Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-an
January 09, 1999 - February 07, 1999
sitting
around with a pop in one hand a hot dog in the other talking
fabric
wood. Something like Brodhead.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
The VW doesn't produce the same hp as a C65 at the same RPM
The VW produces more or less depending on which VW you'll talking
about at higher RPM'S. Because the faster the prop turns the closer
the props tips get to mach1 this ain't cool rather noisey I'm told so the
prop is limited by this, the faster the engine turns the smaller the prop
diameter must be to limit tip speeds. There have been lo'ts of cases
where more powerfull engines were installed and the performance
got worse. The reason is that the higher rpm used a smaller diameter
prop It's thrust optained from a smaller colume of air moving back at
a much higher velocity, this air was now moving faster and closer to
the fuselage and in a plane such as the PIETENPOL with lot's and
and lot's of parasitic drag and you guessed it there was less thrust
because of all the increase in drag. Now take the older Ford engine
low on super tech but high on cubic inches and probaly a long stroke
in the crank lot's of torque and power at lower RPM and a long prop
providing a wider colume of air moving back along the plane at a lower
velocity.
The VW would work if it had a reduction drive and calulated the
best cruise rpm for the engine rpm.
Gotta go now got expoxy warming in front of a wood stove and
a rib ready to be glued.
________________________________________________________________________________
>I must be missing something here. If the VW is putting out 2330rpm at
>146.5ft-lbs and the C-65 is putting out 2400rpm at 142ft-lbs why can't the
vw
>be swinging the same size prop? It is running 70 rpm faster but has 4.5 ft
lbs
>more torque.
>
>What we need here is an Impartual Expert to explain.
>
>Gordon
>
>
>lpasley wrote:
>
>> Certainly I'm no expert either, but the A 65 and VW 65 would not be using
>> the same prop. The VW prop will be quite a lot shorter. You will have
more
>> thrust with the A 65.
>> Thanks, Larry Pasley
>> Carlisle, Arkansas
>>
>> ----------
>> > I wont even pretend to know what I'm talking about, But...
>> >
>> > VW engine with psru, 65 hp 65hpx5252/2330rpm=146.5 ft-lbs
>> >
>> > C-65 engine direct drive 65 hpx5252/2400rpm=142 ft-lbs
>> >
>> > Does this mean that the limiting factor of the 65 hp volkswagon engine
>> > with psru attached is cooling, or am i missing something about torque?
>> > I assume that in this situation both would use a nearly equal
propeller.
>> > ocb
>> >
>> >
>> > >From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Jan 7 05:03:05 1999
>> > >Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1074"@adena.byu.edu
>> > [128.187.22.180])
>> > > by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-29 #31181)
>> > > with ESMTP id <01J68YXTXIK48WWIX0(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
>> > oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>> > >Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 08:01:37 -0500
>> > >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>> > >Subject: VW Info
>> > >Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>> > >To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> > >Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>> > >Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>> > >Message-id: <6100A25EB(at)adena.byu.edu>
>> > >MIME-version: 1.0
>> > >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
>> > v1.44 (NDS))
>> > > (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>> > >Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>> > >X-Listname:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Subj: VW Engines
>> > > Date: Fri, Jul 24, 1998 11:57 AM EDT
>> > > From: Andrew.Pietenpol(at)stpaul.com
>> > > To: GMacLaren(at)aol.com, PietenpolDon(at)Juno.com
>> > >
>> > > This past week PBS aired a 3 hour show called "PLANE CRAZY." Hope
>> > you can
>> > > see it on public TV in your area!!
>> > >
>> > > It was about a man who built (or attemptedto build) a plane in 30
>> > days.
>> > >Any-who,
>> > > on his second 30 day attempt, he built a Fisher designed kit
>> > >"YOUNGSTER", with
>> > > the help of the Fisher family. (6 people it took)
>> > >
>> > > A lesson can be learned here if you think about it; and the point
>> > about
>> > >VW engines
>> > > I want to demonstrate is this:
>> > >
>> > > The Fisher plane weighed just 320 pounds (dry). The pilot added
180
>> > >lbs+. (It's a
>> > > single place plane.) It took off of from a super nice flat
blacktop
>> > >runway of 2500+
>> > > feet. This "Youngster" ate up over half the runway, and barely
flew
>> > --
>> > >with very
>> > > little extra power -- at about 45-50 mph behind its' VW engine . .
>> > .
>> > >"Struggle" may
>> > > be a better word.
>> > >
>> > > The thinking part comes in here: People are always asking: "CAN I
>> > USE A VW
>> > > ENGINE IN A PIET?" The answer is a resounding "NO".
>> > >
>> > > In the "Youngster" example you have an airplane weighing half that
>> > of
>> > >an Air
>> > > Camper, carrying only one person and operating in an almost
perfect
>> > >environment
>> > > -- and it can barely fly.
>> > >
>> > > Lets change a few elements in the equation: Using the same VW
>> > engine;
>> > >double
>> > > the weight to 650 lbs, double the people to 360 lbs, double the
>> > fuel to
>> > >80-100 lbs --
>> > > then take off from a short grass runway that has not been mowed in
>> > a
>> > >month. Add
>> > > a dew drop or two, and a few gopher holes. Hummmmmm. Do you want a
>> > VW
>> > > engine? NO WAY!
>> > >
>> > > VW proponents will come back and say: "Well, you know they made
>> > some larger
>> > > displacement engines in the mid 70's." Increasing CC's does
>> > increase
>> > >the torque.
>> > > But the margin of improvement is not great enough, and most VW's
>> > are
>> > > middle-of-the-road type.
>> > >
>> > > How often have you ever seen a Sky Scout or Air Camper fly behind
a
>> > VW
>> > > engine? NEVER! It has been tried and it did not pan out.
>> > >
>> > > Corvairs, A65's, A85's, Model A's, perform well, and I personally
>> > >believe (not
>> > > proven) that if a guy wanted to play around with that JABARU
engine
>> > >certified out
>> > > of Austrailia, a lot of fun could be had at a moderate cost.
>> > >
>> > > I see gear reduction kits and Rotax engines as places for things
to
>> > go
>> > >wrong, parts
>> > > to break, and additional expense.
>> > >
>> > > Follow the PLANS + Build it with Quality Materials = An Airplane
>> > that
>> > >flies well, is
>> > > safe and you can be proud of yourself when you fly/show it to
>> > others!!!
>> > >
>> > > Andrew Pietenpol
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
>> > > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands
Crescent,
>> > > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
>> > Pietenpol Air
>> > > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental
aircraft
>> > engine.
>> > > At my request, Brian supplied this article for use in our BPA
>> > >Newsletter and
>> > > for my use in answering the many Pietenpol newcomers who ask us
>> > "Can I
>> > > power a Piet with a VW engine?''
>> > >
>> > > March 6, 1996 - Grant; for your use as requested. Feel free to
>> > >editorialize.
>> > >
>> > > Why a VW "Beetle" engine is not a good choice in a Pietenpol!
>> > >
>> > > A Volkswagen "Bug" engine and it's derivatives can produce enough
>> > >horsepower to
>> > > fly a Pietenpol Air Camper. This alone is not enough of a reason
to
>> > >select it as a
>> > > Pietenpol engine. This is why.
>> > >
>> > > The efficiency of a propeller (irrespective of how well it is
>> > designed)
>> > >is a function of
>> > > the difference between the speed of the airplane and the speed of
>> > the
>> > >propeller
>> > > wash. As the speed of the prop wash approaches the speed of the
>> > >airplane, the
>> > > propeller approaches 100% of theoretical efficiency.
>> > >
>> > > At the same time, thrust is caused by the propeller throwing air
>> > >backwards. The
>> > > faster the air, the more the thrust. As the air speed approaches
>> > the
>> > >speed of the
>> > > airplane the thrust goes to zero! At zero forward speed the thrust
>> > is
>> > >maximum.
>> > >
>> > > Put these two together and you see you can't have both at once. If
>> > the
>> > >airplane is
>> > > not moving it has a lot of thrust, its efficiency is zero--it is
>> > doing
>> > >no work. As the
>> > > airplane accelerates, the work (force times distance) and the
>> > >efficiency increases
>> > > but the thrust decreases. In the case of a zero drag airplane the
>> > >airplane can
>> > > accelerate until it reaches the thrust speed. There is zero thrust
>> > and
>> > >the propeller is
>> > > approaching 100% efficiency.
>> > >
>> > > Since most aircraft don't have zero drag (especially Pietenpols!),
>> > the
>> > >airplane comes
>> > > to equilibrium somewhere between the two extremes. In the case of
a
>> > >Piet with a
>> > > large propeller and a slow turning engine, it is when the
propeller
>> > is
>> > >at about 75%
>> > > efficiency. You can not get better than that unless you clean up
>> > the drag.
>> > >
>> > > One variable you can adjust in a propeller, that has an effect on
>> > >efficiency, is the
>> > > propeller diameter. The bigger the propeller the more air it can
>> > push
>> > >backwards.
>> > > Therefore for a given propeller wash speed there is more thrust.
Or
>> > >another way to
>> > > look at it; for a required thrust, a bigger propeller needs less
>> > wash
>> > >speed. Therefore,
>> > > if you remember about efficiency, there is more efficiency because
>> > for
>> > >a given
>> > > thrust the velocity of the propeller wash is less.
>> > >
>> > > Diameter also effects pitch. The larger the diameter, the less
>> > pitch
>> > >you need (the air
>> > > can move slower). This effects the speed range of the aircraft. A
>> > large
>> > >propeller is
>> > > like having a car with one low gear. A small propeller is like
>> > having
>> > >one high gear. If
>> > > you have a slow airplane, a low gear can work fine, in a fast
>> > airplane,
>> > >it won't work
>> > > because the engine will not produce any power to get going (fast
>> > >airplanes always
>> > > have surplus horsepower).
>> > >
>> > > The relationship for best propeller efficiency has been determined
>> > to
>> > >be that the
>> > > propeller tip speed should be approximately 2.3 times the aircraft
>> > >speed at cruise.
>> > > This you can't achieve. The diameter is too large or the rpm is
too
>> > >slow. The bigger
>> > > the diameter and the slower the engine the better. This is why
>> > World
>> > >War One
>> > > aircraft perform so well (best propeller efficiency) on low
power -
>> > >1400 rpm engines
>> > > turning 80" propellers.. Because our engine choices require more
>> > revs.
>> > >to produce
>> > > power, we have to compromise and lose efficiency. A Piet with a
72"
>> > >propeller,
>> > > 2300 max. rpm and 65 horsepower is the typical compromise with a
>> > >Continental
>> > > engine, but a Model "A" with 55 horsepower will do about the same.
>> > >Unfortunately,
>> > > to retain reliability, Model "A's" are usually built to produce 50
>> > >horsepower - or a bit
>> > > less.
>> > >
>> > > The Corvair engine is another compromise. They have a loss of
>> > >efficiency due to
>> > > the small diameter propeller and accelerate poorly (due to the
tall
>> > >gear effect) but
>> > > produces good power.
>> > >
>> > > So how does this relate to a VW engine?
>> > >
>> > > In order to use a Volkswagen engine, it has to really rev (over
>> > 3300
>> > >rpm) to produce
>> > > sufficient power. This requires a small propeller to keep the tip
>> > >speeds down. It
>> > > therefore has poor efficiency, or a too "tall" gear. If you pitch
>> > it so
>> > >you can take off,
>> > > you won't fly faster than about 50 mph. If you pitch it for cruise
>> > you
>> > >will need a
>> > > 6000 ft strip for take-off! The Corvair works because it has
>> > surplus
>> > >horsepower and
>> > > can afford to waste some. The VW can't afford the wasted
>> > horsepower.
>> > >
>> > > The only approach with a VW that will work is the one that Pazmany
>> > used
>> > >on his
>> > > PL-4. It uses a reduction belt. You then need a starter, and
>> > >alternator, wiring etc.
>> > > You also need to think about cooling. At 60 mph there is not much
>> > ram
>> > >air. The
>> > > Corvair requires a blower to get proper cooling. If you go this
>> > route
>> > >you have two
>> > > projects instead of one! In Pazmany's configuration, the
>> > installation
>> > >probably weighs
>> > > enough to allow an acceptable C.G. If not, this is your second
>> > major
>> > >problem. If you
>> > > solve these problems, get use to an engine revving like crazy,
>> > making
>> > >much noise, as
>> > > you cruise along.
>> > >
>> > > Aircraft are a compromise. In a slow airplane you must use a large
>> > >displacement,
>> > > slow turning engine if you want to keep it simple!
>> > >
>> > > How about a diesel?
>> > > Someone in the 1970's put a Mercedes diesel in a Pietenpol. They
>> > >brought it to
>> > > Oshkosh and created a lot of interest. The problem was it didn't
>> > have
>> > >enough
>> > > power. The engine was replaced with something else and it flew OK.
>> > >
>> > > The limitation with diesel engines is their power-to-weight ratio.
>> > They
>> > >tend to be
>> > > heavy for the power they produce. The VW diesel engine is not that
>> > >heavy, but I
>> > > don't think that it will produce enough power. You need about 50
hp
>> > to
>> > >fly an Air
>> > > Camper - a bit less to fly the Sky Scout. You need this type of
>> > power
>> > >at no more
>> > > than about 2500 rpm. This is why a VW beetle engine is no good -
>> > >because you
>> > > have to rev it too high to obtain the needed power.
>> > >
>> > > The other factors to consider in the over-all weight of a VW
>> > Diesel, is
>> > >that you will
>> > > probably need a gear reduction unit, and if you use a gear
>> > reduction
>> > >unit, you will
>> > > also need a starter. Water in the cooling system weighs 10 lbs. a
>> > >gallon etc. I am
>> > > sure you will be over 250 lbs. when you are finished.
>> > >
>> > > Fuel is also an issue. You could use Jet A, but how will you get
>> > that
>> > >big hose nozzle
>> > > in your Pietenpol filler tube?
>> > >
>> > > I am not trying to discourage anyone from developing a new
airplane
>> > >design. Just
>> > > think about it long and hard before you try it. (And understand
>> > that
>> > >everthing you
>> > > change on an airplane produces and/or requires changes elsewhere
in
>> > the
>> > >design.
>> > > gem)
>> > >
>> > > I think building an airplane it enough of a project. Building an
>> > engine
>> > >is another
>> > > complete project. I know someone who has been putting an auto
>> > engine in
>> > >a flying
>> > > airplane and is now in his fifth year in doing so!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > A note from BPA Newsletter editor Grant MacLaren:
>> > > The author of this article is Brian Kenney (1483 Newlands
Crescent,
>> > > Burlington Ontario L7M 1N8 Canada) Brian is the builder of
>> > Pietenpol Air
>> > > Camper C-FAUK, powered by a 65 hp. 'flat four' Continental
aircraft
>> > >engine.
>> > >
>> > > Can you add folding wings to a Pietenpol?
>> > >
>> > > As far as we know this has not been successfully done. It may be
>> > done
>> > >in the future
>> > > by some clever individual, but here are some of the design issues:
>> > >
>> > > Assuming that the rear spar of the wing is the pivot point and the
>> > >wings fold straight
>> > > back without turning (like Tiger and Gypsy Moths), the first issue
>> > is
>> > >weight transfer.
>> > > As the wings fold back approximately 80 to 100 lbs go from near
the
>> > >C.G. to a
>> > > distance of approximately 6 feet from the C.G. This weight
transfer
>> > has
>> > >to be
>> > > handled via the rear fuselage to the tailwheel or skid. This means
>> > a
>> > >stronger and
>> > > stiffer tail spring. The fuselage may need strengthening. If you
>> > lift
>> > >by the tail it may
>> > > also need strengthening.
>> > >
>> > > The center section of the wing behind the spar must be removed to
>> > allow the
>> > > folding. This is probably the easiest problem. The distance
between
>> > the
>> > >two pivot
>> > > points must be equal to twice the distance between the rear spar
>> > and
>> > >the trailing
>> > > edge. If memory serves me correctly this is a major problem. The
>> > way to
>> > >solve this
>> > > problem is to put a hinge offset from the rear spar (to the rear).
>> > Then
>> > >the control
>> > > cables have to be disconnected. The major problem with this change
>> > is
>> > >that the rear
>> > > lift strut attachment point would have to be disconnected to fold
>> > the
>> > >wings. The
>> > > centerline of the hinge and the centerline of the strut attachment
>> > bolt
>> > >has to be the
>> > > same. The front strut has to be disconnected in either case. A
>> > spreader
>> > >is required
>> > > between the two struts (because of the inter-strut wires) and a
>> > support
>> > >is required to
>> > > hold the struts off the ground. The wings, if not supported by the
>> > >struts, are very
>> > > flimsy in torsion. You could move the rear attachment point for
the
>> > >struts to below
>> > > the hinge point and attach the front strut to it. This is how the
>> > >Kitfox does it. Then
>> > > you have to redesign the fuselage and the cabanes as the loads are
>> > now
>> > >going in
>> > > different planes and values.
>> > >
>> > > What effect are all these changes going to have on the finished
>> > >airplane weight and
>> > > C.G? The resulting airplane will not be a Pietenpol Air Camper.
