calandars left? :)
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Forwarded Questions |
>From: GMacLaren(at)aol.com
>Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998 12:02:06 EST
>To: Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov, jgreenlee(at)morgan.net
>Cc: pickles(at)snowcrest.net
>Subject: Fwd: No Subject
>
>Can one of/both you guys answer this man's questions?
>I'm swamped.
>-=Grant=-
>Dear sir - - I can only imagine the work it must take to maintain the
>Pietenpol web site! Thanks for hours of enjoyment. I am at the stage in
>life where I must build an airplane. When I was in high school, my band
>teacher had purchased the plans for a Piet, and all I could wonder is "why
>would anyone want to fly low and slow when the could blast about in a KR2
>for the same price?" Well now . . . at 37, with 3 kids of my own, I WANT LOW
>AND SLOW! I have built model airplanes as long as I could remember, and the
>Pietenpol, wood and fabric, looks like my big models. I have even gone back
>to covering my "old timer" models with silk. But, My question for you is
>one of pietenpol performance. I was a weightlifter, and weigh a solid 245,
>at 6' tall. My wife is into fitness as well, and she is about 145. I quit
>lifting, and I figure with lots of aerobic exercise, I can cut my mass
>another 25 pounds or so. Sooooooo....... will the Pietenpol perform
>satisfactorily with the nearly four hundred punds of pilot and passenger? I
>should think that the extra power of a continental 100 horse or that new 80
>horse Jabiru might be a good choice for a heavy pilot, but I am not a
>Licensed pilot yet, and I don't know. Or do I exceed the safe limits for the
>plane with those weights? Also, will the Piet be a good choice for a low
>time pilot? I have arranged for flight training in an old T-Craft, will
>this be a good way to learn? Please drop me an e-mail If you have the time,
>and I'd love to join your organization!
>
>Thanks, Andy Picklesimer, Aviation Dreamer Extrodinair!
> address is pickles(at)snowcrest.net, I think . . . (I'm new at this internet
>thing too . . . thanks again, and feel free to hand out that address to
>anyone that might help.
>
>P.S. I live in Red Bluff, Ca. between Redding and Chico, If you know of
>anyone in this area building or flying a Pietenpol.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Hi Chuck,
I visited Wichita quite oftern while stationed at Richards-Gebaur AFB
outside of Kansas City during the '70's. My office buddy hailed from
Wichita and now works for Cessna in the accounting dept. His father was an
engineer for Beech on the King Air line. We flew down quite often to get a
square meal at his folks' house. Probably the most "interesting" town in
KS was Liberal. Talk about stepping back in time! Flying in the mid-West
is very different from flying here in New England--no grid lines here--just
a lot of prisses! We actually have to rely on that compass thing. 8
)
No, not from WV. No relatives in "this here country." Came over from
Ireland as a ten year old, so the only blood I have Stateside are my two
children, a sister, and my mother. (Wives don't count on this
score...well, maybe just a bit through guilt by
association.) 8
)
Ed
Connecticut
>Hey Ed, I'm located in the 'Air Capital of the World' - Wichita KS. I got
>that site from the software 'Pro Pilot', but I've never seen this Piet there.
>Thanks for the info.
>p.s. Years ago, I knew of a guy named Ed Nolan from Whg. W V .
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Forwarded Questions |
>>should think that the extra power of a continental 100 horse or that new 80
>>horse Jabiru might be a good choice for a heavy pilot,
As far as the Jabiru goes, be prepared to spend about $10K just for the
engine. This air cooled engine, I believe, only develops 80 HP when
turning 3,000 RPM + and must do that with a short prop. Jab is coming out
with a 6 cylinder 100 HP version very shortly, but the price is extremely
high. The engine is substantially lighter than an O-200.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ed Nolan <nv_nolan(at)apollo.commnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Sorry about loading down the site with what should have been a private
email. So much for proofreading the addresses.
Ed
>Hi Chuck,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Santa's check ride |
The taper on the continental A series engines is an SAE 0 taper per the type
certificate data sheet. The data sheet for the Cirrus doesn't call out a taper.
The machinery handbook doesn't list SAE tapers and I don't have access to SAE
specs.
A comment was made about props used on tapered vs. flanged shafts. Most of the
props I've seen have the counterbores in the hub for the flange shaft. To use
these props on the tapered hub you need to install bushings in the counterbore.
If you have a prop without the counterbore, it can only be used with the tapered
type hub.
John McNarry wrote:
> Not if it was a Homebuilt Dom. The RAA's AIR ABA (Airworthiness Inspector
> Representative Amateur Built Aircraft) would probably have that job. What
> would Santa's share of the travel expenses be?
>
> That discussion yesterday about Tapered crankshafts has me wondering. I
> measured the A 65 and C80 in my shop and found they are both the same. My
> ADC Cirrus engine has tha same design and taper but the diameters are
> larger. Does anyone have a list of shaft sizes? Are they SAE standards?
>
> John Mc
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 4:00 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>
> >FAA?? The last time I sent a letter to Santa, it was in the North Pole and
> >everyone knows the North Pole is in Canada. So, the inspection would have
> >been carried out by Transport Canada.
> >
> >Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 12:23 PM
> >Subject: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
> >
> >
> >>Based on my experiance with the FAA, I'm suprised they had an examiner
> >qualified
> >>in a sleigh!
> >>
> >>John Greenlee wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
> >>>
> >>> John
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
> >>> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
> >>> Subject: Santa's check ride
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Here's one you guys should enjoy.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
> >>> Federal
> >>> >Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for the
> >>> pre-
> >>> >Christmas flight check.
> >>> >
> >>> >In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
> >>> >reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork
> was
> >in
> >>> >order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly
> >put
> >>> >Santa's flying skills to the test.
> >>> >
> >>> >The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
> >>> >harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked
> Santa's
> >>> >weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
> >>> >
> >>> >Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
> >>> compass
> >>> >and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner
> hopped
> >in
> >>> >carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
> >>> >
> >>> >"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa
> >incredulously.