>> > >
>> > > The Pietenpol was designed to operate with a gross weight of 1050
>> > lbs, a 50
>> > > horsepower engine and carry two people. It was designed to do this
>> > very
>> > >efficiently
>> > > with the minimum of structure. Adding a folding wing to an
existing
>> > >design like the
>> > > Pietenpol is a difficult or maybe impossible task. If you want
this
>> > >feature I would
>> > > consider building a Kitfox instead of a Pietenpol.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Bernard Pietenpol did design and built a biplane in 1926; three
>> > years
>> > >before he built
>> > > his two-place Air Camper and five years before his one-place Sky
>> > Scout.
>> > >
>> > > Mr. Pietenpol's biplane was his second ship. It was Gnome-powered
>> > (a
>> > >rotary) and
>> > > never flew more than a few feet. As a flying machine, it was not a
>> > >success, but no
>> > > doubt provided valuable lessons for his future accomplishments.
>> > >
>> > > No plans were ever drawn; and no Pietenpol Biplane has been built
>> > since Mr.
>> > > Pietenpol's 1926 experiment.
>> > >
>> > > In recent years, at least one designer claims to have ''modified''
>> > a
>> > >Pietenpol Air
>> > > Camper by adding a wing. It certainly was not a ''Pietenpol.''
>> > Although
>> > >its designer
>> > > wrote a glowing account of it for Sport Aviation more than ten
>> > years
>> > >ago, it has not
>> > > been built in any quantity.
>> > >
>> > > One of our BPA members owned the ''modified'' plane in its last
>> > years.
>> > >Here is
>> > > what he said about it.
>> > >
>> > > ''Dear Grant,
>> > > I can't remember the year now but I met you and Howard Henderson
at
>> > Creve
>> > > Coeur airport not long after Howard made his first flight in
>> > N444MH. At
>> > >the time
>> > > my good friend, Roger Moore and I owned the ''biplane version'' of
>> > the
>> > >Piet. You
>> > > may recall that it had some aerodynamic problems that I considered
>> > to
>> > >be just an
>> > > extreme aft CG problem. I began to tackle the problem by moving
the
>> > >battery from
>> > > a position just aft of the rear seat to the floor of the front
>> > cockpit
>> > >just aft of the
>> > > firewall bulkhead.
>> > >
>> > > ''There was some improvement in pitch stability with this change
so
>> > I
>> > >believed that I
>> > > was on the right track. I then added lead ingots to the engine
>> > >compartment as far
>> > > forward as I could get them. At twenty pounds of lead in the
engine
>> > >compartment a
>> > > definite improvement in pitch stability could be felt. I had a
>> > friend
>> > >stand out by the
>> > > runway edge to watch the elevator as I made a full stall landing.
>> > He
>> > >reported that
>> > > coming into the flare the elevator was about 15 degrees down and
>> > when
>> > >the airplane
>> > > touched down in a full stall the elevator was only just level with
>> > the
>> > >horizontal
>> > > stabilizer.
>> > >
>> > > ''Obviously I was still a long way from solving the problem. An
>> > >aeronautical
>> > > engineer friend, Lee Lawson, took very careful measurements and
>> > weights and
>> > > made a biplane computer study for us. I don't recall the exact
>> > findings
>> > >now but it
>> > > went something like this: Move the top wing aft 16 inches, (this
>> > would
>> > >have made it
>> > > a staggerwing), increase the horizontal stabilizer dimensions by
20
>> > >percent, (that part
>> > > was doable), but the last recommendation made the hair stand up on
>> > the
>> > >back of my
>> > > neck: Add 110 pounds of ballast to the firewall. No telling how
>> > many
>> > >guys had come
>> > > close to disaster whilst flying her. We donated her to the St.
>> > Louis
>> > >Aviation Museum
>> > > as a permanent static display. Unfortunately, she was taken by the
>> > last
>> > >flood."
>> > > (signed) Charles D. Trevena (2 Winegarden Ct., O'Fallon MO 63366)
>> > >
>> > > ... Certainly no one in the BPA would discourage anyone from
>> > designing and
>> > > building their own biplane. But this writer, and many others in
our
>> > >association, would
>> > > be very disappointed if Mr. Pietenpol's name was attached to
>> > another
>> > >person's
>> > > design. It would NOT be a Pietenpol.
>> > >
>> > > Like many other modifications to an airplane's design -- one
change
>> > >requires many
>> > > other changes. If a "new" biplane is designed, it will be just
that
>> > --
>> > >a new design. It
>> > > should not carry the name "Pietenpol."
>> > >
>> > > Pietenpols forever!
>> > > -=Grant MacLaren=-
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
Michael Brusilow wrote:
>
> Right Larry. Let me see now- we are invited to gather & put on a "show
> " & then are charged for doing so. Wonderful! If I may say so, I think
> OSK is overdone. Low & slow is no longer a main attraction- as it once
> was- it is mostly war birds & glass & glitter.
>
> Nothing beats a bunch of guys flying in to a no radio grass strip,
> sitting around with a pop in one hand & a hot dog in the other &
> talking fabric & wood. Something like Brodhead.
>
Mike
You've got it exactly right - I hope you don't think that I was saying
that the best place to be is OSH - I rather enjoy Brodhead and any other
low and slow laid back fly in. I merely was providing information that
had been requested.
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
Someone answerd a question about camping. Was that for Oshkosh or Broadhead.
I think if people are camping at Broadhead it would be where I want to be.
So what is the information for Broadhead?
Already figuering if this is Do-Able.
Gas from Calif
Camping Fee
Lots of Hot Dogs (I will have my BBQ with us)
2 cases of Dr. Pepper 1 Diet Coke
Can we bring our 5lb Dog "Tina"
Gordon
Gerard \"Larry\" Huber wrote:
> Michael Brusilow wrote:
> >
> > Right Larry. Let me see now- we are invited to gather & put on a "show
> > " & then are charged for doing so. Wonderful! If I may say so, I think
> > OSK is overdone. Low & slow is no longer a main attraction- as it once
> > was- it is mostly war birds & glass & glitter.
> >
> > Nothing beats a bunch of guys flying in to a no radio grass strip,
> > sitting around with a pop in one hand & a hot dog in the other &
> > talking fabric & wood. Something like Brodhead.
> >
> Mike
>
> You've got it exactly right - I hope you don't think that I was saying
> that the best place to be is OSH - I rather enjoy Brodhead and any other
> low and slow laid back fly in. I merely was providing information that
> had been requested.
>
> Larry
>
> (_) (_)
> Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
> the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Someone answerd a question about camping. Was that for Oshkosh or Broadhead.
>
> So what is the information for Broadhead?
>
> Can we bring our 5lb Dog "Tina"
>
Gordon
The information provided was for Oshkosh. I've not camped at Brodhead,
but have heard that it is basically setup and enjoy - leave it as you
found it. I've also heard that the local residents aren't too happy
about attracting large crowds and therefore don't go out of thier way to
promote anything that would even remotely allow an Oshkosh event to
develop - Great! There is no better grass roots Fly-in for Piet aircraft
in the Midwest. The Oshkosh event that will honor the design is
something added for those who are interested in participating. If you've
never seen what all the commotion is about at Oshkosh, and you plan the
trip from California, why not spend a little time at Wittman field also?
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
Larry,
You're right. You can have it all. Stop by Oshkosh after Brodhead and
experience the diversity of sport aviation that we enjoy today. Two for one,
and a week you will never forget.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
bearing on building Pietenpols.
Unsubscribe.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Piet Gathering at Oshkosh |
The group may not be aware of a similar gathering of Piet's to celebrate
the 60th anniversary of the Pietenpol designs at Oshkosh '89. The April
'90 Sport Aviation carries a good article on the occasion, and the
electric affect it had on the Oshkosh crowd when 19 Piet's arrived en
masse from Brodhead late one afternoon. It was pre-arranged with the
EAA officials to park them all in one area for the crowd to see, and it
was a very popular event. Included in the group were LeBlond radial,
Corvair, Ford, Franklin, Continental and Funk engines! Sounds like a
blast, maybe for the 70th it will be even better!
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for your info. I plan to spend time at Broadhead with all the Pietenpol
Folks. If that is whitman field then I am there. If not and you are suggesting
we
spend time close to the EAA place then we can do that also. We will probably
trailer our Harley with us, good to have if our truck breaks down, and we have
lots of friends in the Milwaukee area.
When we went back their last year for the Harley Davidson 95th Birthday Party the
EAA had a Open House for all of us that was free with our tickets. That is why
I
am here now, It relite the airplane bug I was carrying all these years.
Gordon
Gerard \"Larry\" Huber wrote:
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> >
> > Someone answerd a question about camping. Was that for Oshkosh or Broadhead.
> >
> > So what is the information for Broadhead?
> >
> > Can we bring our 5lb Dog "Tina"
> >
> Gordon
>
> The information provided was for Oshkosh. I've not camped at Brodhead,
> but have heard that it is basically setup and enjoy - leave it as you
> found it. I've also heard that the local residents aren't too happy
> about attracting large crowds and therefore don't go out of thier way to
> promote anything that would even remotely allow an Oshkosh event to
> develop - Great! There is no better grass roots Fly-in for Piet aircraft
> in the Midwest. The Oshkosh event that will honor the design is
> something added for those who are interested in participating. If you've
> never seen what all the commotion is about at Oshkosh, and you plan the
> trip from California, why not spend a little time at Wittman field also?
>
> Larry
>
> (_) (_)
> Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
> the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Gee Wiz Jim
Go back to your business if you can't handle the pressure. What did you
expect from a bunch of people who like to talk to each other?
Gordon
Jim Weir wrote:
> Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> bearing on building Pietenpols.
>
> Unsubscribe.
>
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Brodhead & Oshkosh |
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> Thanks for your info. I plan to spend time at Broadhead with all the Pietenpol
> Folks. If that is whitman field then I am there. If not and you are suggesting
we
> spend time close to the EAA place then we can do that also. We will probably
> trailer our Harley with us, good to have if our truck breaks down, and we have
> lots of friends in the Milwaukee area.
>
Gordon
Wittman field is where the EAA Oshkosh convention is held (about 65-70
miles north of Milwaukee). Brodhead is a small town local grass strip
airport about 30 miles south of Madison, WI. Glad to share local info.
any time.
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair mods |
Guys:
Just received engine built up by Larry's Corvair. Looks great!
Can someone fill me in on what covers the crank/cam gear end of the
block? Is it as simple as cutting up a transmission bell?
Crank mod came out very nice threaded to national fine so Vi's alum.
prop hub sits right at home. Minor lathe turning req. on prop shaft.
Planning on running small sealed magnet dynamo by Bill Bainbridge of B&C
Specialties in Newton, KS so belt will loop around top fan, idler,
harmonic balancer, and dynamo. Also, anyone w/ 'vair powered ship
please update me on carb experience and current carb heat setup.
Thanks!
C.J. Beck
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/9/99 11:40:05 AM Central Standard Time,
rrobert(at)centuryinter.net writes:
<< For more Pietenpol information
Does anyone know the address for this site ?
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead & Oshkosh |
OK why didn't I remember Whitman Field was at EAA.
We went their last June, It started to rain right as we got their, We toured as
best as
we could, when we left we rode in the rain all the way back to Milwaukee, I could
only
see the tail lights in front of us. We were on our Motorcycle. Wonderful trip.
Gordon
Gerard \"Larry\" Huber wrote:
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for your info. I plan to spend time at Broadhead with all the Pietenpol
> > Folks. If that is whitman field then I am there. If not and you are suggesting
we
> > spend time close to the EAA place then we can do that also. We will probably
> > trailer our Harley with us, good to have if our truck breaks down, and we have
> > lots of friends in the Milwaukee area.
> >
> Gordon
>
> Wittman field is where the EAA Oshkosh convention is held (about 65-70
> miles north of Milwaukee). Brodhead is a small town local grass strip
> airport about 30 miles south of Madison, WI. Glad to share local info.
> any time.
>
> Larry
>
> (_) (_)
> Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
> the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
And...
www.pietenpol.com
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gerard \"Larry\" Huber" <glhuber(at)itol.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol Family Web Site |
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 1/9/99 11:40:05 AM Central Standard Time,
> rrobert(at)centuryinter.net writes:
>
> << For more Pietenpol information
>
> Does anyone know the address for this site ?
>
Chuck
Point your browsr at http://www.pietenpol.com/ to reach the Pietenpol
family web site.
Larry
Aviation is proof, that given the will, we have the capacity to achieve
the impossible.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Gordon,
While I choose not to unsubscribe, I would respectfully make essentially
the same request......for personal communications between individuals, simply
use the attached direct e-mail address, which appears at the top of each
message.
Lately, this forum has been used for long reviews of personal history and
"gibber jabber" that has absolutely nothing to do with building a Pietenpol,
and I would, hopefully gently, remind you that this is a "Pietenpol Forum".
Will you go take the microphone at Broadhead or Oshkosh and carry on these
personal conversations in front of 130 people there. I seriously doubt it,
yet that is what you have been doing regularly on this forum.
Lastly, I personally find your mean spirited comment towards Jim to be
unacceptable and not in the spirit of this group, and I would ask that you
refrain from this behavior.
Best Regards,
Warren
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> Gee Wiz Jim
>
> Go back to your business if you can't handle the pressure. What did you
> expect from a bunch of people who like to talk to each other?
>
> Gordon
>
> Jim Weir wrote:
>
> > Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> > bearing on building Pietenpols.
> >
> > Unsubscribe.
> >
> > Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair mods |
Joe,could you give more info on the "dynamo"fromB&C.Regarding wieght/price
etc.
I am using 2 original chevy carbs,built a heat/filter box under the oil
pan,and built 2 heat muffs,one on each home made manifold.I have not had it
in the air yet,but if you are interested,i will take the camera out to the
shop and DIRECT EMAIL TO YOU pictures of what i have done.
Thier is an article in the EAA EXPERIMENTER , of a fellow using original
carbs rather than the highly restrictive under engine induction system some
use.If you like i can scan the article or give you the issue data.
Doug
> From: Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Corvair mods
> Date: Saturday, January 09, 1999 9:01 PM
>
> Guys:
> Just received engine built up by Larry's Corvair. Looks great!
> Can someone fill me in on what covers the crank/cam gear end of the
> block? Is it as simple as cutting up a transmission bell?
> Crank mod came out very nice threaded to national fine so Vi's alum.
> prop hub sits right at home. Minor lathe turning req. on prop shaft.
> Planning on running small sealed magnet dynamo by Bill Bainbridge of B&C
> Specialties in Newton, KS so belt will loop around top fan, idler,
> harmonic balancer, and dynamo. Also, anyone w/ 'vair powered ship
> please update me on carb experience and current carb heat setup.
> Thanks!
> C.J. Beck
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Yes I agree that my message to Jim was with tongue in cheek and not in good
taste.
But that is all I agree on. And if I say things on this list that you think are
long reviews and personnal history I say I like to learn more about the members
on this list and enjoy their personnal stories.
Sorry you don't like to hear mine.
Gordon
Warren Shoun wrote:
> Gordon,
> While I choose not to unsubscribe, I would respectfully make essentially
> the same request......for personal communications between individuals, simply
> use the attached direct e-mail address, which appears at the top of each
> message.
> Lately, this forum has been used for long reviews of personal history and
> "gibber jabber" that has absolutely nothing to do with building a Pietenpol,
> and I would, hopefully gently, remind you that this is a "Pietenpol Forum".
> Will you go take the microphone at Broadhead or Oshkosh and carry on these
> personal conversations in front of 130 people there. I seriously doubt it,
> yet that is what you have been doing regularly on this forum.
> Lastly, I personally find your mean spirited comment towards Jim to be
> unacceptable and not in the spirit of this group, and I would ask that you
> refrain from this behavior.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
>
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> > Gee Wiz Jim
> >
> > Go back to your business if you can't handle the pressure. What did you
> > expect from a bunch of people who like to talk to each other?
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> > Jim Weir wrote:
> >
> > > Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> > > bearing on building Pietenpols.
> > >
> > > Unsubscribe.
> > >
> > > Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
So I guess we all forget that this is a Pietenpol Discussion group. Hay Warren
Gordon
Warren Shoun wrote:
> Hi Mike:
> Have also been an "airplane geek" since high school. Paid $1200.00 for a
> Piper Vagabond instead of a car my Senior year and was absorbed in Lindbergh.
> He is buried in the church yard cemetery of a small church in Heavenly Hana
> on the island of Maui, Hawaii, that has a beautiful cliffside view of the sea.
> Have also visited the channel island of Sark where he took his family after the
> kidnapping. He put in his own airstrip and planted a long row of trees for a
> windbreak that is still there. His W.W.II escapades as a P-38 factory flyer
> are pretty exciting too. And his later years as a scientist and south sea
> island anthropologist are pretty neat too. Enough.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Warren I'm sorry I forgot to answer one of your questions on your flame to me.
Warren Shoun wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> Will you go take the microphone at Broadhead or Oshkosh and carry on these
> personal conversations in front of 130 people there. I seriously doubt it,
By all means Warren. Don't give me a Microphone if you want to only hear about
Pietenpols at Broadhead. I also have been a Ham radio guy for 22 years and just
love a mic in my hand. Also an ex Supervisor who loved to speak to a group.
Thanks
Gordon
KB6IE Advanced Class
Board member ex of
Radio Amatures of Long Beach
Past Club Sponser "Delta Brewing Club"
About to start a EAA Chapter here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig & Shari Hanson <chanson(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair mods |
D.J.H.,
I am planning on putting in a Corvair engine and I would be interested in
those pictures if you get around to it. Thank you
Craig
chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Family Web Site |
Thanks Larry, Lots of cool stuff there !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
> Yes I agree that my message to Jim was with tongue in cheek and
> not in good
> taste.
>
> But that is all I agree on. And if I say things on this list that
> you think are
> long reviews and personnal history I say I like to learn more
> about the members
> on this list and enjoy their personnal stories.
>
> Sorry you don't like to hear mine.
Hey, I merely made the point that personal discussions should remain
personal discussions and I didn't have the time to wade through that much
wasted bandwidth every day. I merely requested to be deleted from the list,
not to change the way the list was run. Your list, do with it as you see
fit.
On the other hand, if the foo shits, wear it.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair dynamo |
Doug:
Bill Bainbridge is the mechanical genius you probably read about who has
been unfairly targeted by the FAA (call me if you want to know what
these letters really stand for) the last two years or so. In short, an
Alaskan pilot, on his own initiative, installed one of Bill's excellent
but non-STC'ed alternators in a Cessna bushplane. He got busted during
an annual inspection and the feds backtracked the whole thing to Newton,
KS. Bill is a 110% up and up ethical businessman. He has always made
it very clear when one of his designs is not certified for anything
outside of experimental use. Most of the accessories on Rutan's Voyager
were designed and built by Bill. He just received a hard won STC on a
backup alternator system for the Bonanza A-36 w/ our aircraft as the
testbed. My point is that the experimental community is indebted to him
for many quality contributions and he should be supported. You may have
seen this permanent magnet induction dynamo line at his OSH booth or at
Sun 'n Fun. I will pull up specifics on this (output/weight/dimensions)
w/ B&C's address and post them if the group so desires.
Thanks.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Jim Weir wrote:
> > Yes I agree that my message to Jim was with tongue in cheek and
> > not in good
> > taste.
> >
> > But that is all I agree on. And if I say things on this list that
> > you think are
> > long reviews and personnal history I say I like to learn more
> > about the members
> > on this list and enjoy their personnal stories.
> >
> > Sorry you don't like to hear mine.
>
> Hey, I merely made the point that personal discussions should remain
> personal discussions and I didn't have the time to wade through that much
> wasted bandwidth every day. I merely requested to be deleted from the list,
> not to change the way the list was run. Your list, do with it as you see
> fit.
>
> On the other hand, if the foo shits, wear it.
>
> Jim
Yes Jim one of the shoes fit me to a TEE, Thats the one where I get off topic
and make a mistake and probably say something about my other hobby, Biking with
Harleys and I think it raises the Dander with some who still watch too many
Marlon Brando Movies.
But harley Davidson and the Wright Bros share the same year for their 100th
Anniversary.
Now the other shoe is the one where I only want to talk airplanes.
My suggestion on one of the other 9 lists I am on is to put XXX in front of the
Topic. That flags the topic as being Off Topic.Then you just delete all of them.
I pay 14.95 for all the Bandwith I want, Unlimited. Surfree.com
Anyway Jim, I was in Error with my Tongue in cheek message to you, Probably
because of my roommate I had in the Air Force was always saying something funny,
Remember my message to you a few moths ago.I must of thought I was back in the
60's
My roomate was named Jim Weir
Have a nice day and we hope you stay in this fine group.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair dynamo |
Not familiar with this idea and would appreciate any additional info.
Thanks in advance.
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair dynamo |
Thanks Joe will look forwad to seeing the specs on the unit.
Doug
> From: Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Corvair dynamo
> Date: Sunday, January 10, 1999 12:19 PM
>
> Doug:
> Bill Bainbridge is the mechanical genius you probably read about who has
> been unfairly targeted by the FAA (call me if you want to know what
> these letters really stand for) the last two years or so. In short, an
> Alaskan pilot, on his own initiative, installed one of Bill's excellent
> but non-STC'ed alternators in a Cessna bushplane. He got busted during
> an annual inspection and the feds backtracked the whole thing to Newton,
> KS. Bill is a 110% up and up ethical businessman. He has always made
> it very clear when one of his designs is not certified for anything
> outside of experimental use. Most of the accessories on Rutan's Voyager
> were designed and built by Bill. He just received a hard won STC on a
> backup alternator system for the Bonanza A-36 w/ our aircraft as the
> testbed. My point is that the experimental community is indebted to him
> for many quality contributions and he should be supported. You may have
> seen this permanent magnet induction dynamo line at his OSH booth or at
> Sun 'n Fun. I will pull up specifics on this (output/weight/dimensions)
> w/ B&C's address and post them if the group so desires.
> Thanks.
> Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>Yes I could probably supply a rib or two and some other tid bits. If we
make it
>we will have our camper, What arrangements are being make for camping? I know
>you fly Boys can sleep under your wings but I am not going to sleep under my
>Nissan.
>
>Gordon
>
Gordon- They have all kinds of camping at EAA but as usual, first come,
first serve
so if you arrive later during the convention you'll have lots of walking in
store. As far
as the guys who fly in with their Piets they want to park us all in one
bunch and if I'm
not mistaken it will be in custom plane parking, not camping parking....but
that remains
to be worked out. ps- there is no camping in the custom plane area.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>I'm sure they would love to have some static display there as well. They
>would probably give you the cover of the 'Homebuilder's Tent'. Maybe while
>Grant is having discussions with the EAA he can negotiate the space for
>someone interested in setting up a display. Then everyone can also enjoy how
>beautiful the Piet is unfinished.
>Regards,
>Domenic
Grant is open for assistance from any of you who are willing to help. He
is a very
nice guy and knows how to make things happen. Very professional yet fun and
good sense of humor. To help out with this EAA thing is to pass the torch to
young homebuilders too who can't afford the expensive planes.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>Mike,
>
>I plan on camping. Do you think we will be able to camp in this "special"
>area? Where will you be staying?
>
>Ted
Ted- This is a good question which has yet to be worked out. I'm sure even
if they bunch us together in showplane/custom parking we can walk to Camp
Scholler and camp their. I stay at Ripon U. dorm rooms.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>
> If I remember correctly, there is a daily charge to access the flight
>line whether you have an aircraft on exhibit or not. Am I correct?
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Mike - You are right on. Last year (for the first time ever) I arrive
on the
runway side of the admission gates and simply when registering my homebuilt
paid for whatever day/week pass I chose and walked around just like if I'd have
arrived by car. There was NO charge for parking the plane and the fuel
trucks
were available pronto. Aircraft camping is a different story- there is a
3 day min.
at about 14$/day or something....but that fills way early.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Hi guys
>
>I have only just begun building. I want to attend Broadhead this year,
>for my first time does anyone know the dates this year as I need to
>schedule time off early.
>
>Thanks
>John Duprey
John- Brodhead happens during the EAA Convention Fri/ Sat is the the best
day, and Sunday everyone is scattering.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Broadhead & OSH |
>
>convention. Maybe Sunday will be the best day to launch a mass group to
>OSH - Does anyone know more details about the special OSH event?
>
>Larry
>
Larry- The beauty of the Piets/EAA Oshkosh deal is that they want us
at EAA on either the first or second day of the show (as of right now-
this isn't
written is stone yet) so what this means is that Friday or Sat AM you can
fly out right down to Brodhead and enjoy the doings there for Sat and Sun.
I left EAA Sat. am and was sipping a pop under a tree by 10:15 am.
At 74 mp it took me about 1:10 to fly southwest to Brodhead.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Mr. Weir,
Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
know where the groundplane should be located, how
big, what material, etc...
Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
bearing on building Pietenpols.
Unsubscribe.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
There is a company advertising in Trade a Plane for Antennas with built in
Ground planes in the fashion of a ribbon...they are located in Missouri,
Florrisant, I think.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 9:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>Mr. Weir,
>
>Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
>an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
>I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
>occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
>know where the groundplane should be located, how
>big, what material, etc...
>
>Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
>
>>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
>Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
>bearing on building Pietenpols.
>
>Unsubscribe.
>
>Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Sure, if I knew what was inside the vertical fin for structure...
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> Greg Cardinal
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 6:22 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> Mr. Weir,
>
> Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
> an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
> I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
> occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
> know where the groundplane should be located, how
> big, what material, etc...
>
> Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
> Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> bearing on building Pietenpols.
>
> Unsubscribe.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Yep. Antenna Dynamics. They get $100 for what I get $5. Your choice.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> Earl Myers
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 8:30 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> There is a company advertising in Trade a Plane for Antennas with built in
> Ground planes in the fashion of a ribbon...they are located in Missouri,
> Florrisant, I think.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> >Mr. Weir,
> >
> >Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
> >an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
> >I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
> >occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
> >know where the groundplane should be located, how
> >big, what material, etc...
> >
> >Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
> >
> >>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
> >Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> >bearing on building Pietenpols.
> >
> >Unsubscribe.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 6:26 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
Mr. Weir,
Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
know where the groundplane should be located, how
big, what material, etc...
Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
Hi Greg:
I am not the late Mr Weir but I can tell you how I handled my antennas.
I have two antennas, a handheld & a GPS. I placed the antennas on the
aluminum fairing, left & right, between the center section & wing.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | decimal equivalents of gage measures |
Help:
Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the gage
measurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have a
conversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997
edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gage
measurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversion
chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any help
would be appreciated.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Well Jim,
What do I get for $ 5.00 and where do I send the check?
Greg
>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/11 11:39 AM >>>
Yep. Antenna Dynamics. They get $100 for what I get $5. Your choice.
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> Earl Myers
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 8:30 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> There is a company advertising in Trade a Plane for Antennas with built
in
> Ground planes in the fashion of a ribbon...they are located in Missouri,
> Florrisant, I think.....
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 9:26 AM
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> >Mr. Weir,
> >
> >Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
> >an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
> >I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
> >occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
> >know where the groundplane should be located, how
> >big, what material, etc...
> >
> >Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
> >
> >>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
> >Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have
no
> >bearing on building Pietenpols.
> >
> >Unsubscribe.
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
I can tell you how I handled my antennas.
>>I have two antennas, a handheld & a GPS. I placed the antennas on the
>aluminum fairing, left & right, between the center section & wing.
>
>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering
if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hoping
for a possible solution.
MIke C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
So that I have my dates straight... Brodhead is on 7/31 and 8/1/99?
The week-end of Oshkosh?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
>Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
>join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
>yours?
>
>Gordon
>Wing Ribs Layed Out.
Gordon- YOU bet your sweet spruce you are. That's how I kept going
during my building phase
was by seeing the flying Piets once a summer. Seeing how much fun
a finished one was set a fire under me to keep plugginig away so I could
be with the flying group sooner ! (not to mention you'll probably get a
ride in one if you hang long enough)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>So that I have my dates straight... Brodhead is on 7/31 and 8/1/99?
>The week-end of Oshkosh?
>
>Larry- You got it right. EAA starts the 28th I believe and the
mass Piet fly-in will be either that day or the next. Then Brodhead
really gets going Friday with arrivals 7/30 , SATURDAY is the big
day at Brodhead, 7/31, and by Sunday the place gets pretty lonely
by noon or so. There IS camping at Brodhead. You make a donation
and get a Piet badge to wear showing you donated. There are no
set fees nor does anyone strong-arm you to pay anything. Pop is cheap
and they have some onsite meals usually done up by local organizations.
Motels- not. Monroe nearby has some. About 11 miles away.
At the airport they have one men's room w/ shower and one ladies room w/
shower. No hookups. You just park and camp and enjoy. Or pitch a tent
by a tree, your plane,
your car, or your bike. Or your Ford A Sedan.....
They have a campfire at night nearby the main aircraft parking area and
showers. They do some informal Piet forums, sell Piet t-shirts,
pet dogs, etc. Fun. Oh, did I mention that Piets and other planes are
constantly in the air giving rides ? They have 80 oct. and autogas.
Big ole' grass runways with gorgeous pine trees and farmland surrounding
the airport. They have some of the neatest antiques too in nearby hangars-
mostly open and tinkering going on all weekend too so you can poke
your head in and ask what it is.
Sorry...I know that's more than you wanted to know but I'm just getting
myself all worked up and it's only Jan. !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Keep it coming Mike! This is the oxygen for my flame too!
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Sounds good. I may or may not make it to Broadhead this year but I plan to
make it to Corona in April for the Fly-In and I hear their were some Piets
their last year.
Thanks
Gordon
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >Are those of us who are still in the building stage invited to come
> >join this party and camp out with all you lucky people who are flying
> >yours?
> >
> >Gordon
> >Wing Ribs Layed Out.
>
> Gordon- YOU bet your sweet spruce you are. That's how I kept going
> during my building phase
> was by seeing the flying Piets once a summer. Seeing how much fun
> a finished one was set a fire under me to keep plugginig away so I could
> be with the flying group sooner ! (not to mention you'll probably get a
> ride in one if you hang long enough)
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Mike C wrote:
<
Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering
if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still
hoping
for a possible solution.
MIke C. >>>
Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the
past 10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I
had a handheld at that time.
Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
install the whip antenna.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Mike C wrote:
Mike - I'm running a non-shielded
ignition
system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a
feeling
I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.
MIke
C.
Yes, I have a
shielded
igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to
that
I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that
time.
Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it
works,
install the whip antenna.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders it
may be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz" Baer
about hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24"
external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise
(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at
comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at Kansas College
of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.
Al Swanson
swans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu
>Mike C wrote:
>
><
>
>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering
>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still hoping
>for a possible solution.
>
>MIke C. >>>
>
>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past
10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a
handheld at that time.
>
>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
install the whip antenna.
>
>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
>Mike C wrote:
>
>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded
ignition
>system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a feeling
>I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.
MIke
>C.
>
>Yes, I have a shielded
>igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to
that
>I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that
>time.
>
>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
>install the whip antenna.
>
>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can be
had by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging this
sort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in a
radio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by the
operator.
Kevin Southwick
N5KDP
down here in Houston
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: antenna
>This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders it
>may be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz"
Baer
>about hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24"
>external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise
>(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at
>comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at Kansas
College
>of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.
>
>Al Swanson
>swans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu
>
>
>>Mike C wrote:
>>
>><
>>
>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering
>>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still
hoping
>>for a possible solution.
>>
>>MIke C. >>>
>>
>>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past
>10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a
>handheld at that time.
>>
>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
>install the whip antenna.
>>
>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Mike C wrote:
>>
>>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded
>ignition
>>system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a
feeling
>>I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.
>MIke
>>C.
>>
>>Yes, I have a shielded
>>igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to
>that
>>I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that
>>time.
>>
>>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
>>install the whip antenna.
>>
>>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>
> Mike B. Wrote:
>
> Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10
> years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld
> at that time.
>
> Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works, install
> the whip antenna.
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
> Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and it had
> noise but
could still hear ok. I didn't try transmitting though. The whip antenna is
basically
a coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does the coax
serve as the antenna. We work on material science here so I'm lame in the
radio dept.
MIke C.
>
>
>
Mike B. Wrote:
Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been
running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford
A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that time.
Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
install the whip antenna.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Mike- I did try just listening with a borrowed Icom handheld and it
had noise butcould still hear ok. I didn't try
transmitting though. The whip antenna is basically
a coaxial cable that is terminated to some antenna type whip or does the
coax
serve as the antenna. We work on material science here
so I'm lame in the
radio dept.
MIke C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: decimal equivalents of gage measures |
Mark and group,
Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site that
listed a gage to decimal conversion. There was some
discussion about this chart at Brodhead.
I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe I
have it sorted out.
Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chart
Available decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.
Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages.
In fact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thickness
chart.
Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled
"Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch in
Thickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)
I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"
Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system for
available sizes.
So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:
Gage Decimal
Greg Cardinal
>>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>
Help:
Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the
gage
measurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have a
conversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997
edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gage
measurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversion=
chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any
help
would be appreciated.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: decimal equivalents of gage measures |
Greg:
Thanks for the useful info.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Mark and group,
> Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site that
> listed a gage to decimal conversion. There was some
> discussion about this chart at Brodhead.
> I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe I
> have it sorted out.
> Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chart
> Available decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.
>
> Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages.
=
> In fact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thickness
> chart.
> Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled
> "Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch in
=
> Thickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)
> I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"
> Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system for
=
> available sizes.
> So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:
>
> Gage Decimal
>
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
>
> >>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>
> Help:
>
> Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the
> gage
> measurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have a
> conversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997
> edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gage
> measurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the
conversion=
>
> chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any
> help
> would be appreciated.
>
> Mark Boynton
> Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Jim,
The fin is fabric covered wood. The space to work with
is 5/8" wide, 12" deep and 24" high. These measurments are approx.
Greg
>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/11 11:39 AM >>>
Sure, if I knew what was inside the vertical fin for structure...
Jim
> -----Original Message-----
> Greg Cardinal
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 6:22 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: RE: Oshkosh 1999
>
>
> Mr. Weir,
>
> Before you go, would be willing to shed some light on
> an antenna installation in a Pietenpol.