> >>> >
> >>> >The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this ahead
> >of
> >>> >time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're gonna
> >>> lose
> >>> >an engine on takeoff. "
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> *
> >**
> >>David B.Schober, CPE
> >>Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
> >>Fairmont State College
> >>National Aerospace Education Center
> >>Rt. 3 Box 13
> >>Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
> >>(304) 842-8300
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
Rt. 3 Box 13
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Chuck,
>
> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
>
> John
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
> Subject: 1999 calendar
>
>
> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the
I.A.M.
> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar
?
> It
> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts,
> and a
> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this
picture
> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck,
I Will like to have one also.
Thank you in advance
Gary Gower
Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
>Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
>
>Mark Boynton
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>> Chuck,
>>
>> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
>>
>> John
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
>> Subject: 1999 calendar
>>
>>
>> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the
>I.A.M.
>> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar
>?
>> It
>> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts,
>> and a
>> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
>> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this
>picture
>> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 140 hp Corvair? |
If I am not mistaken the 140 horse motor is the one with the bigger valves
that has a problem with dropping valve seats. Much less prefferred for
aircraft use.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta
Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:28 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 140 hp Corvair?
>I have been planning all along to use a 110 hp Corvair in my Piet,
>which I found in Pennsylvania (a 15 hour drive from my house).
>However, my father, who has connections in the auto repair business,
>recently told me he knows of a 140 hp Corvair engine in Maine (where I
>live) that I can get for a song.
>
>I know 110 is prefered for a Piet, but can a 140 be made to work, or
>should I get my travelling music...?
>
>Richard
>
>p.s. any calandars left? :)
>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
>is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
>not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
I guess I missed the beginning of this thread. Is this a physical
calandar that everyone is requesting, or a scan of a page from it? If
it's a scan, I can put it on my Web site where anyone and everyone can
download it. Just email it to me and I'll put it online.
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 1999 Calandar |
I guess I missed the beginning of this thread. Is this a physical
calandar that everyone is requesting, or a scan of a page from it? If
it's a scan, I can put it on my Web site where anyone and everyone can
download it. Just email it to me and I'll put it online.
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Ed
Actually I enjoyed reading the post, My Mom was born and raised tell she
was 15 in Hoisington Kansas, We stopped in the area and at Hays on the way
back to Wis. and rode thru Hays and I spotted a Implement Company with the
name Radke on the front of the building, My Grandfather was Radke and Moms
maiden name. The Radke's married the Hoffmans.
When I build my Pietenpol I am going to land at all those small airports
on my way back to the EAA Party.
Gordon
Ed Nolan wrote:
> Sorry about loading down the site with what should have been a private
> email. So much for proofreading the addresses.
>
> Ed
>
> >Hi Chuck,
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 140 hp Corvair? |
Hi Richard,
I still have a lot to learn about Corvair engines, but here's my take on the
subject:
I think the 140 is distinguishable from the 110 primarily in its breathing
capability; the 140 is set up to operate with 4 carbs and the valves are quite
a bit larger. The whole valve train is different than on the 110, but
displacement is the same. The use of the 140 on aircraft is not without
precendent: Richard Finch, in his book "How to Keep Your Corvair Alive" shows
the installation of a 140 with a Rinker PSRU (I think it was a 140, it was
certainly an engine with the 140 vavle train) in his own Cessna (I think it was
a 152). That engine was later installed in a Piet. I seem to recall that
there was at least one other person on this list who was intending to use a
140. It has been done many times in the past.
That said, I think most would discourage the use of this engine on a Piet. The
140 has a reputation for dropping valve seats when abused (operated at high
temperatures for extended periods). Although this situation is not as likely
in our application as it would be on a racing egine operated at high revs, it
would be catastrophic. The 140 also has a reputation for requiring more
maintanence and attention to keep it tuned, and I'm told that cores are often
found to be abused since they generally operate at higher temperatures. Parts
are not as easy to find, and they are usually more expensive. The 140 reaches
its peak torque and hp output at higher revs than the 110 (much higher than
will be used in our application unless you install a PSRU). And unless you
intend to use multiple carbs, you will detract from the redeeming feature of
this engine (breathing capacity). And remember, BHP recommended the 95 hp
engine (optimal torque curve for direct drive).
Still, if it can be had for a song, I say get the engine and use it as your
guinea pig. Many parts are interchangeable, and you'll lear a lot from tearing
down a practice engine. Also, the 140 is much more valuable to a Corvair
tinkerer than a 110, so you could probably find a good trade with a CORSA
member.
On a related note, I spent Saturday at the Great Western Fan Belt Toss, a huge
Corvair show and swap meet. There were countless Corvairs in the show and
parking lot. Must have been over a hundred cylinder heads and several whole
engines for sale (no 110s) at the swap meet. Larry Shapiro, from Larry's
Corvair shop here in So. Cal. remarked that he has over 150 Corvair engine
cores on his lot. Good rebuildable cores (some still running) go for about
$200. I met several other individuals who would sell cores for less.
--Peter
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck
I would like to have one also.
Thanks
Gordon
High Desert So. Ca.
Gary Gower wrote:
> Chuck,
>
> I Will like to have one also.
>
> Thank you in advance
>
> Gary Gower
> Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
>
> >Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
> >
> >Mark Boynton
> >Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >
> >> Chuck,
> >>
> >> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
> >>
> >> John
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
> >> Subject: 1999 calendar
> >>
> >>
> >> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the
> >I.A.M.
> >> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar
> >?
> >> It
> >> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts,
> >> and a
> >> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
> >> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this
> >picture
> >> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________________
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | duprey(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
> Chuck:
>
> I would like to have one also.
>
> Thanks
>
>John Duprey
>
>
> Gary Gower wrote:
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I Will like to have one also.
> >
> > Thank you in advance
> >
> > Gary Gower
> > Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
> >
> > >Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
> > >
> > >Mark Boynton
> > >Phoenix, AZ
> > >
> > >
> > >> Chuck,
> > >>
> > >> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> > >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
> > >> Subject: 1999 calendar
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the
> > >I.A.M.
> > >> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers)
Calendar
> > >?
> > >> It
> > >> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury
struts,
> > >> and a
> > >> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers,
with
> > >> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this
> > >picture
> > >> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck, send me one
robert b.
---Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Chuck
>
> I would like to have one also.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gordon
> High Desert So. Ca.