> I will be hiding an antenna in the vertical fin (for the
> occasional need to use a hand-held) and would like to
> know where the groundplane should be located, how
> big, what material, etc...
>
> Thanks for your help, Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/09 6:43 PM >>>
> Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
> bearing on building Pietenpols.
>
> Unsubscribe.
>
> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at
> comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at
> Kansas College
> of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.
If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him for
the Nobel Prize in Physics this year.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said
that the EAA doesn't plan ahead.
Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates through
the year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July
25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;
July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,
2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008.
________________________________________________________________________________
You are about right about the only thing a ham can build anymore. My first Ham
radio was a Heath HW-8 and worked WAS with it QRP Homebuilt. I sure miss
HeathKit, My friend has an old Allied Catalog, Remember them?
Gordon
KB6IE
ex WD6DTN
NNN0TIK "MARS"
Kevin Southwick wrote:
> As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can be
> had by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging this
> sort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in a
> radio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by the
> operator.
>
> Kevin Southwick
> N5KDP
> down here in Houston
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alan Swanson
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:48 PM
> Subject: Re: antenna
>
> >This may not help once you have covered the tail, but for new builders it
> >may be appropriate: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz"
> Baer
> >about hiding a comm antenna in the vertical stabilizer. He used a 24"
> >external braided shield over the RG58AU coax as a counterpoise
> >(groundplane). He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at
> >comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at Kansas
> College
> >of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.
> >
> >Al Swanson
> >swans071(at)gold.tc.umn.edu
> >
> >
> >>Mike C wrote:
> >>
> >><
> >>
> >>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded ignition system and was wondering
> >>if you had shielded. I have a feeling I'd get lots of noise but still
> hoping
> >>for a possible solution.
> >>
> >>MIke C. >>>
> >>
> >>Yes, I have a shielded igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past
> >10 years. Prior to that I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a
> >handheld at that time.
> >>
> >>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
> >install the whip antenna.
> >>
> >>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Mike C wrote:
> >>
> >>Mike - I'm running a non-shielded
> >ignition
> >>system and was wonderingif you had shielded. I have a
> feeling
> >>I'd get lots of noise but still hopingfor a possible solution.
> >MIke
> >>C.
> >>
> >>Yes, I have a shielded
> >>igntion. I have been running an 0-200 for the past 10 years. Prior to
> >that
> >>I had a Ford A and I can't remember if I had a handheld at that
> >>time.
> >>
> >>Why don't you try it with just the rubber ducky antenna?If it works,
> >>install the whip antenna.
> >>
> >>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
> Jim,
> The fin is fabric covered wood. The space to work with
> is 5/8" wide, 12" deep and 24" high. These measurments are approx.
>
> Greg
>
> >>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/11 11:39 AM >>>
> Sure, if I knew what was inside the vertical fin for structure...
And there is no metal of any sort within this structure? Hinges? Flying
wires? Control cables?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Weir wrote:
> He measured a 1:1 VSWR, showing a good impedance match at
> > comm frequencies. No telephone number for him, but he was at
> > Kansas College
> > of Technology, Salina KS 67401. His number may be in Reed's directory.
>
> If he did this and can replicate the measurements, then I nominate him for
> the Nobel Prize in Physics this year.
>
> Jim
Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?
I know it can change depending on other factors but it is possible to do it or
all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.
No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few 2mtr quads and
440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and the 2mtr 10mtr
stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much about all
this new stuff that Jim may know about.
I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.
Gordon
KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.
________________________________________________________________________________
Sure like to make that 2008 AirVenture.
I will be 66, Yes younger than some on this list but 72 seems to be majic
number in my family.
Gordon
Michael King wrote:
> MARKING YOUR CALENDAR THROUGH 2008: Never let it be said
> that the EAA doesn't plan ahead.
>
> Here are the EAA AirVenture "Oshkosh" dates through
> the year 2008: July 28 - August 3, 1999; July 26 - August 1, 2000; July
> 25 - July 31, 2001; July 24 - July 30, 2002; July 23 - July 29, 2003;
> July 28 - August 3, 2004; July 27 - August 2, 2005; July 26 - August 1,
> 2006; July 25 - July 31, 2007; and July 23 - July 29, 2008.
________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?
Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.
You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab
conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically
perfect number that is not possible in practice.
Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might
if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get
worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,
but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness
quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat
acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.
Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid
pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a
few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and
still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art
rather than the science.
> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is
> possible to do it or
> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.
No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.
> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few
> 2mtr quads and
> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and
> the 2mtr 10mtr
> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much
> about all
> this new stuff that Jim may know about.
Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it
for a goodly number of years.
>
> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.
>
> Gordon
> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.
Jim
WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40
years?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Go NORAD was RE: antenna |
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without
talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking
radio...
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without
>talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking
>radio...
Badges ?? WE don't need no stinking Batchez !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST
Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.
How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then again they are
doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,
I see
W6RST
K6RST
WA6RST
And none of them are Jim Weir
And in my 1950 Call Book I see no W6RST's at all.
Anyway I understand all about the center freq, I always cut my antennas for the
center of what I am going to use most. At one time I build a Diamond Quad of my
own design 7 ele on 10mtr and 5 on 15mtr and was amased what I could work with
2
watts input on my HW-8, then I would switch to my Yaesu 101-B and my Dentron 1
KW on CW and really have a ball. Once I was on with a W7 with the HW-8 and the
second time around he said my signal was dropping to a 553 or something like
that and I quickly switched on the Big rig and amp and then when my time to come
back I said, I just turned my antenna some is my signal any better. Such Fun at
times, I don't do much hamming anymore as I have no good antenna up yet on this
retirement property, I always wanted a large antenna farm, now I live on 2.6
acres and only have a all band vert up. Someday I will put in a bunch of
telephone poles and have a 7 ele quad on 40 looking at Europe.
Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more
informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.
Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I worked the first
Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the first couple
years as always a Pileup
Gordon
Jim Weir wrote:
> >
> > Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?
>
> Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.
> You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab
> conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically
> perfect number that is not possible in practice.
>
> Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might
> if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get
> worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,
> but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness
> quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat
> acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.
>
> Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid
> pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a
> few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and
> still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art
> rather than the science.
>
> > I know it can change depending on other factors but it is
> > possible to do it or
> > all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.
>
> No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.
>
> > No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few
> > 2mtr quads and
> > 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and
> > the 2mtr 10mtr
> > stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much
> > about all
> > this new stuff that Jim may know about.
>
> Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it
> for a goodly number of years.
>
> >
> > I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.
> >
> > Gordon
> > KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.
>
> Jim
> WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40
> years?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Go NORAD was RE: antenna |
So, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without
> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking
> radio...
>
> Steve E.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
Aluminum hinges with steel hinge pins. Steel
machine screws bolt the hinges to the fin. Steel fittings bolt the fin to
the fuselage. No cables inside fin. Steel bracing cables bolted to the
fin. No lights
or other electrical items.
Greg C.
>>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/12 10:23 AM >>>
> Jim,
> The fin is fabric covered wood. The space to work with
> is 5/8" wide, 12" deep and 24" high. These measurments are approx.
>
> Greg
>
> >>> Jim Weir <jim@rst-engr.com> 01/11 11:39 AM >>>
> Sure, if I knew what was inside the vertical fin for structure...
And there is no metal of any sort within this structure? Hinges? Flying
wires? Control cables?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
> Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST
> Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.
> How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then
> again they are
> doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,
Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ website
and do a name search. I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the X
call. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WX
weather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a single
call.
Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,
but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??
>
> Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more
> informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.
Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. The
livelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear a
small resemblance to one another.
>
> Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I
> worked the first
> Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the
> first couple
> years as always a Pileup
Nope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between
50 MHz. and 14 GHz..
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: RE: RE: RE: Oshkosh 1999 |
> Aluminum hinges with steel hinge pins. Steel
> machine screws bolt the hinges to the fin. Steel fittings bolt
> the fin to the fuselage. No cables inside fin. Steel bracing
> cables bolted to the fin. No lights
> or other electrical items.
Can anybody make me a sorta-drawing of this? Not a full blown engineering
print, but enough detail where I can see all the metal parts?
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
Jim Weir wrote:
> > Well Pop's Congrats on your WX6RST
> > Although I don't see it in my 1960 Call Book.
> > How did you get the WX I don't remember that prefix but then
> > again they are
> > doing so many new things with call signs to raise money,
>
> Gee, with all your experience I'd have expected you to go to the QRZ website
> and do a name search.
Nope, I don't mix Ham radio with Internet Ham stuff. And I don't like the new
fangled calls they now have, Can't tell which DX station you are talking too
half the time now with all the speciality calls.
> I changed from my original WB6BHI last year to the X
> call. I figured what the hell, combine two passions -- flying (WX
> weather) and ham radio (RST - Readability, Strength, Tone) into a single
> call.
>
I like the RST though, Good on CW but My IE is short (dit dit - dit) I do most
of my contesting CW, Well used to, Probably so rusty now.
>
> Just like the C-182, you go back to the original '58 records, she is N5151D,
> but is 73CQ today. Get it? 73 CQ ??
>
YEP
>
> >
> > Anyway Jim I know you are in the business so you should be a little more
> > informed than us Hams that are not trying to make money with our hobby.
>
> Never made a dime with the hobby -- never mix business with pleasure. The
> livelihood comes from the profession of electronics engineering; they bear a
> small resemblance to one another.
>
Anymore you are right, New Hams don't know what it is like to build a radio
Aircraft & Missle Elec Repairman Chanute AFB 1960
>
> >
> > Did you ever work in the Queen Mary ham Station as a Guest? I
> > worked the first
> > Sat of each month for 5 yrs as an operator, lots of fun in the
> > first couple
> > years as always a Pileup
>
> Nope, never had much use for the DC bands. Most of my work has been between
> 50 MHz. and 14 GHz..
>
You mean DX Bands or do you Elec Engineers call it DC?
I always wanted to use those high Freqs and try Moon Bounce but never did.
So you never really got into DX, That was the most fun part, 130 plus countries
worked, I also did my duty as QSL manager for the I's, Board member for Long
Beach Radio Amatures and aalso Field Day Co Chairman, Navy Mars.
Well this has nothing to do with aircraft and someone already told me to keep
Off Topic out of here. But glad to know you are a fellow ham.
Thanks Jim, And again I am sorry for my out of place comment to you, glad you
stayed on the list.
Gordon
>
> Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Go NORAD was RE: antenna |
Why yes I do! Pray quite regularly in fact, Glad you asked..
-Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Beanlands
Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 12:38 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Go NORAD was RE: antenna
So, do you talk to people OVER 1000' ;-)
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999 steve(at)byu.edu wrote:
> Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without
> talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking
> radio...
>
> Steve E.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Jim- You are absolutely right- I apologize for the sloppiness in my numbers.
What I should have said was that he claimed a vswr as low as he could
measure on his meter at a frequency near the center of the comm band. Your
sleeve dipole figure of 72/50 would seem to indicate that maybe he was not
accurate in his measurement. Thanks for the tutorial. This is what I like
about this NG.
Al Swanson
KD0BK
>>
>> Are you saying that it is impossible to get a 1 to 1 VSWR?
>
>Yup, just like it is impossible to get a 100% efficient engine or airfoil.
>You can get 1.1:1, you might even get 1.01:1, and under excruciating lab
>conditions you might even eke out 1.001:1, but 1:1 is the theoretically
>perfect number that is not possible in practice.
>
>Even less is it possible to get those numbers "in the com band". You might
>if you are very, very good get 1.1:1 at one spot frequency, but things get
>worse on either side of that. That is, you can get 1.1:1 at, say, 127 MHz.,
>but by the time you go out to the band edges at 118 and 137 the "goodness
>quotient" or VSWR will go up to some larger number -- 3:1 is somewhat
>acceptable, 2:1 is better and doable.
>
>Even worse is the fact that a dipole, or a sleeve dipole made from braid
>pulled back over coax is a 1.4:1 mismatch at very best (72/50). By using a
>few tricks and such you can spread that mismatch out over a broad band and
>still wind up with 2:1 or so at the band edges, but now we are into the art
>rather than the science.
>
>
>> I know it can change depending on other factors but it is
>> possible to do it or
>> all these VSWR Meters I have depended on for 22 yrs are garbage.
>
>No, you just need to be able to understand what they are telling you.
>
>
>> No for my Disclaimer I have built mostly HF antennas and a few
>> 2mtr quads and
>> 440 stuff for satellite Communications on the Mode J Birds and
>> the 2mtr 10mtr
>> stuff for the old Mode A Birds. Other than that I don't know much
>> about all
>> this new stuff that Jim may know about.
>
>Nothing new about ferrite balun matching on dipoles...we've been doing it
>for a goodly number of years.
>
>>
>> I worked both Oscar and the Russian Birds.
>>
>> Gordon
>> KB6IE Ham for 22 yrs.
>
>Jim
>WX6RST and I got mine somewhere around '59, lessee, that's (ohmigawd) 40
>years?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | GONAD was RE: antenna |
Sure is nice to tie down the tail, hand prop, and fly all day without
talking to anyone at 1000' or less. Radio? I don't need no stinking
radio...
Steve E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Hello from a fellow "HAM"
Doug VE6ZH up in Alberta. 73
> From: Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: antenna
> Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 5:30 AM
>
> As an old timer in ham radio, I can suggest that good antenna design can
be
> had by contacting a ham radio group. They are accustomed to desiging this
> sort of thing, esp. now days since it's one of the only components in a
> radio station using modern equipment that can still be designed by the
> operator.
>
> Kevin Southwick
> N5KDP
> down here in Houston
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Alan wrote in part:
<<: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T. "Buz" Baer>>
Unfortunately Buz is no longer with us. He died a couple of years ago.
He was a sweet guy & a perennial at Brodhead.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Alan wrote in part:
: BPAN #33 page 7 had an article by Maurice T.
Buz Baer
Unfortunately Buz is no longer with us. He died a couple of years
ago. He
was a sweet guy a perennial at Brodhead.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
Michael and Group,
My Lil 'Ol Ercoupe is just sittin' in the hangar twitchin' its tail(s) in
anticipation of our trip to Brodhead in July. I'm kind of excited, too!
We're going to make a stop at Ottumwa on the way, and really plan to have a
blast. See y'all, there!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
C E Leggett ,
"cara(at)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca" ,
"kitfox(at)lists.sni.net" ,
"krnet-l(at)teleport.com" ,
Nieuport Builders ,
Pietenpol Discussion ,
"Planedancr(at)aol.com" ,
Ragwing Group ,
Storch Builders List
On Sept 29th 1998
The photographer for a national magazine was assigned to get photos of
a great forest fire. Smoke at the scene was too thick to get any good
shots, so he frantically called his home office to hire a plane.
"It will be waiting for you at the airport!" he was assured by his
editor.
As soon as he got to the small, rural airport, sure enough, a plane
was warming up near the runway. He jumped in with his equipment and
yelled, "Let's go! Let's go!" The pilot swung the plane into the wind
and soon they were in the air.
"Fly over the north side of the fire," said the photographer, "and
make three or four low level passes."
"Why?" asked the pilot.
"Because I'm going to take pictures! I'm a photographer, and
photographers take pictures!" said the photographer with great
exasperation and impatience.
After a long pause the pilot said, "You mean you're not the
instructor?"
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
To all:
Bernard Pietenpol, in material he wrote about the corvair conversion,
suggested laminated wing spars (3/4" laminations with 1/8" side plates). I
got this information with my plans set. Has any one tried this method?
Apart from the additional work involved, any opinions on strength, longevity
of the finished product, practicality?
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
To bring this question one step further: The 3 piece wing plan shows 3/4
inch spruce spar, with 1/8 spacers only under the fittings. Is this an
acceptable method to use for the whole wing? Would save considerably on the
price of the spars.
Al Swanson
>To all:
>
>Bernard Pietenpol, in material he wrote about the corvair conversion,
>suggested laminated wing spars (3/4" laminations with 1/8" side plates). I
>got this information with my plans set. Has any one tried this method?
>Apart from the additional work involved, any opinions on strength, longevity
>of the finished product, practicality?
>
>Mark Boynton
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Wing Spars
>To bring this question one step further: The 3 piece wing plan shows 3/4
>inch spruce spar, with 1/8 spacers only under the fittings. Is this an
>acceptable method to use for the whole wing? Would save considerably on
the
>price of the spars.
>
>Al Swanson
That's the way Ed Snyder & I did it. My Piet has been flying 12 yrs & Eds'
14 years.
Point of information, the rib jig should be modified to accommodate the
spars or use the jig as is & place spacers at the rib uprights.
Mike ( Piet N687MB ).
________________________________________________________________________________
This is soo true. I hadnt heard about doing this until I was on my
12th or so rib, and I had to do a lot of trimming on some to get the
spar to fit right.
> Point of information, the rib jig should be modified to accommodate
the
> spars or use the jig as is & place spacers at the rib uprights.
>
> Mike ( Piet N687MB ).
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | Proper Propeller |
Hey Guys,
Maybe you propeller expert types can steer
me in the right direction.
My GN-1 Aircamper was built in 1985 with an A-80
married up to an Univair wood prop. I am not sure
of the original diameter and pitch. I do remember
the builder's logs indicating 80hp at 2700 rpms.
The plane went through four owners before I bought
it. It did not have the original propeller, but a metal
McCauley cruise prop.....I think 69 inches in diameter
with a 38 degree pitch.
I remember when I bought it and first flew the plane
the tach indicated no higher than 2200 rpm on take off.
When I flew it from Corpus Christi to Dallas the rear
tach quite working the first 30 miles of the 400 mile trip.
The front cockpit was covered and I could not see
what the engine was turning.
To make a long story short, the trip was successfully
made and the broken tach cables, housings and
end fittings replaced. Now I want to take some dual
and carry passengers, but I feel the A-80 is not turning
out 80hp due to a prop miss match.
I called Ed Sterba Aircraft Propellers, Felix Propellers,
and Hegy Propeller companies. They say it appears
to be an engine/prop miss match. They also said metal
and wooden props of the same diameter and pitch
do not perform the same.. Also manufacturers measure
pitch differently......so a prop from Hegy may perform
differently from one from Sterba, etc...
A friend of mine has a Hegy wooden 70/40 he will let
me try until I find the perfect match for my plane and
engine.
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated before I make a
decision which way to go.
Thanks in advance.....
Mike King
GN-1 Aircamper
Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dbs(at)fscvax.wvnet.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Proper Propeller |
Sounds like you may have a sick engine! If you have an A80 with a
McCauley
1A90 with a 69" dia and 38" pitch you should be able to turn between
2440 and 2340 static. That is basically the installation on a Stinson
10. If, in fact the prop is a 69/38 and you run the engine up to full
throttle with the brakes locked/tied down and the RPM doesn't reach 2340
there is a problem. Start by checking the accuracy of the tach. You can
use a strobe light for that. If the tach is right, then check that full
throtle is in fact opening the throtle plate all the way and that you
don't have carb heat leaks into the intake. Check compression and
anything else that would cause low power. With that engine and that
prop, there should be no problem turning at least 2350 static. Once you
release the brakes and accelerate the rpm will increase. The Piet isn't
as fast as a 10 so you may not get the full 2700 rated power. Once you
determine that the engine is running properly via static rpm, then you
can start playing with props. I wouldn't suggest reducing diamiter. If
you want more rpm reduce your pitch. If you talk to a prop shop, they
can retwist the prop to a lower pitch and save you the expense of buying
a new prop.
By all means check the engine before playing with the prop
David
Michael King wrote:
> Hey Guys,
>
> Maybe you propeller expert types can steer
> me in the right direction.
>
> My GN-1 Aircamper was built in 1985 with an A-80
> married up to an Univair wood prop. I am not sure
> of the original diameter and pitch. I do remember
> the builder's logs indicating 80hp at 2700 rpms.
>
> The plane went through four owners before I bought
> it. It did not have the original propeller, but a metal
> McCauley cruise prop.....I think 69 inches in diameter
> with a 38 degree pitch.
>
> I remember when I bought it and first flew the plane
> the tach indicated no higher than 2200 rpm on take off.
> When I flew it from Corpus Christi to Dallas the rear
> tach quite working the first 30 miles of the 400 mile trip.
> The front cockpit was covered and I could not see
> what the engine was turning.
>
> To make a long story short, the trip was successfully
> made and the broken tach cables, housings and
> end fittings replaced. Now I want to take some dual
> and carry passengers, but I feel the A-80 is not turning
> out 80hp due to a prop miss match.
>
> I called Ed Sterba Aircraft Propellers, Felix Propellers,
> and Hegy Propeller companies. They say it appears
> to be an engine/prop miss match. They also said metal
> and wooden props of the same diameter and pitch
> do not perform the same.. Also manufacturers measure
> pitch differently......so a prop from Hegy may perform
> differently from one from Sterba, etc...
>
> A friend of mine has a Hegy wooden 70/40 he will let
> me try until I find the perfect match for my plane and
> engine.
>
> Any thoughts are greatly appreciated before I make a
> decision which way to go.
>
> Thanks in advance.....
>
> Mike King
> GN-1 Aircamper
> Dallas
--
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)excite.com |
Richard:
So, did you build up a laminated spar? If so, could you comment on the
procedure you used? I'm especially interested in how you went about
clamping all of the pieces and any difficulties you may have encountered,
adhesive you used, etc. Any of you other builders who used this option
(laminated spar), would you comment too? Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> This is soo true. I hadnt heard about doing this until I was on my
> 12th or so rib, and I had to do a lot of trimming on some to get the
> spar to fit right.
>
> > Point of information, the rib jig should be modified to accommodate
> the
> > spars or use the jig as is & place spacers at the rib uprights.
> >
> > Mike ( Piet N687MB ).
> >
> >
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:54 PM
> To: steve_eldredge(at)byu.edu
> Subject: Pietenpol Chat Group
>
>
I'm interested in the size of the
> Air Camper cockpit as i'm fairly large and was wondering if there are
> modifications to increase cockpit size.
> thanks brian buchanan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I'm using 3/4 X 4-3/4 Douglas Fir for my spars. I didn't modify the rib jig,
so I'll have to use spacers at each rib, to center the spar in the opening.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Cockpit Size |
After flying in my short fuse aircamper, then trying on the long fuse with a
1" width modification, I felt like I was rattling around in the back seat.
I am 5'10" 220lbs.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
steve(at)byu.edu
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 1999 3:34 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cockpit Size
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 7:54 PM
> To: steve_eldredge(at)byu.edu
> Subject: Pietenpol Chat Group
>
>
I'm interested in the size of the
> Air Camper cockpit as i'm fairly large and was wondering if there are
> modifications to increase cockpit size.
> thanks brian buchanan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/14/99 2:44:08 PM Central Standard Time,
mboynton(at)excite.com writes:
<< Richard:
So, did you build up a laminated spar? If so, could you comment on the
procedure you used? I'm especially interested in how you went about
clamping all of the pieces and any difficulties you may have encountered,
adhesive you used, etc. Any of you other builders who used this option
(laminated spar), would you comment too? Thanks.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
>>
I understand that T88 Epoxy will nick the blades of a planer, if ya try to
plane something, like a spar, after using it.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
The first annual Piet fly - in, is scheduled for Saturday, September 11, at
Benton Airport (1K1). Benton is located about 10 miles to the northeast of
Wichita. Is there anyone who is close enough to make it there on that date?
It would be great to see some people, planes & pictures from Brodhead, or
Oshkosh !!!
Chuck
Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would strongly suggest that you
brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend when the fabric is
tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips top & bottom
to the spars at the second bays.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the long fuselage.
Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would
strongly
suggest that you brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend
when the
fabric is tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips
top
bottom to the spars at the second bays.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the
long
fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
In answer to several observed items in this discussion group, I have
compiled a Pietenpol Screen Saver. If you are interested in having a
repeating slide show of Pietenpol Aircraft on your computer, Richard
DeCosta will have it available on his terrific Web Site.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I have installed it on four
machines in Oregon and Washington. All of which are owned by hopeful
Pietenpol builders.
For those of you who own the planes in the photographs, Thank You for
letting the rest of us share your dream machines.
If you do like the Screen Saver there will be another version available
as soon as I get all the images in a story telling sequence.
Enjoy and Continue the Dream,
Ron Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JKend81933(at)aol.com |
I've been checking out the discussion group and there's sure a lot of good
information here. Seems like there's a lot of Piet building experience here
too. Can any one tell me where I can get some pretty specific information on
using a Model A Ford engine in a Pietenpol? I would really like to try this
out but all I have been able to get so far for information has been really
general. What sort of modifications does one need to make to the stock Model
A engine, how do you fit a prop hub, (what kind of prop seems to work best),
how about motor mounts, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone there had any experience
or know if there are any plans available for converting the engine?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Screen Saver Location |
Here it is.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/screensaver/Piet004.zip
WARNING! 5.3 MB!!
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
The 1932 Flying & Glider Manual available from the EAA (for under ten
Bucks) has all the info you need. If you Decide to build though I
reccomend Buying the full size Plans from the Pietenpol Family, they are
a lot easier to use. The Mods are all fairly easy. The Motor mount is
very basic but effective.
Good luck
John Duprey
JKend81933(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I've been checking out the discussion group and there's sure a lot of good
> information here. Seems like there's a lot of Piet building experience here
> too. Can any one tell me where I can get some pretty specific information on
> using a Model A Ford engine in a Pietenpol? I would really like to try this
> out but all I have been able to get so far for information has been really
> general. What sort of modifications does one need to make to the stock Model
> A engine, how do you fit a prop hub, (what kind of prop seems to work best),
> how about motor mounts, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone there had any experience
> or know if there are any plans available for converting the engine?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Richard:
>
>So, did you build up a laminated spar? If so, could you comment on the
>procedure you used? I'm especially interested in how you went about
>clamping all of the pieces and any difficulties you may have encountered,
>adhesive you used, etc. Any of you other builders who used this option
>(laminated spar), would you comment too? Thanks.
>
>Mark Boynton
>Phoenix, AZ
Mark- I built up my wing spars using an 'I' beam type design. As I recall the
center 'web' portion was 1/2" thick spruce then capped on top and bottom
with u-channeled square spruce routed out with room for T-88. No routing
is required to lighten the spar then- it's already done. Where you have
fittings, etc.
you just glue in plywood plates to build-up the area. To glue the web and top
and bottom pieces I simply wrapped electrical tape tightly every few inches
along the length of the spar. Worked fine. It was a pain routing the
u-channels
as you had to go slowly and there were eight of them for the 3 pce. wing about
13' long each. Ah, the smell of spruce in the morning.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Size |
Dry flying and making engine noises, I am wondering whether I will need
a restraint system. I am 6 feet at 205 pounds.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
I told a friend about it and he said he will defently be there. (whick is great
because that gives me an excuss to fly with him down there..)
He lives in Chanute and I, near Burlington. I'm just starting and not making
much progress while the weathers cold....
Greg Y.
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> The first annual Piet fly - in, is scheduled for Saturday, September 11, at
> Benton Airport (1K1). Benton is located about 10 miles to the northeast of
> Wichita. Is there anyone who is close enough to make it there on that date?
> It would be great to see some people, planes & pictures from Brodhead, or
> Oshkosh !!!
>
> Chuck
> Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <khannan(at)gte.net> |
Mike how deep of a cut did you make? and what size was the u channel?
Ken H.
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Sent: Friday, January 15, 1999 4:49 AM
>>Richard:
>>
>>So, did you build up a laminated spar? If so, could you comment on the
>>procedure you used? I'm especially interested in how you went about
>>clamping all of the pieces and any difficulties you may have encountered,
>>adhesive you used, etc. Any of you other builders who used this option
>>(laminated spar), would you comment too? Thanks.
>>
>>Mark Boynton
>>Phoenix, AZ
>
>Mark- I built up my wing spars using an 'I' beam type design. As I recall
the
>center 'web' portion was 1/2" thick spruce then capped on top and bottom
>with u-channeled square spruce routed out with room for T-88. No routing
>is required to lighten the spar then- it's already done. Where you have
>fittings, etc.
>you just glue in plywood plates to build-up the area. To glue the web and
top
>and bottom pieces I simply wrapped electrical tape tightly every few inches
>along the length of the spar. Worked fine. It was a pain routing the
>u-channels
>as you had to go slowly and there were eight of them for the 3 pce. wing
about
>13' long each. Ah, the smell of spruce in the morning.
>
>Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Mike how deep of a cut did you make? and what size was the u channel?
>
>Ken H.
Ken- The U-channel stock size I used was 1"x1" then routed with a 1/2"
router bit 3/4" deep. This leaves 1/4 inches thickness for all sides.
To allow room for glue I put one or two layers of masking tape on my rip
fence and ran the channels thru one last time then flipped them l to r and
did that again. If you make the fit too tight when you go to clamp, the
pressure
of the glue could split your u-channel. For you guys with dado blades on a
table saw I suppose this procedure would go much faster than using a
router bit which must be done with repeated passes at increasing depths.
To do it over again I'd use 1"x 3/4" stock and only go 1/2" deep with the
groove for the web. The 1x1 was too big height-wise. The mulit piece spar
will make things less expensive for you by requiring smaller stock yet will
yeild
a structurally sound assembly. PS- Frank Pavliga suggested I build my spar
like this and I took him up on it. He said he'd do it this way given a second
Piet project.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Size |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Holland
Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 6:36 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Cockpit Size
>Dry flying and making engine noises, I am wondering whether I will need
>a restraint system. I am 6 feet at 205 pounds.
That's my size & I have plenty of room. I would suggest that you raise the
cabane struts some & think about a flop.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Size |
I raised the cabanes by 3 1/2 inches, but did not do the flop. The
centre section is built and I am reluctant to go muss with it. I suppose
I could cut every thing off aft the back beam and fit a false spar and
hinge. Any other suggestions?
I can get in with some contorsions. The extended fuselage is tight, but
comfortable.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Size |
I'm 6'2" and 150 lbs. What are the implications regarding getting in and out
of the seat below the wing? Is a cut out or moveable wing area advisable?
Kevin
Down here in Houston
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Holland
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Friday, January 15, 1999 6:36 AM
>Subject: Re: Cockpit Size
>
>
>>Dry flying and making engine noises, I am wondering whether I will need
>>a restraint system. I am 6 feet at 205 pounds.
>
>That's my size & I have plenty of room. I would suggest that you raise the
>cabane struts some & think about a flop.
>
>
>Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
Steve,
Just looked at a Stewart Warner catalog of panel instruments. They
produce a complete line for antique auto restoration. Their "Wings"
collection includes an electronic tach that looks as though it came
straight from the '30s. Available in white face or black. They are
beautiful. So if you ever want to get rid of the mechanical cable and
its related troubles - there's your option.
Ron Gipson
Steve,
Just looked at a Stewart Warner
catalog of panel
instruments. They produce a complete line for antique auto
restoration. Their Wings collection includes an
electronic
tach that looks as though it came straight from the '30s.
Available in
white face or black. They are beautiful. So if you ever want
to get
rid of the mechanical cable and its related troubles - there's your
option.
Ron
Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
The Model A engine doen't need vey much in the way of mods to power a Piet.
It does however need to be in very good condition. It takes 33 HP to meet
minimum Canadian Climb specs in a Piet. A Model A in good shape can produce
40hp.
I suggest you find the nearest Model A Ford Club of America chapter (check
out the BPA website)
The stock Ford crank has a long rear main (which now is the front main) to
carry the heavy flywheel used in the Model A. The length is comparable to a
small continental. The output is a four bolt flange. The most logical way
I've seen to fit a prop fitted is by using an adapter machined to the
Lycoming or Continental six bolt circle. The advantage of this is that more
props are available if you need one in a hurry. The other major changes are
to the oiling system and ignition systems. The Flying and Gliding manuals
cover this in adaquate detail.
If you need more engine specs feel free to contact me.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: JKend81933(at)aol.com <JKend81933(at)aol.com>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 10:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Screen Saver
>I've been checking out the discussion group and there's sure a lot of good
>information here. Seems like there's a lot of Piet building experience
here
>too. Can any one tell me where I can get some pretty specific information
on
>using a Model A Ford engine in a Pietenpol? I would really like to try
this
>out but all I have been able to get so far for information has been really
>general. What sort of modifications does one need to make to the stock
Model
>A engine, how do you fit a prop hub, (what kind of prop seems to work
best),
>how about motor mounts, etc. etc. ad nauseum. Anyone there had any
experience
>or know if there are any plans available for converting the engine?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
<<
and out
of the seat below the wing? Is a cut out or moveable wing area
advisable?
Kevin
Down here in Houston>>>>
<<<
centre section is built and I am reluctant to go muss with it. I suppose
I could cut every thing off aft the back beam and fit a false spar and
hinge. Any other suggestions?>>>>
My personal opinion, the flop sure makes life easier.
The false spar is how I did it. If I remember, cut off the aft portion
of the ribs at the aft upright, save that part, install a spar &
construct the flop with the portion of the ribs you cut off. Screw on a
piano hinge & there you are.I did one other thing, I extended the flop
one bay into the left wing. That allows me to stand upright along side
the cockpit.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
I'm 6'2 and 150 lbs. What are the implications
regarding
getting in and outof the seat below the wing? Is a cut out or
moveable wing
area advisable?KevinDown here in
Houston
I raised the cabanes by 3 1/2 inches, but did not
do the
flop. Thecentre section is built and I am reluctant to go muss with
it. I
supposeI could cut every thing off aft the back beam and fit a false
spar
andhinge. Any other suggestions?
My personal opinion, the flop sure makes life easier.
The false spar is how I did it. If I remember, cut off the aft
portion of
the ribs at the aft upright, save that part, install a spar
construct the
flop with the portion of the ribs you cut off. Screw on a piano hinge
there you are.I did one other thing, I extended the flop one bay into
the left
wing. That allows me to stand upright along side the cockpit.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
In a message dated 1/15/99 9:08:14 AM Central Standard Time, gyachts(at)kans.com
writes:
<< I told a friend about it and he said he will defently be there. (whick is
great
because that gives me an excuss to fly with him down there..)
He lives in Chanute and I, near Burlington. I'm just starting and not making
much progress while the weathers cold....