>
>
>
> Gary Gower wrote:
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I Will like to have one also.
> >
> > Thank you in advance
> >
> > Gary Gower
> > Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
> >
> > >Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
> > >
> > >Mark Boynton
> > >Phoenix, AZ
> > >
> > >
> > >> Chuck,
> > >>
> > >> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> > >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
> > >> Subject: 1999 calendar
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper
on the
> > >I.A.M.
> > >> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers) Calendar
> > >?
> > >> It
> > >> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has
jury struts,
> > >> and a
> > >> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of
flowers, with
> > >> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have
this
> > >picture
> > >> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Chuck, send me one
robert b.
---Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Chuck
>
> I would like to have one also.
>
> Thanks
>
> Gordon
> High Desert So. Ca.
>
>
>
> Gary Gower wrote:
>
> > Chuck,
> >
> > I Will like to have one also.
> >
> > Thank you in advance
> >
> > Gary Gower
> > Guadalajara, Jalisco, MEXICO
> >
> > >Chuck, would you send me a copy too. Thanks
> > >
> > >Mark Boynton
> > >Phoenix, AZ
> > >
> > >
> > >> Chuck,
> > >>
> > >> Send me one. 1024*768 preferred.
> > >>
> > >> John
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> > >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > >> Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 9:12 PM
> > >> Subject: 1999 calendar
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> >Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper
on the
> > >I.A.M.
> > >> >(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers) Calendar
> > >?
> > >> It
> > >> >is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has
jury struts,
> > >> and a
> > >> >washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of
flowers, with
> > >> >mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have
this
> > >picture
> > >> >scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________________
> > >
> > >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Michael,
I've seen Charlie working on ribs when he came to the Brussels, Ontario
Piet. Flyin. If my memory serves me right I think he said he uses Mid-USA
Yellow Cedar to manufacture the Ribs.
Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 11:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: confession
>>Richard,
>> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
>>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching
up
>>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit
and
>>rig properly.
>
>I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice set of
>ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
>Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
>I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
>sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
>PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
>I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
>'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
>admitting this purchase.
>
>Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Joe, I saw Charlie at Brodhead this summer. Yes, he is still building ribs.
builds a rib each day before breakfast.
Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com>
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 12:57 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: confession
>Hey Mike===they say that confession is good for the soul,,,sounds like that
>buy was also good for the pocket-book.I can't imagine spending an entire
>winter building a set of ribs if they are available at the price you
>mentioned.Do you know if Charlie is still assembling them???
>JoeC
>
>
>>>Richard,
>>> The concern is shape and dimension. If the thickness is off even a
>>>small amount, the fit over the spars and the length of the ribs matching
up
>>>to the leading edge piece will require an amazing amount of work to fit
and
>>>rig properly.
>>
>>I need to get this off my chest guys.....I purchased a really nice set of
>>ribs for my Piet built by a farmer in IN named Charlie Ruebeck (sp).
>>Earl M. here in OH had them collecting dust so I bought them.
>>I dunno what Charlie charges for a set- I think under 275 $ ? Not
>>sure. Anywho they were PERFECT. Douglas fir I think.
>>PERFECT. Every one of em. I could have not duplicated his work.
>>I guess when I see some of these 50% so called fast build kits with
>>'builder assistance' programs for rich folk I don't feel so bad about
>>admitting this purchase.
>>
>>Mike C.
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <hannan(at)vmicro.com> |
Dear friends :
I've decided to sell off my pietenpol project.
It includes the fuselage and the elevator and rudder
and about 20 of the ribs? the aircraft was built from the 1932 plans, From
the flying and guilder manual. it is built of aircraft spruce and aircraft
Mahogany plywood. if you are interested please cal me at 1-888-693-2496 7:00
price 850.00$ US
and I also have a volksplane for sell for 600.00$ call for details
Thanks,
Ken Hannan
Dear friends :
I've decided to sell off my pietenpol
project.
It includes the fuselage and the elevator and
rudder
and about 20 of the ribs? the aircraft was built
from the 1932
plans, From the flying and guilder manual. it is built of aircraft
spruce and
aircraft Mahogany plywood. if you are interested please cal me at
1-888-693-2496
price 850.00$ US
and I also have a volksplane for sell for 600.00$
call for
details
Thanks,
Ken Hannan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
For Chuck... please send me a calendar..
Dr. O.Lanham, 1912 Collins Dr. Bellevue, Ne 68005
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fwd: 1999 calendar |
Sorry about the confusion folks !! I have a picture, of this beautiful
example of a Pietenpol Air Camper, scanned in...NOT a calendar.
Chuck
by rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (8.8.8/8.8.5/AOL-4.0.0)
with ESMTP id WAA08142;
by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.1-10 #U3118)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:10:16 -0500 (EST)
________________________________________________________________________________
Mercury MTS v1.43 (NDS)) (via Mercury MTS v1.43 (NDS)) (via Mercury MTS v1.43
(NDS))
Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
(International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ? It
is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts, and a
washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this picture
scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
Steve,
My e-mail won't open the piet group site, and has not for about 3 weeks.
Can you please drop me from the list on my mailexcite address, and
re-add me to the list as:
thanks
robert bolske
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: 1999 calendar |
Thats great Chuck, PLease send me the picture, I'll have my friend print it for
me
on his good color printer so I can hang it on the wall.
Gordon
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> Sorry about the confusion folks !! I have a picture, of this beautiful
> example of a Pietenpol Air Camper, scanned in...NOT a calendar.
>
> Chuck
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: 1999 calendar
> Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 22:10:16 -0500 (EST)
> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>
> Does anyone know who owns the beautiful Ford 'A' Air Camper on the I.A.M.
> (International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers) Calendar ? It
> is red and white, kinda like Bernard's plane, except it has jury struts, and
a
> washing machine water pump. The setting is in a field of flowers, with
> mountains in the background. The N number is NX107JM. I have this picture
> scanned in, and if anyone wants to see it, just e-mail me.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Forwarded Questions |
Well, I'll be switched! And I thought my students never listened to anything
I said!