Greg Y. >>
That's great Greg !! Spread the word. I think we'll have a pretty good
turnout. I'll keep everyone posted from time to time, in this group. What
do ya have done so far ? The weather is cold, but ya can study the plans,
and make other preporations. Or ya could be like me, and build your wing in
your living room !!! I've got the plywood platform set up, and will be
working on the jigs to support the wing, tomorrow.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
1. For the Jenny style gear builders; did you use rivets as called for, or
bolts on the landing gear?
2.Do any of you have a source that did a particularly good job on the
radiator for the "A"
engine?
3. I haven't seen any discussion on seat belts and/or shoulder harness.
Does anyone have pictures or details to share about attach points etc.?
Thanks
Phil Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
Chuck,
Can you tell us any more about this?
I have relatives in Wichita and its an easy flight from central TX.(Not in the
Piet yet, though)
Any details on activities yet?
Any advice on getting in and out of there?
Fuel available? Hangar space/tie downs?
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> The first annual Piet fly - in, is scheduled for Saturday, September 11, at
> Benton Airport (1K1). Benton is located about 10 miles to the northeast of
> Wichita. Is there anyone who is close enough to make it there on that date?
> It would be great to see some people, planes & pictures from Brodhead, or
> Oshkosh !!!
>
> Chuck
> Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Re-seat belts |
I have seen the results of poor attach points on a pietenpol that crashed
from about 50 ft. high. The attach points were at the fuselage cluster
where a longeron and diagonals come together behind the pilot's seat. I did
not use those points.
Instead I ran a 1/8 cable to a plate in the tail end of the fuselage that
the tail sping attaches to. the other end of the cable was brought forward
to a chromoly steel structure about a meter behind the pilot. protruding
above the skin of the aircraft is a fitting that comes with a car baby seat
(looks like and end of the seat belt). The shoulder harness is attached
here. This way the shoulder harness is effective and will not put any undue
compression on your spine in the event of a mishap. Must add that although
the chromoly steel structure is screwed to the crossmember between the top
longerons, it's the 1/8 inch cable that will take all the stress to the
strong tail area.
The lap belts are anchored by forming a steell strap around the bottom
longerons at and just behind the seat (pilot). The lap belt for the
passenger is anchored through the bottom of the fuselage at the ash wood
cross member. The shoulder harness is merely clipped to the 1/8" crosing
cables just behind the passenger's head. It works for me.
Domenico Bellissimo
-----Original Message-----
From: Phil Phillips
Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 3:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Misc.
>1. For the Jenny style gear builders; did you use rivets as called for, or
>bolts on the landing gear?
>2.Do any of you have a source that did a particularly good job on the
>radiator for the "A"
>engine?
>3. I haven't seen any discussion on seat belts and/or shoulder harness.
>Does anyone have pictures or details to share about attach points etc.?
>
>Thanks
>
>Phil Phillips
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh 1999 |
Imagine Jim, subscribed to the Ultralight and/or the Trikes list.... about
80 to 150 mails a day each :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
>Gee Wiz Jim
>
>Go back to your business if you can't handle the pressure. What did you
>expect from a bunch of people who like to talk to each other?
>
>Gordon
>
>
>Jim Weir wrote:
>
>> Regrets, I just can't handle 25-30 messages a day, half of which have no
>> bearing on building Pietenpols.
>>
>> Unsubscribe.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Raffaele wrote:
<
crashed
from about 50 ft. high. The attach points were at the fuselage cluster
where a longeron and diagonals come together behind the pilot's seat.>>>
What sort of results Raffaelle?
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Raffaele wrote:
I have seen the results of poor attach points on a
pietenpol that
crashedfrom about 50 ft. high. The attach points were at the
fuselage
clusterwhere a longeron and diagonals come together behind the
pilot's
seat.
What sort of results Raffaelle?
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
In a message dated 1/16/99 5:49:20 AM Central Standard Time,
seibert(at)swbell.net writes:
<< Chuck,
Can you tell us any more about this?
I have relatives in Wichita and its an easy flight from central TX.(Not in
the
Piet yet, though)
Any details on activities yet?
Any advice on getting in and out of there?
Fuel available? Hangar space/tie downs?
Bob Seibert
RV-6 N691RV >>
Bob,
We're still in the planning stage. The date isn't even written in stone yet.
There is tie downs, and fuel available. As for activities, it will probably
be like a typical fly - in, where the main thing is jackin' our jaws about
airplanes, Pietenpols in paticular. We are going to try to have a couple of
Piets on display, in various stages of construction. As for getting in and
out, I can't see any problems there, as the lit runway is 2600', and in fair
condition, elevation is 1364', but the north end is close to the road.
Unicom is 123.0 . Are ya planning on flying in the RV ? That would be
great !!! I'd love to hear the details of your plane. Hope to see ya
there.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Hi Mike,
The seat belt attachment pulled the cluster to the inside. The pilot (no
names) hit his head on the side of the dash, he survived, but had to
have eye surgery. I don't believe he has ever flow since. The Piet. was
never rebuilt. He needed a new wing and repair to the fuselage. The wind
was coming from the north , he took off and made a left in front of a
huge barn around 50 feet . The wind was abstucted by the barn which
created a downward shear. He said he had no controll what so ever. He
had 30,000 hours in a 747. -----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Raffaele wrote:
<
crashed
from about 50 ft. high. The attach points were at the fuselage
cluster
where a longeron and diagonals come together behind the pilot's
seat.>>>
What sort of results Raffaelle?
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
... he took off and made a left in
front of a huge barn around 50 feet....
Could this have been avoided if he had continued his climbout and waited
to turn when he was closer to pattern altitude? Especially with a low
powered aircraft, I would think that low altitude turns on takeoff might
be a bit dangerous...
-Carmen
-
________________________________________________________________________________
After two weeks of -25 to -38 C weather, we ended up with an almost
spring like day at a whole +2C! Of course, what did we do but go ice
fishing. Before someone jumps in, we caught a lot of ice, but no fish. I
could look west from where we were and see the smoke from the hydro
generating plant 30 km away. The lake was covered with about 3 inches of
snow and was almost three feet thick. we werec fishing in about 20
fathoms (120 feet) and as I sat there I looked at about 100 sqare miles
of perfect landing for a plane. This is a long way round to ask if any
one has, or has seen any plans for a set of skis for a Piet? I am
building the landing gear as we speak and could certainly see flying in
weather such as we had today. Actually, a 150 could have set down on
wheels with no problems. I am going with the C90 brakes and wheels from
Tracy O'Brien. The Cub type gear is ideal for skis and I can see a set
getting built.
Any body got any plans?
________________________________________________________________________________
To Ian Holland,
I've used skis on my Pietenpol quite a lot over the 28 years I
have been flying it. Except for being a bit cool, the Pietenpol
is a great skiplane.
Most of the time I used Federal A1500A skis and, at present,
am using a pair of ancient Federal SC 1 skis I acquired a few
years back. Both pairs work just fine, and are light in weight.
A friend used to make water skis of oak back in the early1970's
and he made a pair for me to use on the Pietenpol. I welded up
pedestals from steel tubing, varnished the topsides and waxed
the undersides. Rigging was according to standard aircraft prac-
tice. Birch aircraft plywood 1/4 inch thick was glued to the top-
sides under the pedestal and 1/8 inch birch ply was used at the
nose and tail for reinforcement. A 1/8 inch by 1 inch piece of iron
ran from nose to tail to act as a "keel" and take some of the wear.
The oak boards were unlaminated pieces 10 inches wide, 4.5 ft.
long and about 7/8 inch thick. He soaked them in water for several
days and then clamped them in a form for a couple of weeks to
dry. They held their shape well.
I used these skis for several seasons, but retired them when my
Federal A1500A skis became available when I sold my Taylorcraft.
The unlaminated oak boards had developed longitudinal cracks,
and I removed the pedestals, etc. to rework them and put epoxy
in the cracks. Never did this, and finally gave them to a friend last
year for his Pietenpol. These oak "boards" worked well on the Piet-
enpol, particularly in deep snow, but were a bit heavy.
I suggest that anyone building a set of wooden skis go the laminat-
ing route which would facilitate putting in the bends. One could even
build up a laminated streamlined pedestal instead of a metal one!
Another option would be to build a "cage" to drop (or roll) the wheel
into, leaving the wheels installed. Years ago, Call Air in Wyoming
produced a setup like this and it worked well. A friend had a Piper
Pacer with Call Air skis and really liked the system. Unfortunately,
he sold those skis with the airplane; otherwise, I would get them for
my Vagabond because we have LOTS of snow this winter (in cen-
tral Alberta, Canada) . By the way, where do you live?
Anyway, I have no plans but have perhaps provided you and others
with some "food for thought".
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wichita Piet Fly-In |
As Chuck noted, the date for the planned fly-in to Benton, KS next Fall
is NOT definite. Doug Bryant was by today to check progress on our
'vair Piet. Holdup is related to Visa application / grant for medical
mission trip we're making to Turkey in Sept. '99. We will get more
exact info out ASAP for everyone's planning purposes. Thanks.
Joe
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Ron,
Do you have a email address or information about where that business is
located?
That tach sounds like a good idea.
Thanks,
-=Ron Lebfrom=-
P.S My apple computer went down two weeks ago. I had to buy a new computer.
I went to the pentium. I guess my wings on my name went inverted. I just
want to
thank those of you who responded to my landing gear questions. I could not
send
my thanks until now. I had over 231 e-mails to catch up on:-)
________________________________________________________________________________
Look in the Aircraft Spruce catalog for that electronic tach and others.
This is the way I am going as well.......
-----Original Message-----
From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Date: Sunday, January 17, 1999 11:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tachometer
>Hey Ron,
> Do you have a email address or information about where that business is
>located?
>That tach sounds like a good idea.
>
> Thanks,
> -=Ron Lebfrom=-
>
> P.S My apple computer went down two weeks ago. I had to buy a new
computer.
>I went to the pentium. I guess my wings on my name went inverted. I just
>want to
>thank those of you who responded to my landing gear questions. I could
not
>send
>my thanks until now. I had over 231 e-mails to catch up on:-)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
Ron,
The Web Site for Stewart Warner Instrument Corp. is
www.stewartwarner.com.
Their e-mail is: info(at)stewartwarner.com. They have a really nice promo
piece on their Wings line, it is item number 970304.
Ron Gipson
Ron,
The Web Site for Stewart Warner
Instrument
Corp. is
href"http://www.stewartwarner.com">www.stewartwarner.com.
Their e-mail is:
They have
a really nice promo piece on their Wings line, it is item number
970304.
Ron
Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stewart Warner |
Ron,
Great Info on Stewart Warner Guages. Have ordered their Wings
brochure. Seems to be exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for the
pointer.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita |
Mostly done on tail. Looking at plans for the wing. Found all the material for
the wing and will buy soon. Also looking at the built up I-beam method for the
spar. I saw one at Oshkosh that was going to be used in another plane. (I can't
remember what he said it was.) This gentlemen also made mention about the glue
space in the cap routing. His first attempt split about 1/4 of the cap strips.
The second worked great. He was also a mech. engineer and had done complete load
analysis on CAD for his spar and said that it was 100% as strong, 73% of the
weight, 1/2 the cost and a whole lot easier than routing out a solid spar to
lighten it. He said it was also easier to find wood for construction. I guess
this was what made it so much cheaper. I wish I would have thought to ask about
the attachment of ribs and gotten his name. I would have liked to follow up with
some questions and see if he puts his wing under a static load after complete
construction.
I would also like to have asked how important it is to use one solid piece for
the
caps and web or if you can used scarfed assemblies.
Anyway I will be at the Benton fly in as long as it's not to close to the Oshkosh
time frame. "Unfortunately" for me, my work forces me to go to Oshkosh every
year. And I wouldn't want to upset the boss.
And as far as building a wing in my living room.... I have 5 kids who wouldn't
ever leave well enough alone, and a wife who thinks my flying hobby rates right
up
there with 'all those other stupid ideas I have'. Luckily my two boys both have
interests in building with me. So I can always say ' I need to spend more time
with the boys so they don't turn out to be psychopathical killers.' And this
usually allows me to spend time working on the project.
Greg Yotz
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/15/99 9:08:14 AM Central Standard Time, gyachts(at)kans.com
> writes:
>
> << I told a friend about it and he said he will defently be there. (whick is
> great
> because that gives me an excuss to fly with him down there..)
> He lives in Chanute and I, near Burlington. I'm just starting and not making
> much progress while the weathers cold....
>
> Greg Y. >>
> That's great Greg !! Spread the word. I think we'll have a pretty good
> turnout. I'll keep everyone posted from time to time, in this group. What
> do ya have done so far ? The weather is cold, but ya can study the plans,
> and make other preporations. Or ya could be like me, and build your wing in
> your living room !!! I've got the plywood platform set up, and will be
> working on the jigs to support the wing, tomorrow.
> Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stewart Warner |
ditto
>Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 08:10:05 -0800
>From: Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
>Subject: Re: Stewart Warner
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Ron,
> Great Info on Stewart Warner Guages. Have ordered their Wings
>brochure. Seems to be exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for the
>pointer.
>Best Regards,
>Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
I am not sure were I read this accident report, but it involves a "Cubby"
ultralight version of the J3. The spar was fabricated much as descibed. The
wing failed in flight, two fatalities. The accident report stated that the
grain of the caps for the spar was 90 degrees from what the plans called
for, as a result the caps split and the spar failed. I will keep looking
through my filed magazines to see if I can find out which way the grain was
to be. It is something to consider.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
Date: Monday, January 18, 1999 10:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Piet Gathering, near Wichita
>Mostly done on tail. Looking at plans for the wing. Found all the
material for
>the wing and will buy soon. Also looking at the built up I-beam method for
the
>spar. I saw one at Oshkosh that was going to be used in another plane. (I
can't
>remember what he said it was.) This gentlemen also made mention about the
glue
>space in the cap routing. His first attempt split about 1/4 of the cap
strips.
>The second worked great. He was also a mech. engineer and had done
complete load
>analysis on CAD for his spar and said that it was 100% as strong, 73% of
the
>weight, 1/2 the cost and a whole lot easier than routing out a solid spar
to
>lighten it. He said it was also easier to find wood for construction. I
guess
>this was what made it so much cheaper. I wish I would have thought to ask
about
>the attachment of ribs and gotten his name. I would have liked to follow
up with
>some questions and see if he puts his wing under a static load after
complete
>construction.
>I would also like to have asked how important it is to use one solid piece
for the
>caps and web or if you can used scarfed assemblies.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
John McNarry and group,
I remember the Cubby spar failure accident a few years back. It
happened north of Edmonton. And I also recall reading the acci-
dent report. Will see if I can locate it and pass on the information
to the group.
I built up my Pietenpol spars in a similar manner to that described
in several recent letters. However, I did not use a routed cap glued
to the web; I used a full depth (4 3/4 inches) by 1/2 inch web and
glued four 1/4 inch by 3/4 inch strips to it, forming the "I - beam"
corresponding to the Pietenpol spar cross section. "Swallow Tail"
filler blocks and plywood plates were used at strut and root attach-
ment points. I used Douglas Fir because I happened upon some
choice Fir boards and was having trouble finding aircraft quality
Sitka Spruce (even in 1968). My spars are a tad heavier than they
would be if made of spruce since I elected to retain the dimensions
shown in the plans, but certainly no heavier than unrouted spruce
spars would have been.
By laminating the spars, one can save some money and reduce
the chance of having hidden defects within the spar. The trade-
off (there always is at least one) is the increased labour required
to make a built-up spar.
If I can find that accident report, I'll forward it to you and the group.
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>1. For the Jenny style gear builders; did you use rivets as called for, or
>bolts on the landing gear?
Phil- I used 3/16" AN hardware. I had my wood gear on and off about 3 times
during the building phase so the bolts got a workout.
>3. I haven't seen any discussion on seat belts and/or shoulder harness.
>Does anyone have pictures or details to share about attach points etc.?
Lots of Piet builder's do have shoulder harnesses but in my case I left them
out due to literature which indicates that unless you can mount the attatch
points above shoulder level you may induce spinal compression during an
accident. This is another one of those research and ask questions, then
do what's best for you.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear/Seat Belts |
I also used AN3 bolts on my Jenny style gear.
As for shoulder harnesses, I raised the turtledeck a
couple of inches to allow installation of safe shoulder
straps. I have not finalized the fuselage attachment
points however.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Michael D Cuy 01/19 7:41 AM >>>
>1. For the Jenny style gear builders; did you use rivets as called for,
or
>bolts on the landing gear?
Phil- I used 3/16" AN hardware. I had my wood gear on and off about 3
times
during the building phase so the bolts got a workout.
>3. I haven't seen any discussion on seat belts and/or shoulder harness.=20=
>Does anyone have pictures or details to share about attach points etc.?
Lots of Piet builder's do have shoulder harnesses but in my case I left
them
out due to literature which indicates that unless you can mount the
attatch
points above shoulder level you may induce spinal compression during an
accident. This is another one of those research and ask questions, then
do what's best for you.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
I knew that grain direction would be important for both web and caps.
Something I was also thinking about was a marine/aircraft grade plywood
web.... Any thoughts on that? This would help the grain problem because you
could have two opposing grain directions.