I really can't offer the best answer to your questions, Andy, but I'm pleased
you're considering the Piet...I've finally got mine under construction. Drop
me a line. Don Cooley, (ADonJr(at)AOL.com)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Eli or Robert or Teresa Bozeman |
| Subject: | Aeromarine type 51 ( 1930s bubble compass ) |
Hellow folks, I've got to get rid of all my tresures for this
convertion. anyway I've got this compass, I got it from and old friend
that was in his Piet back in the 40s ......anyone interesed get back
to me
robert b.
---"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
> > >
> > >
> > > When once you have tasted flight, you will always walk with your
eyes
> > > turned skyward, for there you have been and there you will
always be.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
>
> 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: | duprey(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | New England Piets |
Hi I am looking for other piet builders/ owners in
New England. I am planning to start building very soon would like to see
some Piets near me. I am located South of Boston but willing to tarvel about
New England. Drop me a line.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | duprey(at)mailexcite.com |
| Subject: | New England Pietenpols |
Hi:
Looking for Piet builders/owners in New England.
I am planning to start building very soon. Would like to see some other
Piets in my area. I live in Mass. South of Boston, But willing to travel
about New England. Drop me a line.
Thanks
John Duprey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Santa's check ride |
John,
You are quite right it would be the RAA. Santa's share of the travel would
be the same price as everyone else. Don't think it would cost anymore due to
the greater distance.
Dom. Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: John McNarry <jmcnarry(at)techplus.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 9:38 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>Not if it was a Homebuilt Dom. The RAA's AIR ABA (Airworthiness Inspector
>Representative Amateur Built Aircraft) would probably have that job. What
>would Santa's share of the travel expenses be?
>
>That discussion yesterday about Tapered crankshafts has me wondering. I
>measured the A 65 and C80 in my shop and found they are both the same. My
>ADC Cirrus engine has tha same design and taper but the diameters are
>larger. Does anyone have a list of shaft sizes? Are they SAE standards?
>
>John Mc
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Wednesday, November 11, 1998 4:00 PM
>Subject: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>
>
>>FAA?? The last time I sent a letter to Santa, it was in the North Pole and
>>everyone knows the North Pole is in Canada. So, the inspection would have
>>been carried out by Transport Canada.
>>
>>Dom. Bellissimo, Toronto
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David B. Schober <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu>
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 12:23 PM
>>Subject: Re: Fw: Santa's check ride
>>
>>
>>>Based on my experiance with the FAA, I'm suprised they had an examiner
>>qualified
>>>in a sleigh!
>>>
>>>John Greenlee wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is not new, but would probably still be a hit with this group.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Brian3647(at)aol.com
>>>> Date: Monday, November 09, 1998 6:49 AM
>>>> Subject: Santa's check ride
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Here's one you guys should enjoy.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >Santa Claus, like all flight operators, gets regular visits from the
>>>> Federal
>>>> >Aviation Administration, and the FAA examiner arrived last week for
the
>>>> pre-
>>>> >Christmas flight check.
>>>> >
>>>> >In preparation, Santa had the elves wash the sleigh and bathe all the
>>>> >reindeer. Santa got his logbook out and made sure all his paperwork
>was
>>in
>>>> >order. He knew the examiner would inspect all his equipment and truly
>>put
>>>> >Santa's flying skills to the test.
>>>> >
>>>> >The examiner walked slowly around the sleigh. He checked the reindeer
>>>> >harnesses, landing gear and Rudolf's nose. He carefully checked
>Santa's
>>>> >weight and balance calulations for the sleigh's enormous payload.
>>>> >
>>>> >Finally, they were ready for the checkride. Santa got in, checked the
>>>> compass
>>>> >and fastened his seatbelt and shoulder harness. Then the examiner
>hopped
>>in
>>>> >carrying, to Santa's great surprise, a shotgun !
>>>> >
>>>> >"This is a flight test - what's the gun for ? " asked Santa
>>incredulously.
>>>> >
>>>> >The examiner winked and said " I shouldn't really tell you this
ahead
>>of
>>>> >time, " as he leaned over to whisper in Santa's ear, " But you're
gonna
>>>> lose
>>>> >an engine on takeoff. "
>>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>
*
>*
>>**
>>>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: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 140 hp Corvair? |
Richard,
Stick with the 110 and put the 95 HP cam into it. Check out the 140 and buy
it if it's free and not more than $100. Remove the heads and keep for a
spare. You never know when a set of 110 heads will show up. They could also
be purchased from Clark's Corvair Parts in Massachusets (they have a
web-site). I have both the 110 and 140, and a friend gave me a set of 110
heads. Everything else is the same except the 140 crankshaft is nitrided and
is a little superior to the 110. I made my own castings to close the engine
and support the shaft. One of these days I'll get around to sending you
some pictures I promised you. I've been out of touch from this discussion
group for a while. I was working in Halifax for 3 months and when I got back
I had Pietenpol finshing fever. Well, it's all done except I have no
propeller. Have been trying to carve one with the routing machine I made
from plans but have run into some problems. Jack Watson has taken the prop.
home to try and salvage it. Once I hang the prop. I can call for final
Inspection. Everything else is done. I'm in a good position (time wise) from
now till end of July to fly off my initial restricted time, then bring it to
Brodhead. The Canadian Piet. owners in southern Ontario and one from
Rochester, NY (if he gets his completed) are planning to go the Brodhead
together in a gaggle (possibly 6-7) for the 70th Anniversary. It should
prove to be a wonderful experience.
Regards for now,
Dom. Bellissimo
iginal Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 140 hp Corvair? |
>If I am not mistaken the 140 horse motor is the one with the bigger valves
>that has a problem with dropping valve seats. Much less prefferred for
>aircraft use.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard DeCosta
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:28 AM
>Subject: 140 hp Corvair?
>
>
>>I have been planning all along to use a 110 hp Corvair in my Piet,
>>which I found in Pennsylvania (a 15 hour drive from my house).
>>However, my father, who has connections in the auto repair business,
>>recently told me he knows of a 140 hp Corvair engine in Maine (where I
>>live) that I can get for a song.
>>
>>I know 110 is prefered for a Piet, but can a 140 be made to work, or
>>should I get my travelling music...?
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>p.s. any calandars left? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>==
>>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>>"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
>>is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
>>not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 140 hp Corvair? |
Dom,
Would you be willing to scan photos of your Covair engine,
installation, and cowling and attach them to a message to this
discussion group. I am very interested in the Corvair conversion and I
really appreciate the information you have provided to this group so
far.
If you can provide any other suggestions regarding how to select
the correct Corvair engine for conversion, i.e. which cars and years are
best, that would be great. For example, I know a guy who has a Corvair
coupe, a station wagon, and a truck-like vehicle (I don't know the names
of these models). Do you have any suggestions as to which one would be
best to go after? I know that the coupe has a standard transmission.
These cars have been sitting in his yard for many years. He says that he
will sell them, but he is pretty nervous about letting me go into his
yard, so I have very little information about the cars or the engines.
He will not sell the engines separately. Any suggestions?
You said in your attached message, "I made my own castings to
close the engine and support the shaft." Please elaborate on what this
means. I don't think that there are very many builders that are casting
their own engine parts. Thank you.
Ed Larsen - Mapleton, UT
From: Raffaele Bellissimo [SMTP:rbelliss(at)yesic.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:20 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Re: 140 hp Corvair?
Richard,
Stick with the 110 and put the 95 HP cam into it. Check out the
140 and buy
it if it's free and not more than $100. Remove the heads and
keep for a
spare. You never know when a set of 110 heads will show up.
They could also
be purchased from Clark's Corvair Parts in Massachusets (they
have a
web-site). I have both the 110 and 140, and a friend gave me a
set of 110
heads. Everything else is the same except the 140 crankshaft is
nitrided and
is a little superior to the 110. I made my own castings to close
the engine
and support the shaft. One of these days I'll get around to
sending you
some pictures I promised you. I've been out of touch from this
discussion
group for a while. I was working in Halifax for 3 months and
when I got back
I had Pietenpol finshing fever. Well, it's all done except I
have no
propeller. Have been trying to carve one with the routing
machine I made
from plans but have run into some problems. Jack Watson has
taken the prop.
home to try and salvage it. Once I hang the prop. I can call for
final
Inspection. Everything else is done. I'm in a good position
(time wise) from
now till end of July to fly off my initial restricted time, then
bring it to
Brodhead. The Canadian Piet. owners in southern Ontario and one
from
Rochester, NY (if he gets his completed) are planning to go the
Brodhead
together in a gaggle (possibly 6-7) for the 70th Anniversary. It
should
prove to be a wonderful experience.
Regards for now,
Dom. Bellissimo
iginal Message-----
From: Mike Cunningham <mikec(at)microlandusa.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 10:42 AM
Subject: Re: 140 hp Corvair?
>If I am not mistaken the 140 horse motor is the one with the
bigger valves
>that has a problem with dropping valve seats. Much less
prefferred for
>aircraft use.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Richard DeCosta
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Thursday, November 12, 1998 6:28 AM
>Subject: 140 hp Corvair?
>
>
>>I have been planning all along to use a 110 hp Corvair in my
Piet,
>>which I found in Pennsylvania (a 15 hour drive from my house).
>>However, my father, who has connections in the auto repair
business,
>>recently told me he knows of a 140 hp Corvair engine in Maine
(where I
>>live) that I can get for a song.
>>
>>I know 110 is prefered for a Piet, but can a 140 be made to
work, or
>>should I get my travelling music...?
>>
>>Richard
>>
>>p.s. any calandars left? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>==
>>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>>"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
>>is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
>>not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<
together in a gaggle (possibly 6-7) for the 70th Anniversary. It should
prove to be a wonderful experience.>>
Hey Dom:
Tell me about that. Got a Piet in Saratoga NY. I may join you. Also, there
are some guys in New England.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 140 hp Corvair? |
PLEASE DO NOT send attachments. Send them to Richard and he will post them.
Steve e.
Dom,
Would you be willing to scan photos of your Covair engine,
installation, and cowling and attach them to a message to this
discussion group. I am very interested in the Corvair conversion and I
really appreciate the information you have provided to this group so
far.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larsen, Ed" <ELarsen(at)flowserve.com> |
| Subject: | RE: 140 hp Corvair? |
Steve,
Will you elaborate on this attachment thing? Do you mean Richard De
Costa and his web site? Please advise how this should be done and how
to access this information once it has been posted. Thanks. Sorry, I
did not realize that it was taboo to send attachments.
Ed Larsen - Mapleton, UT
From: steve(at)byu.edu [SMTP:steve(at)byu.edu]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 3:20 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: RE: 140 hp Corvair?
PLEASE DO NOT send attachments. Send them to Richard and he
will post them.
Steve e.
Dom,
engine,
installation, and cowling and attach them to a message to this
discussion group. I am very interested in the Corvair
conversion and I
really appreciate the information you have provided to this
group so
far.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 140 hp Corvair? |
-----Original Message-----
Larsen, Ed
Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 3:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: 140 hp Corvair?
Steve,
Will you elaborate on this attachment thing?
Those people that have slow connections attachments clog the line
unbearably.
Do you mean Richard De
Costa and his web site?
Yup.
Please advise how this should be done and how
to access this information once it has been posted.
Send the files (and a box of oreos) to Richard and ask him to to post em on
his web site.
Then check http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
Thanks. Sorry, I
did not realize that it was taboo to send attachments.
No problem.
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: posting pics, NE piets, etc... |
Anyone wishing to post images for the group, email them to me at
rdecosta(at)wrld.com (NOT AirCamper(at)Yahoo.com), and I will post them on
my Website for all to download.
As far as New England Piet builders goes, I know of four: Theres me in
Scarborough, Maine (next to Portland), Everett Millett in Windham,
Maine (10 miles northeast of Portland), Gary Price at the Hampton
Airfield in Hampton, New Hampshire, and Don Mains in New Hampshire
(his finished A-Piet is still at the Limington airport, tho).
Richard
---steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Larsen, Ed
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 3:27 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: RE: 140 hp Corvair?
>
>
> Steve,
>
> Will you elaborate on this attachment thing?
>
> Those people that have slow connections attachments clog the line
> unbearably.
>
> Do you mean Richard De
> Costa and his web site?
>
> Yup.
>
> Please advise how this should be done and how
> to access this information once it has been posted.
>
> Send the files (and a box of oreos) to Richard and ask him to to
post em on
> his web site.