Friends of my wife are building a new house, and they used built up floor
joices and rafters. I had a chance to talk to the representative of the
company that makes them and they use laminated web of two pieces of plywood.
They vacuum bag the web and the atmospheric pressure compresses the two
sheets for a tight glue bond. I wonder if anybody knows if Tony Bingelis has
an email? I think I remember him either talking about this subject in an
article or at one of the 'classes' at Oshkosh. It would be great to email
and ask him.....
Greg Yotz
Graham Hansen wrote:
> John McNarry and group,
>
> I remember the Cubby spar failure accident a few years back. It
> happened north of Edmonton. And I also recall reading the acci-
> dent report. Will see if I can locate it and pass on the information
> to the group.
>
> I built up my Pietenpol spars in a similar manner to that described
> in several recent letters. However, I did not use a routed cap glued
> to the web; I used a full depth (4 3/4 inches) by 1/2 inch web and
> glued four 1/4 inch by 3/4 inch strips to it, forming the "I - beam"
> corresponding to the Pietenpol spar cross section. "Swallow Tail"
> filler blocks and plywood plates were used at strut and root attach-
> ment points. I used Douglas Fir because I happened upon some
> choice Fir boards and was having trouble finding aircraft quality
> Sitka Spruce (even in 1968). My spars are a tad heavier than they
> would be if made of spruce since I elected to retain the dimensions
> shown in the plans, but certainly no heavier than unrouted spruce
> spars would have been.
>
> By laminating the spars, one can save some money and reduce
> the chance of having hidden defects within the spar. The trade-
> off (there always is at least one) is the increased labour required
> to make a built-up spar.
>
> If I can find that accident report, I'll forward it to you and the group.
>
> Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
Graham wrote:
>I built up my Pietenpol spars in a similar manner to that described
>in several recent letters. However, I did not use a routed cap glued
>to the web; I used a full depth (4 3/4 inches) by 1/2 inch web and
>glued four 1/4 inch by 3/4 inch strips to it, forming the "I - beam"
Graham- YES !!! This is what I should have done. Mucho easier
and obviously strong since you've been flying her for 28 years, no ?
Any of you guys thinking of this design, please follow Graham's
procedure above.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Size |
To all:
I don't think anyone should be restrained just because they dry-fly and make
engine noises. I do it quite often (sorry Ian, you set yourself up for that
one).
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Dry flying and making engine noises, I am wondering whether I will need
> a restraint system. I am 6 feet at 205 pounds.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Gear/Seat Belts |
I did the same thing as Greg (raised the turtle deck) plus lowered the
seat, and plan to attach someplace pretty far back in the structure via
braided cable. My interpretation on attach points is that the key is to
make sure that the downward angle of the harness does not exceed 40
degrees. Level with the top of your shoulders should work (add in a bit
for flight jacket thickness..)
Greg Cardinal wrote:
>
> As for shoulder harnesses, I raised the turtledeck a
> couple of inches to allow installation of safe shoulder
> straps. I have not finalized the fuselage attachment
> points however.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Several weeks back there was a phone no. of someone who had plans for a
3 piece wing, no gap aelerons, and something else. Anyone know who it
was and the particulars? Anyone used his plans?
P.S. Any Piet owner/builders in No. Fla./So. Ga.?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
Graham, how did you compress the strips to the web to make sure of a good
glue joint? I've thought of several ways but I figured you already
descovered the best way.
And were both the web and the strips made out of DF?
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
Greg,
I built a spar building table of 3/4 inch plywood about nine inches
wide and approximately 15 feet long. It had a straight 2 x 4 as a
backbone down the middle of the underside and I attached the
whole thing to supports holding it at a convenient working height
above the floor.
In order to provide gluing pressure, I cut a whole bunch of 3/4 ply-
wood pieces 9 inches by 3 inches and drilled a 5/16 inch hole at
each end to match holes of the same size drilled along the edges
of the spar table. I then cleaned out the stock of 5/16 x 3 inch bolts,
nuts and washers at the local hardware stores to use for clamping.
This system worked well, but took a lot of time to set up. It would
be great if several people could make several sets of spars from
this tooling. I made only the one set and kept the spar table, bolts,
etc. around for years, until I finally got rid of the whole works.
Thirty years later, with 20/20 hindsight, I would do it a bit differently.
At that time, I was reluctant to use nails through the spar capstrips
and encountered difficulty in cleaning up the excess glue that oozed
out when pressure was applied; it was almost impossible to remove
after the glue had cured. The 3" X 9" clamping pieces were spaced rather
close together and there wasn't enough room to get in there
to wipe up excess glue.
Today, I would space the clamping pieces farther apart and use lengths of,
say, 3/4 inch iron angle to distribute the clamping pres-
sure along the capstrip. I would also use a few brass aircraft nails
spaced along the capstrip to hold it in position until the clamping
pressure is applied. And I would use an epoxy adhesive such as
T88 which requires less clamping pressure than the Aerolite urea
formaldehyde glue I used then. Also, the epoxy gives more assem-
bly time than the Aerolite did. If you use nails, it is a good idea to
drill a small hole through the 1/4" x 3/4" strips, before nailing, in or-
der to avoid the possibility of splitting (especially with Douglas Fir).
The "swallow tail" blocks at fitting attachment locations can be fitted
and glued in place after the capstrips are on and the glue has cured.
A hardwood such as birch is good for these because it has better
bearing qualities against the bolt shanks than either spruce or fir.
The 3/32" birch plywood plates at these locations enhance this fea-
ture. Be sure to taper these filler blocks in the characteristic "swal-
low tail" shape so that they blend into the capstrips, thus avoiding
stress concentration due to abrupt changes in cross section. Pos-
sibly, this was not done with the Cubby spar that failed---I'll have to
look at the accident report, if I can find it.
With reference to your last question, I used Douglas Fir for the flanges as
well as for the web.
Cheers,
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
I haven't seen anyone mention the screen saver at Richard's site so I
will put my two cents in. I have it on my machine and every time I see
that it has started I see all the beautiful work many of you have
created. It constantly reminds me of my goal, as far off at that seems.
If you haven't tried it I would recommend it. It is FREE to ANYONE and
nicely put together. I hope this shameless recommendation for the
screen saver my father-in-law, Ron Gipson, created will get you to try
it. Really, it's very cool.:)
Here it is.
http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/screensaver/Piet004.zip
WARNING! 5.3 MB!!
Brent Reed
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 9:24 PM
Subject: Screen Saver
To: Anyone interested,
In answer to several observed items in this discussion group, I have
compiled a Pietenpol Screen Saver. If you are interested in having a
repeating slide show of Pietenpol Aircraft on your computer, Richard
DeCosta will have it available on his terrific Web Site.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I have installed it on four
machines in Oregon and Washington. All of which are owned by hopeful
Pietenpol builders.
For those of you who own the planes in the photographs, Thank You
for letting the rest of us share your dream machines.
If you do like the Screen Saver there will be another version
available as soon as I get all the images in a story telling sequence.
Enjoy and Continue the Dream,
Ron Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au> |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
Couldn't have said it better myself, Brent. A great piece of work
from Ron and Richard. I've even convinced the network administrator
at work to leave it on our dept. PCs
Rob
Oz Piets: nearly the only ones to fly inverted...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
It is on my desktop at work. I really like looking up and seeing it when I
need to rest my eyes. Inspiration to finish the job!
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Hart <robihart(at)rph.health.wa.gov.au>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 3:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Screen Saver
Couldn't have said it better myself, Brent. A great piece of work
from Ron and Richard. I've even convinced the network administrator
at work to leave it on our dept. PCs
Rob
Oz Piets: nearly the only ones to fly inverted...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Re: screen saver
Now, that's a screen saver!
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Re: screen saver
Now, that's a screen saver!
size4>&nbs=
p; =
;
AWESOME
size6>
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Guys- From the screen saver, the words of wisdom from Graham and others,
from Richard's awesome Piet Page and Grant's efforts, for Steve E. at BYU,
in many ways we are
really blessed with a super discussion group for Pietenpol nuts. I
thought I'd
loose interest after finishing and flying, but tain't the case. It's
infectious.
Wait till you guys take your Piet/GN-1 to your first Pancake Breakfast Fly-In
and you park next to a gorgeous Stearman or Taylorcraft......and all the people
drift over to poke their head in your cockpit.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Keep it going |
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Wait till you guys take your Piet/GN-1 to your first Pancake Breakfast Fly-In
> and you park next to a gorgeous Stearman or Taylorcraft......and all the people
> drift over to poke their head in your cockpit.
>
>
Bet you smile so much you can't eat your pancakes.
Thats what it is all about.
My friend drove 130 miles this past Monday to take me and the wife out to breakfast
and to see my progress on my baby piet, Only the wing rib jig done, and I have
that
picture from the Calendar of the Piet pasted on the wall.
He Says
"man that is beautiful, I can build one of them too" he just passed his FAA test
and has no money for them expensive ready to fly birds. He will probably join us
at
the Corona Fly-In in April.
Gordon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Wait till you guys take your Piet/GN-1 to your first Pancake Breakfast
Fly-In
and you park next to a gorgeous Stearman or Taylorcraft......and all the
people
drift over to poke their head in your cockpit.
Mike C. >>>>
That is so true I have been there. Want to find a Piet at a Fly-in,
look for the crowd.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Wait till
you guys
take your Piet/GN-1 to your first Pancake Breakfast Fly-Inand you
park next
to a gorgeous Stearman or Taylorcraft......and all the peopledrift
over to
poke their head in your cockpit. Mike C.
That is so true
I have been
there. Want to find a Piet at a Fly-in, look for the
crowd.
size3>
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
size3>
size3>
________________________________________________________________________________
Dominic Bellisimo sent me a CD full of photos, and I have finally got
them up on my site:
http://Fly.to/Pietenpol
Go to 'Images' then scroll down for Dom's pics.
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
Wait till you guys take your Piet/GN-1 to your first Pancake Breakfast
Fly-In
and you park next to a gorgeous Stearman or Taylorcraft......and all
the people
drift over to poke their head in your cockpit.=A0
Mike C
----------------------
My favorite was arriving just before a show because of being NORAD. By
the time I taxied in they had already put up the crowd lines so I was
forced to park with the performers. And since my plane was on that
side I got to sit and chat with Art Scholl, Bob Hoover and such.
I NEVER had to pay to attend an airshow when I flew the Piet. I was
always ASKED to display my plane. Great way to live!!
Bill S
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Neat little trailer |
Realizing that this is only marginally related to aviation, I'll keep it
short. I was looking for a trailer to move my Christavia to the airport
and came across the following plans on a boat-building page:
http://www.stevproj.com/SpecPurp.html
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the trailer plans. They're only $10
and could easily be modified to be an "airplane trailer". No welding is
required. Designed for boats from 350# to 750#, it will easily handle our
planes. I got the plans last night and it certainly describes a very
robust, simple and cheap to build unit.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Bill G wrote: I NEVER had to pay to attend an airshow when I flew the
Piet. >>
Except OSH.
MIke B ( Piet N687MB )
Bill G wrote: I NEVER had to pay to
attend an
airshow when I flew the Piet.
Except OSH.
MIke B ( Piet N687MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Screen Saver |
A wonderful screensaver. Thanks to your Father-in-Law for building it and
to Richard DeCosta for making it available to all of us! This NG is great.
Al Swanson
>I haven't seen anyone mention the screen saver at Richard's site so I will
put my two cents in. I have it on my machine and every time I see that it
has started I see all the beautiful work many of you have created. It
constantly reminds me of my goal, as far off at that seems. If you haven't
tried it I would recommend it. It is FREE to ANYONE and nicely put
together. I hope this shameless recommendation for the screen saver my
father-in-law, Ron Gipson, created will get you to try it. Really, it's
very cool.:)
>
>Here it is.
>http://207.140.1.221/w3builder/piet/screensaver/Piet004.zip
>WARNING! 5.3 MB!!
>
>
>Brent Reed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 9:24 PM
> Subject: Screen Saver
>
>
> To: Anyone interested,
>
> In answer to several observed items in this discussion group, I have
compiled a Pietenpol Screen Saver. If you are interested in having a
repeating slide show of Pietenpol Aircraft on your computer, Richard DeCosta
will have it available on his terrific Web Site.
> I hope you enjoy it as much as I do. I have installed it on four
machines in Oregon and Washington. All of which are owned by hopeful
Pietenpol builders.
> For those of you who own the planes in the photographs, Thank You for
letting the rest of us share your dream machines.
> If you do like the Screen Saver there will be another version available
as soon as I get all the images in a story telling sequence.
>
> Enjoy and Continue the Dream,
> Ron Gipson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Larry Ragan wrote:
>
> Several weeks back there was a phone no. of someone who had plans for a
> 3 piece wing, no gap aelerons, and something else. Anyone know who it
> was and the particulars? Anyone used his plans?
Gary Price at Yesterdays Wings Aero Museum in New Hampshire Nice stuff.
3-piece wing, front cockpit door, No gap Aleron plans. I can't find the
phone # right now will try to post it tommorow. Or I bet Richard DeCosta
has it...Richard?
John Duprey
>
> P.S. Any Piet owner/builders in No. Fla./So. Ga.?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Fellow Piet'n Pals,
I am now a step closer to flying our Pietenpol. Ya see, I'm a student pilot,
training in a Beechcraft Sundowner, and last evening I did my FIRST SOLO
FLIGHT !!!! YEEEE HAAWWW !!!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
>To Ian Holland,
>
>I've used skis on my Pietenpol quite a lot over the 28 years I
>have been flying it. Except for being a bit cool, the Pietenpol
>is a great skiplane.
>
>Most of the time I used Federal A1500A skis and, at present,
>am using a pair of ancient Federal SC 1 skis I acquired a few
>years back. Both pairs work just fine, and are light in weight.
>
>A friend used to make water skis of oak back in the early1970's
>and he made a pair for me to use on the Pietenpol. I welded up
>pedestals from steel tubing, varnished the topsides and waxed
>the undersides. Rigging was according to standard aircraft prac-
>tice. Birch aircraft plywood 1/4 inch thick was glued to the top-
>sides under the pedestal and 1/8 inch birch ply was used at the
>nose and tail for reinforcement. A 1/8 inch by 1 inch piece of iron
>ran from nose to tail to act as a "keel" and take some of the wear.
>The oak boards were unlaminated pieces 10 inches wide, 4.5 ft.
>long and about 7/8 inch thick. He soaked them in water for several
>days and then clamped them in a form for a couple of weeks to
>dry. They held their shape well.
>
>I used these skis for several seasons, but retired them when my
>Federal A1500A skis became available when I sold my Taylorcraft.
>The unlaminated oak boards had developed longitudinal cracks,
>and I removed the pedestals, etc. to rework them and put epoxy
>in the cracks. Never did this, and finally gave them to a friend last
>year for his Pietenpol. These oak "boards" worked well on the Piet-
>enpol, particularly in deep snow, but were a bit heavy.
>
>I suggest that anyone building a set of wooden skis go the laminat-
>ing route which would facilitate putting in the bends. One could even
>build up a laminated streamlined pedestal instead of a metal one!
>Another option would be to build a "cage" to drop (or roll) the wheel
>into, leaving the wheels installed. Years ago, Call Air in Wyoming
>produced a setup like this and it worked well. A friend had a Piper
>Pacer with Call Air skis and really liked the system. Unfortunately,
>he sold those skis with the airplane; otherwise, I would get them for
>my Vagabond because we have LOTS of snow this winter (in cen-
>tral Alberta, Canada) . By the way, where do you live?
>
>Anyway, I have no plans but have perhaps provided you and others
>with some "food for thought".
>
>Graham Hansen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
Sorry, I don't know what caused that last message to be resent.
Boy, I can't wait till July...
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Yesterday's Wings
25 Taft Road
Portsmouth, NH 03801-5732
603-436-7360
---John Duprey wrote:
>
> Larry Ragan wrote:
> >
> > Several weeks back there was a phone no. of someone who had plans
for a
> > 3 piece wing, no gap aelerons, and something else. Anyone know
who it
> > was and the particulars? Anyone used his plans?
>
> Gary Price at Yesterdays Wings Aero Museum in New Hampshire Nice
stuff.
> 3-piece wing, front cockpit door, No gap Aleron plans. I can't find
the
> phone # right now will try to post it tommorow. Or I bet Richard
DeCosta
> has it...Richard?
>
> John Duprey
> >
> > P.S. Any Piet owner/builders in No. Fla./So. Ga.?
> >
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one step closer |
Just wait. It gets better!!! Congrats!!!!!!!!
>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999 23:02:35 -0500 (EST)
>From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
>Subject: one step closer
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>Fellow Piet'n Pals,
>I am now a step closer to flying our Pietenpol. Ya see, I'm a student
pilot,
>training in a Beechcraft Sundowner, and last evening I did my FIRST
SOLO
>FLIGHT !!!! YEEEE HAAWWW !!!
>Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
John Knight (Jacksonville), I tried to respond to your e-mail, but my
msg. was returned undeliverable. Re-send your address or local ph. #.
Thanks
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
To all:
Does anyone have an idea of what the cost is for this plans set?