> Then check http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/index.shtml
>
> Thanks. Sorry, I
> did not realize that it was taboo to send attachments.
>
> No problem.
>
> Steve E.
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New England Pietenpols |
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
John,
We live in central Pa. A little far I guess. Let me know if your into a
trip. Been flying about 2 years.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: 140 hp Corvair? |
Thanks to all those who contributed to answering my 140hp Corvair
question. I have decided to stick with my original 110. I will
definately be visiting the Corvair athority on my way back from Penn!
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | duprey(at)mailexcite.com |
> Hey anybody from New York or New England going that wants someone to
split gas $$ I would love to go 180lbs can get by with 10lb luggage. Pvt.
Pilot willing to navigate.
> <
> together in a gaggle (possibly 6-7) for the 70th Anniversary. It should
> prove to be a wonderful experience.>>
>
>
> Hey Dom:
>
> Tell me about that. Got a Piet in Saratoga NY. I may join you. Also,
there
> are some guys in New England.
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
I MAY be flying to Brodhead/OSH in '99 (if that is what were talking
about). I am a member of EAA Chapter 141 (Limington, ME), and I can
get a 172 for a week or two if I have ppl to split the ride. Email me
directly if you are interested.
Richard
---duprey(at)mailexcite.com wrote:
>
>
> > Hey anybody from New York or New England going that wants someone
to
> split gas $$ I would love to go 180lbs can get by with 10lb luggage.
Pvt.
> Pilot willing to navigate.
>
> > <
> > together in a gaggle (possibly 6-7) for the 70th Anniversary. It
should
> > prove to be a wonderful experience.>>
> >
> >
> > Hey Dom:
> >
> > Tell me about that. Got a Piet in Saratoga NY. I may join you. Also,
> there
> > are some guys in New England.
> >
> > Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 140 hp Corvair? |
>Brodhead. The Canadian Piet. owners in southern Ontario and one from
>Rochester, NY (if he gets his completed) are planning to go the Brodhead
And who might that be? I live near Geneseo, NY. There is a Piet
at the Perry-Warsaw airport that is owned by one of the CFI's that
flies out of there. I haven't seen it yet - I am flying with the
other CFI.
Dave
Retsof, NY and hoping for decent weather this weekend so he can
finally solo.....
________________________________________________________________________________
I've got 3 new pics on my site of Robert Bozeman's Piet, which he just
sent me.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/Images.shtml
They are on the first pull-down menu.
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TLC62770(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: 1999 calendar |
Please send me a copy of the Piet also takes . I would like to have one in my
office for my students to see Thanks Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | calandar image online |
The now famous calandar Pietenpol is now on my website.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/Images.shtml
Its on the very top pull-down.
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
"All knowledge is of itself of some value. There
is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would
not rather know it than not." --Samuel, Dr. Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Builder's Manual |
I am slowly narrowing the design choices down. The two leading
contenders (until the January Kitplanes) are the Air Camper and
a Graham Lee Neiuport 12. I am actually leading toward the Piet
because I figure that after 70 years all of the bugs are worked
out of it. The only thing that bothers me about the Pietenpol
is the 385 pound useful load listed on the specs. This seems
awful low for a 2 seater and from what I have read is pretty
much ignored. Has anyone done a structural analysis to determine
if this limit is due to the stucture or due to the Model A engine?
On the plans ordering page there is a Original Air Camper & Sky
Scout Builders Manual listed. Is this a useful book? Are there
any others that I should purchase when I order my plans? Maybe
Santa will bring them if I make up my mind soon enough.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builder's Manual |
Dave,
If you are a first-time builder you might be disappointed with the Nieuport plans.
Friend of mine bought them and said they were about the most incomplete he
had encountered and left many questions unanswered. Another major difference
is that one a/c is all wood the other all metal. I have built both metal and wood
a/c and wood is a much more pleasant material to work with. Lastly, there
is nothing like the support for the Nieuport builder which is available in this
Pietenpol newsgroup.
Regards,
Leo
P.S. I'm only partly biased on the subject. I'm not a Pietenpol builder but have
built a wood MiniMax and am about to start on a wood Jodel D18.
--
On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:16:50 Dave and Connie wrote:
>I am slowly narrowing the design choices down. The two leading
>contenders (until the January Kitplanes) are the Air Camper and
>a Graham Lee Neiuport 12. I am actually leading toward the Piet
>because I figure that after 70 years all of the bugs are worked
>out of it. The only thing that bothers me about the Pietenpol
>is the 385 pound useful load listed on the specs. This seems
>awful low for a 2 seater and from what I have read is pretty
>much ignored. Has anyone done a structural analysis to determine
>if this limit is due to the stucture or due to the Model A engine?
>
>On the plans ordering page there is a Original Air Camper & Sky
>Scout Builders Manual listed. Is this a useful book? Are there
>any others that I should purchase when I order my plans? Maybe
>Santa will bring them if I make up my mind soon enough.
>
>Dave
>
>
-----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Builder's Manual |
Leo Powning wrote:
> Dave,
> If you are a first-time builder you might be disappointed with the Nieuport plans.
Friend of mine bought them and said they were about the most incomplete
he had encountered and left many questions unanswered. Another major difference
is that one a/c is all wood the other all metal. I have built both metal and
wood a/c and wood is a much more pleasant material to work with. Lastly, there
is nothing like the support for the Nieuport builder which is available in this
Pietenpol newsgroup.
> Regards,
> Leo
> P.S. I'm only partly biased on the subject. I'm not a Pietenpol builder but have
built a wood MiniMax and am about to start on a wood Jodel D18.
> --
>
Dave
I have been looking at some of the same designs you are and I am a member of the
Nieuport list that has lots of builders on it including Graham Lee who is the
designer of the 87% version. I also send and get many questions to his personnal
mailbox. He is always on the list to answer your questions. Maybe Leo was
thinking about some other designer. I do not know about the plans other than
Grahm saying the Nieuport 11 plans are made for the first time builder and the
Nieuport 12 is not made
for first time builder.
My friend built and is flying his Minimax and I shot alot of video of it two weeks
ago at our Soggy Dry Lake Fly-IN
I myself have decided to build a Ragwing Ultralite Pietenpol and the Standard version.But
not sure which one first. The RagWing group has alot of activity, more
than the Nieuport group. But that does not mean anything. I'm new to this
group so I don't know how much activity goes on here.
Yes, the new Kitplanes January issue will be out in about a month, My 1998 Jan
issue is getting pretty Dog Eared now. I get most of my information on the Internet
anyway.
Gordon
On Sat, 14 Nov 1998 14:16:50 Dave and Connie wrote:
> >I am slowly narrowing the design choices down. The two leading
> >contenders (until the January Kitplanes) are the Air Camper and
> >a Graham Lee Neiuport 12. I am actually leading toward the Piet
> >because I figure that after 70 years all of the bugs are worked
> >out of it. The only thing that bothers me about the Pietenpol
> >is the 385 pound useful load listed on the specs. This seems
> >awful low for a 2 seater and from what I have read is pretty
> >much ignored. Has anyone done a structural analysis to determine
> >if this limit is due to the stucture or due to the Model A engine?
> >
> >On the plans ordering page there is a Original Air Camper & Sky
> >Scout Builders Manual listed. Is this a useful book? Are there
> >any others that I should purchase when I order my plans? Maybe
> >Santa will bring them if I make up my mind soon enough.
> >
> >Dave
> >
> >
>
> -----== Sent via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Easy access to 50,000+ discussion forums
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Four cylinder Honda engine |
Does anyone know about Honda engines for aircraft use? My father-in-law
has one available and was thinking about the possibilities of putting
one in an Air Camper. Any comments are welcome.
Thanks,
Brent Reed
Kent, WA
Does anyone know about Honda engines
for
aircraft use? My father-in-law has one available and was thinking
about
the possibilities of putting one in an Air Camper. Any comments
are
welcome.
Thanks,
Brent Reed
Kent, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JRoss10612(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Builder's Manual |
Unsubscribe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Four cylinder Honda engine |
Hi Brent
Don't know anything about Honda engine in aircraft but you may want to
go to the Other Engine power group list as they talk about just
averything for power. Right now their is a heavy discussion on about
Corvairs.
Send me message and I'll get the page info to you.
I am getting close to ordering my plans and still have not decided on
what engine. I hope I can just start building Pietenpol and decide on
engine later. I like the Model "A" for tradition but the Corvair gives
much more power. Thought about a New Evolution harley engine also, the
ones that don't leak oil, and now they have a brand new Overhead Valve
engine but both of them are real expensive to buy, like 3000.00 where
they say you can still get rebuildable corvair engines for 100 bucks and
their are alot of parts sources.
Gordon
Brent Reed wrote:
> Does anyone know about Honda engines for aircraft use? My
> father-in-law has one available and was thinking about the
> possibilities of putting one in an Air Camper. Any comments are
> welcome. Thanks, Brent ReedKent, WA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Four cylinder Honda engine |
I think Honda engines are among the most reliable, and dependable engines on
the planet. The problem with all of those Jap engines is that they produce
their horsepower up high in the RPM range, so a prop speed reduction unit
would be required, which adds complexity, expense, and reduces reliability.
The beauty of the Pietenpol is it's simplicity. Mr. Pietenpol designed it
that way to keep it within reach of a majority of the population. I trust
his research, and plan on using the Ford Model A engine in my Air Camper.
This engine, with its long stroke, has so much torque that the prop doesen't
even unload when airborne !! Also, the low RPM keeps the prop efficient, no
need for the PSRU.
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
"One can get proper insight into the practice of flying, only by actual flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Greenlee <jgreenlee(at)morgan.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Four cylinder Honda engine |
The most sensible thing I have heard in some time.
Here! Here!
-----Original Message-----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 11:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four cylinder Honda engine
>I think Honda engines are among the most reliable, and dependable engines
on
>the planet. The problem with all of those Jap engines is that they produce
>their horsepower up high in the RPM range, so a prop speed reduction unit
>would be required, which adds complexity, expense, and reduces reliability.
>The beauty of the Pietenpol is it's simplicity. Mr. Pietenpol designed it
>that way to keep it within reach of a majority of the population. I trust
>his research, and plan on using the Ford Model A engine in my Air Camper.
>This engine, with its long stroke, has so much torque that the prop
doesen't
>even unload when airborne !! Also, the low RPM keeps the prop efficient,
no
>need for the PSRU.
>
>Chuck Gantzer
>Wichita KS
>
>"One can get proper insight into the practice of flying, only by actual
flying
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Gordon wrote:
<< I hope I can just start building Pietenpol and decide on
engine later.>>
Not a good idea, There are two fuselage lengths-long & short, The long
fuselage was designed for the corvair engine. It is 6 inches longer. If you
wish to use a lighter engine than the A engine, build the long fuselage.
All this has to do with the CG. It is very tricky if you build anything
other than a short fuselage A powered Piet.
Mike ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Four cylinder Honda engine |
With the two choices of either Mpdel "A" or Corvair to be a true Pietenpol I feel
using the Model "A" Engine just for what you just said. A simple design. Have you
looked around for availability of the Ford engine? I have been out of the Model
"A" Loop for 8 years now so other than Hemmings Motor News I don't know where any
sources are. It would be nice to find an engine in running condition rather than
a
basket case. I did find the Model "A" Web site so I may find the source their.
I would just love to hear a Pietenpol W/Mdl "A" engine Fly-By. Anybody have a
sound track on the web someplace?
Gordon
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> I think Honda engines are among the most reliable, and dependable engines on
> the planet. The problem with all of those Jap engines is that they produce
> their horsepower up high in the RPM range, so a prop speed reduction unit
> would be required, which adds complexity, expense, and reduces reliability.
> The beauty of the Pietenpol is it's simplicity. Mr. Pietenpol designed it
> that way to keep it within reach of a majority of the population. I trust
> his research, and plan on using the Ford Model A engine in my Air Camper.
> This engine, with its long stroke, has so much torque that the prop doesen't
> even unload when airborne !! Also, the low RPM keeps the prop efficient, no
> need for the PSRU.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> Wichita KS
>
> "One can get proper insight into the practice of flying, only by actual flying
________________________________________________________________________________
Michael Brusilow wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>
> << I hope I can just start building Pietenpol and decide on
> engine later.>>
>
> Not a good idea, There are two fuselage lengths-long & short, The long
> fuselage was designed for the corvair engine. It is 6 inches longer. If you
> wish to use a lighter engine than the A engine, build the long fuselage.
> All this has to do with the CG. It is very tricky if you build anything
> other than a short fuselage A powered Piet.
>
> Mike ( Piet N687MB )
Mike
Thanks for info, I think I read that someplace now that you refreshed my
memory. I will have to decide on engine first. I really would like one with the
Model "A" to be just like his original plane. I still have all my model "A"
books on repair, engine rebuilding that I used when I restored my last Model
"A"
What do the plans consist of? Are they good plans and easy to follow? I have
exp in many model airplanes RC and was an Aircraft Machinist for many years so
I can read aircraft type drawings.
Thanks
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Gordon wrote:
<>
Very few problems with the prints. Buy them, build the airplane. Welcome
arboard.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
Hi Mike and group
I too agree that Honda engines are extremely reliable. My Civic has
200000kms with only regular maintenance. There are several companies
involved in adapting them to aircraft use but all require PSRUs.
The Model A and B ford engines are 200 cubic inch displacement and produce
their power at low rpm. They are heavy for the power they produce but if you
go to the BPA Website you can find links to ways of increasing the power and
doing it safely. The Model AA truck I own has had its engine in jeopardy for
some time.
The advantage of the larger course prop a high torque engine swings, is in
the diameter of the thrust disk. Big props at slow rpm are also quieter.
I would like to hear from some Corvair flyers and am curious if they find
the engine can really make use of the horsepower rating. I suspect that the
Corvair was designed to produce its HP at a higher rpm than the props used
allow. Any engine will make more HP if it is allowed to rev higher as the
small Continentals will show, hp is the rate of doing work. The higher Hp
comes from running at a higher rpm with a shorter prop. I would also like to
hear if some of you fortunate to enough to have flown the different Piet
adaptations would comment on how the wing position to compensate for C of G
with different engines changes the flight characteristics. The moment arm of
the fuse from wing center of lift to horizontal stabilizer must have some
effect on pitch sensitivity. The wing is much closer to the engine in the A
powered Piets. The long nose on the aircooled versions to me doesn't look
quite as good as the A powered units. Personal preference.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 12:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engine
>
>Gordon wrote:
>
><< I hope I can just start building Pietenpol and decide on
>engine later.>>
>
>Not a good idea, There are two fuselage lengths-long & short, The long
>fuselage was designed for the corvair engine. It is 6 inches longer. If you
>wish to use a lighter engine than the A engine, build the long fuselage.
>All this has to do with the CG. It is very tricky if you build anything
>other than a short fuselage A powered Piet.
>
>Mike ( Piet N687MB )
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Four cylinder Honda engine |
Gordon: A trip to Brodhead is better than a recording. One thing I noticed
as a passenger in a Ford Piet vs A continental is that the exhaust sound on
the continental changed as I turned my head but the ford being all on one
side didn't. Small thing but I think the Fords soud better.
J Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Gordon Brimhall
Date: Sunday, November 15, 1998 1:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Four cylinder Honda engine
>With the two choices of either Mpdel "A" or Corvair to be a true Pietenpol
I feel
>using the Model "A" Engine just for what you just said. A simple design.
Have you
>looked around for availability of the Ford engine? I have been out of the
Model
>"A" Loop for 8 years now so other than Hemmings Motor News I don't know
where any
>sources are. It would be nice to find an engine in running condition rather
than a
>basket case. I did find the Model "A" Web site so I may find the source
their.
>
>I would just love to hear a Pietenpol W/Mdl "A" engine Fly-By. Anybody have
a
>sound track on the web someplace?
>
>Gordon
>
>Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>> I think Honda engines are among the most reliable, and dependable engines
on
>> the planet. The problem with all of those Jap engines is that they
produce
>> their horsepower up high in the RPM range, so a prop speed reduction unit
>> would be required, which adds complexity, expense, and reduces
reliability.
>> The beauty of the Pietenpol is it's simplicity. Mr. Pietenpol designed
it
>> that way to keep it within reach of a majority of the population. I
trust
>> his research, and plan on using the Ford Model A engine in my Air Camper.
>> This engine, with its long stroke, has so much torque that the prop
doesen't
>> even unload when airborne !! Also, the low RPM keeps the prop efficient,
no
>> need for the PSRU.
>>
>> Chuck Gantzer
>> Wichita KS
>>
>> "One can get proper insight into the practice of flying, only by actual
flying
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Aron(at)hrn.bradley.edu |
| Subject: | Re: Other engine power group |
to Gordon:
What is this Other Engine list? It sounds very interesting. Can you
elaborate a little
about what they discuss and how we can make contact with them?
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [Fwd: File - Welcome File] |
As you requested
Here is the welcome file from the other engine group. They talk about
lots of other types of engines, sometimes very active like lately
talking about Corvair engines. They have an archive you can resurch
also.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | File - Welcome File |
Welcome to this mailing list! Please save this message for
future reference.
This mailing list is for the discussion of auto and motorcycle
engine conversions for experimentals and ultralights.
To subscribe send the text:
subscribe vw
to listserver(at)toast.ml.org .
To unsubscribe send the text:
unsubscribe vw
to listserver(at)toast.ml.org .
For the entire command set, send the text:
help
to listserver(at)toast.ml.org .
To speak with a human send your message to vw-owner(at)toast.ml.org .
To post to the list send your message to vw(at)toast.ml.org .
Archives are available at www.toast.ml.org .
Please people, don't send attachments to this list (or any other list
without explicit permission). It is considered one of the most common
newbee mistakes on the internet. There are many people subscribed here
who have to pay for the time it takes them to download long messages,
and others who's mail systems barf (usually on me) on long messages.
The proper thing to do is to offer to email directly said attachment on
request or to post it somewhere for download via WWW or FTP.
Remember that it is O.K. if someone disagrees with you, and O.K. if you
disagree with them. Don't take it personally! Flames reflect more on
the character of the flamer than the flamee...
October 20, 1998 - November 16, 1998
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-aj