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
>
> Yesterday's Wings
> 25 Taft Road
> Portsmouth, NH 03801-5732
> 603-436-7360
>
>
>
> ---John Duprey wrote:
> >
> > Larry Ragan wrote:
> > >
> > > Several weeks back there was a phone no. of someone who had plans
> for a
> > > 3 piece wing, no gap aelerons, and something else. Anyone know
> who it
> > > was and the particulars? Anyone used his plans?
> >
> > Gary Price at Yesterdays Wings Aero Museum in New Hampshire Nice
> stuff.
> > 3-piece wing, front cockpit door, No gap Aleron plans. I can't find
> the
> > phone # right now will try to post it tommorow. Or I bet Richard
> DeCosta
> > has it...Richard?
> >
> > John Duprey
> > >
> > > P.S. Any Piet owner/builders in No. Fla./So. Ga.?
> > >
> >
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
>To all:
>
>Does anyone have an idea of what the cost is for this plans set?
>
>Mark Boynton
>Phoenix, AZ
>
>according to Read Hamiltons directory the following costs are listed;
all from Gary Price
regards
JoeC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing and screensaver |
Joe:
Thanks for the info. Also, thanks to all involved in putting together the
screen saver. I've installed it at work. What a boost to the morale!
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> >To all:
> >
> >Does anyone have an idea of what the cost is for this plans set?
> >
> >Mark Boynton
> >Phoenix, AZ
> >
> >according to Read Hamiltons directory the following costs are listed;
> all from Gary Price
> regards
> JoeC
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Mark,
Correction: Gary Price...Yesterday's Wings.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Mark,
I just sent a check for $85 to Harry Price for wing and fuselage door plans.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Mark,
I just sent a check for $85 to Harry Price for wing and fuselage door plans.
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
If you want my adress re pietenpol it is borodent @ AOL.com
thanks Henry Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
YES, BRACE THE BUT OR ROOT RIB. COULD SOME ONE GIVE ADVISE
ON THIS I'VE PUT A SOLID PIECE OF 1/8 OKUME PLY ON THE FUSL SIDE
OF THE ROOT RIB (VERY STRONG A LITTLE HEAVY) NOW ON THE WING
SIDE OF THE ROOT RIB I PLAN TO ATTACH COMPRESSION STRUTS WHICH
WILL BE GLUED TO EXTRA LARGE GUSSET'S. NOW SHOULD A FEW CROSS
BRACES SUFFICE OR SHOULD I RUN 1/16 BIRCH TO THE NEXT RIB IN THE
ATTEMPT TO HAVE A RIGID STRUCTURE TO KEEP THE FABRIC FROM
BUCKING THE ROOT RIB?
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:15 PM
Subject: Ribs
Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would strongly suggest that
you brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend when the
fabric is tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips
top & bottom to the spars at the second bays.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the long fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
Greg,
Tony doesn't have an Email address (that he will admit to anyway).
I will probably see him at the next Chapter 187 meeting on 5 Feb.
I can ask him your question about gluing up the spar web if you want.
You want to know about the feasibility of vacuum bagging a plywood lamination,
right?
Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>
> WILL BE GLUED TO EXTRA LARGE GUSSET'S. NOW SHOULD A FEW CROSS
> BRACES SUFFICE OR SHOULD I RUN 1/16 BIRCH TO THE NEXT RIB IN THE
> ATTEMPT TO HAVE A RIGID STRUCTURE TO KEEP THE FABRIC FROM
> BUCKING THE ROOT RIB?
>
>
> Kyle- You betcha. Do this at the wing tip too for the first rib or two.
It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just a few spruce diagonals to keep those
end ribs from 'bowing' in when you heat taughten the fabric. Makes em' stay
aligned straight. For you guys wondering about the 'inter-rib lacing' to
keep
ALL of the ribs upright, there is an optional way to do this: Run 1/4" x 3/8"
spruce/fir, etc. strips the whole length of the wing panels glued to each rib
down the center. One strip at the bottom of each rib and one strip at the
top. This took only about 15 min. per wing to do with clothes pins as clamps
and T-88 glue.
Mike C.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Brusilow
>> Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:15 PM
>> Subject: Ribs
>>
>> Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would strongly suggest that you
>> brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend when the fabric is
>> tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips top & bottom to
>> the spars at the second bays.
>>
>> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>>
>> PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the long fuselage.
>
WILL BE GLUED TO EXTRA LARGE
GUSSET'S. NOW SHOULD A FEW CROSS
BRACES SUFFICE OR SHOULD I RUN 1/16 BIRCH TO THE NEXT RIB IN
THE
ATTEMPT TO HAVE A RIGID STRUCTURE TO KEEP THE FABRIC
FROM
BUCKING THE ROOT RIB?
Kyle- You betcha. Do this at the wing tip too for the
first rib or two.It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just
a few spruce diagonals to keep those
end ribs from 'bowing' in when you heat taughten the fabric. Makes
em' stay
aligned straight. For you guys wondering about the
'inter-rib lacing' to keep
ALL of the ribs upright, there is an optional way to do this: Run
1/4 x 3/8
spruce/fir, etc. strips the whole length of the wing panels glued to each
rib
down the center. One strip at the bottom of each rib and one strip
at the
top. This took only about 15 min. per wing to do with clothes pins
as clamps
and T-88 glue.
Mike C.
-----Original
________________________________________________________________________________
mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net
To: Pietenpol Discussion
piet(at)byu.edu
Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would strongly suggest
that you brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend when the
fabric is tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips top
bottom to the spars at the second bays.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the long
fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Thanks Don.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> Mark,
> I just sent a check for $85 to Harry Price for wing and fuselage door
plans.
> Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
Good advice so far on the root rib anti-buckling problem.=A0 Here is
a little
more.=A0 I put the diagnals and the 2" 1/16" ply fabric strip on the
cap strip
for a fabric anchor and it worked fine, except that over time the rib=
attach
point to the spars has let go a little and I would suggest increasing=
the
surface area at this poing by gluing a piece of wood to the top and b=
ottom
of each spar as a rib stop so that the rib cannot work loose and slid=
e
outward on the spar from the root. -another problem solved if you can=
build
the 1 piece wing.
=A0
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
f Michael
D Cuy
Sent: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:04 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Ribs
WILL BE GLUED TO EXTRA LARGE GUSSET'S.=A0 NOW SHOULD A FEW CROSS
BRACES SUFFICE OR SHOULD I RUN 1/16 BIRCH TO THE NEXT RIB IN THE
ATTEMPT TO HAVE A RIGID STRUCTURE TO KEEP THE FABRIC FROM
BUCKING THE ROOT RIB?
Kyle-=A0 You betcha.=A0=A0 Do this at the wing tip too for the first
rib or two.
It doesn't have to be anything fancy, just a few spruce diagonals to
keep
those
end ribs from 'bowing' in when you heat taughten the fabric.=A0 Makes=
em' stay
aligned straight.=A0=A0=A0 For you guys wondering about the 'inter-ri=
b lacing' to
keep
ALL of the ribs upright, there is an optional way to do this:=A0 Run
1/4" x
3/8"
spruce/fir, etc. strips the whole length of the wing panels glued to
each
rib
down the center.=A0 One strip at the bottom of each rib and one strip=
at the
top.=A0 This took only about 15 min. per wing to do with clothes pins=
as
clamps
and T-88 glue.=A0
Mike C.=A0
-----Original Message-----
=46rom: Michael Brusilow < mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thursday, January 14, 1999 7:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ribs
Re. the recent discussion about ribs, I would strongly suggest that y=
ou
brace the butt ribs. If you don't, the ribs will bend when the fabric=
is
tightened, I placed two diagonal braces from the cap strips top & bot=
tom to
the spars at the second bays.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: there is plently of cockpit room in the long fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
>Greg,
>Tony doesn't have an Email address ....
Greg- Bob is right. Tony has no e-mail address but is very
gracious about promptly replying to letters IF you include a
SASE back to yourself.
Antoni & Morine Bingelis
8509 Greenflint Lane
Austin, TX 78579-8130
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
Thanks, Bob. I guess what I would like to ask him is if he has any experience in
a
laminated or constructed spar.(i.e. built up i-beam style) And if he does, has
he
published it or can you convey his experiences about it to the group here. This
would
include the vacuum bag, clamped or solid methods of web making.
Again thanks Bob.
Greg Yotz
Seibert wrote:
> Greg,
> Tony doesn't have an Email address (that he will admit to anyway).
> I will probably see him at the next Chapter 187 meeting on 5 Feb.
> I can ask him your question about gluing up the spar web if you want.
> You want to know about the feasibility of vacuum bagging a plywood lamination,
right?
> Bob Seibert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tony Bingelis |
Thanks Michael. I'll let Bob talk to him at the meeting about the spar
and I'll keep in mind what you said. I've ran across several things in
his books that I would like cleared up for me, so I'll use your
suggestion.
Greg Yotz
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >Greg,
> >Tony doesn't have an Email address ....
>
> Greg- Bob is right. Tony has no e-mail address but is very
> gracious about promptly replying to letters IF you include a
> SASE back to yourself.
>
> Antoni & Morine Bingelis
> 8509 Greenflint Lane
> Austin, TX 78579-8130
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Buying a Used Piet... |
I have been talking to a gentlemen about buying a GN-1 for a couple of
months. And I have some questions that someone here maybe able to
answer.
What are the legalities about work on the aircraft or modifications? If
I'm not the original builder but the current owner of a homebuilt. Can
I do the work or do I have to have a A&P do it? What are the things I
should do first as far as inspections? Do I have to reregister and have
FAA inspect? If it has an aircraft engine on it (c-65). Can I do my own
work on it or do I have to have a certified tech do it? And any other
considerations anyone can come up with.
I would also like to know what everyone's opinion of what a good GN-1
with basic inst. and a C-65 with 500 hr on it is worth??? How strong is
the market in other parts of the country? I'm in central Kansas.
Thanks for the help....
Greg Yotz
And no, I won't stop building my Piet! I still want to finish my own
bird... This would just give me something to fly on those days that
it's just to nice out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
To Domenic Bellissimo
Domenic:
I was reviewing the pictures of your Piet on
Richard DeCosta's website and noticed that you're using forced air cooling
for your corvair engine. How has that worked out for you and have you taken
any temperature readings? Beautiful work, by the way. Also, do you have
any kind of estimate as to how much horsepower you are developing - that is
a 110 engine isn't it?
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Greg wrote:
What are the legalities about work on the aircraft or modifications? If
I'm not the original builder but the current owner of a homebuilt. Can
I do the work or do I have to have a A&P do it>>
If you are not the builder all significant airframe & engine work must
be done by either the builder or an A&P.
An interesting item is that if you are the builder & the aircraft has a
certified engine you may work on the engine & it still remains
certified.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
Greg wrote:What are the legalities about
work on
the aircraft or modifications? IfI'm not the original builder
but the
current owner of a homebuilt. CanI do the work or do I have to
have a
AP do it
If you are not the builder all significant airframe engine
work
must be done by either the builder or an AP.
An interesting item is that if you are the builder the
aircraft has a
certified engine you may work on the engine it still remains
certified.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | continental eng. |
to anyone who can help
My name is Henry Williams , member of BPA(my e-adress is borodent(at)AOL.com), am
just starting a piet with a continental engine and I have a few questions
1) I have piet plans but I am not sure if they are the long body. What is
the length of the long body ( firewall to tail end)
2) in using a lightweight continental engine, builders now add 6 or so
inches to the length of the long body. Correct??
3) What is the optimum position for the center of balance ( I know its not
to be over 20 inch past the leading edge - but what would be a perfect
position)?( say 18 in , 16 in past leading edge?)
4) What is the weight of the 65hp, the 85hp, the 100hp continental engins?
5) Is there a source where I can look up such engine specs?
6) Does anyone have an e-mail (or other) adress for Bill Rewey he is also
interested in a large piet
________________________________________________________________________________
I
> If you are not the builder all significant airframe & engine work must be
> done by either the builder or an A&P.
>
> An interesting item is that if you are the builder & the aircraft has a
> certified engine you may work on the engine & it still remains certified.
>
> Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
>
>
I do not beleive that this is correct. As the owner of an experimental
(homebuilt) you can do any work on it yourself. However you cannot do the
annual conditional inspection on the aircraft unless you are the builder and
have applied for the repairman's certificate. You must have either the builder
or an A&P or IA do the annual conditional inspection.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up spars |
The douglas fir I'm using for my spars wasn't perfectly straight. After
I had planed and cut the boards to the deminsions they were off
1/4 to 1/2 inches, I consulted a friend in chapter 775 he said
that laminated spars were cool. I set out making a work bench flat
as possible then took 22 awg copper wire used by local phone
company's on the main distrubution frames and streched it tight
across the top of the table. i then took super glue and glued guides
on the table just at the position that they touched the wire every 12''
about 8 " from the table edge i then glued 3 seperate strips of
fir turning the most perfect grain to the outer edges using raka
epoxy, I first completly saturated the wood edges to be glued
and let it soak with a slow curing hardner the wood is really thristy
and takes the glue, then I mixed silica and glue into a very thick mass
about the thickness of peanut butter having all exposed sides
taped with masking tape. I took a clamp and pulled the wood perfect-
ly straight by clamping the spar to the wood glued to the table
and then clamping wedges from the table edge and releasing
the other clamp and moving down another 12'' and repeating the pro-
cess. also I tried to clamp tight enough to straighten wood not
to press all the glue out of joint this would of been a mistake
Let me also say that this is an experimental aircraft that I'm building
and that this is the way I did it, doesn't mean that it's safe or the
best way I'm just sharing information and make no claim of the
soundness or intergrity of what I'm doing. Also peel the tape
off and take a small hand plane and remove excess epoxy
24 hours after procedure before it sets up to hard.
Now my spar's are perfectly straight and remain so with
swings in moisture content that happen with wheather changes.
-----Original Message-----
From: Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Date: Wednesday, January 20, 1999 1:17 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Built up spars
>Greg,
>
>I built a spar building table of 3/4 inch plywood about nine inches
>wide and approximately 15 feet long. It had a straight 2 x 4 as a
>backbone down the middle of the underside and I attached the
>whole thing to supports holding it at a convenient working height
>above the floor.
>
>In order to provide gluing pressure, I cut a whole bunch of 3/4 ply-
>wood pieces 9 inches by 3 inches and drilled a 5/16 inch hole at
>each end to match holes of the same size drilled along the edges
>of the spar table. I then cleaned out the stock of 5/16 x 3 inch bolts,
>nuts and washers at the local hardware stores to use for clamping.
>
>This system worked well, but took a lot of time to set up. It would
>be great if several people could make several sets of spars from
>this tooling. I made only the one set and kept the spar table, bolts,
>etc. around for years, until I finally got rid of the whole works.
>
>Thirty years later, with 20/20 hindsight, I would do it a bit differently.
>At that time, I was reluctant to use nails through the spar capstrips
>and encountered difficulty in cleaning up the excess glue that oozed
>out when pressure was applied; it was almost impossible to remove
>after the glue had cured. The 3" X 9" clamping pieces were spaced rather
>close together and there wasn't enough room to get in there
>to wipe up excess glue.
>
>Today, I would space the clamping pieces farther apart and use lengths of,
>say, 3/4 inch iron angle to distribute the clamping pres-
>sure along the capstrip. I would also use a few brass aircraft nails
>spaced along the capstrip to hold it in position until the clamping
>pressure is applied. And I would use an epoxy adhesive such as
>T88 which requires less clamping pressure than the Aerolite urea
>formaldehyde glue I used then. Also, the epoxy gives more assem-
>bly time than the Aerolite did. If you use nails, it is a good idea to
>drill a small hole through the 1/4" x 3/4" strips, before nailing, in or-
>der to avoid the possibility of splitting (especially with Douglas Fir).
>
>The "swallow tail" blocks at fitting attachment locations can be fitted
>and glued in place after the capstrips are on and the glue has cured.
>A hardwood such as birch is good for these because it has better
>bearing qualities against the bolt shanks than either spruce or fir.
>The 3/32" birch plywood plates at these locations enhance this fea-
>ture. Be sure to taper these filler blocks in the characteristic "swal-
>low tail" shape so that they blend into the capstrips, thus avoiding
>stress concentration due to abrupt changes in cross section. Pos-
>sibly, this was not done with the Cubby spar that failed---I'll have to
>look at the accident report, if I can find it.
>
>With reference to your last question, I used Douglas Fir for the flanges as
>well as for the web.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Graham
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: continental eng. |
-----Original Message-----
From: Borodent(at)aol.com
Date: Friday, January 22, 1999 7:13 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: continental eng.
>to anyone who can help
>My name is Henry Williams , member of BPA(my e-adress is borodent(at)AOL.com),
am
>just starting a piet with a continental engine and I have a few questions
>
>1) I have piet plans but I am not sure if they are the long body. What is
>the length of the long body ( firewall to tail end)
>2) in using a lightweight continental engine, builders now add 6 or so
>inches to the length of the long body. Correct??
>3) What is the optimum position for the center of balance ( I know its
not
>to be over 20 inch past the leading edge - but what would be a perfect
>position)?( say 18 in , 16 in past leading edge?)
>4) What is the weight of the 65hp, the 85hp, the 100hp continental
engins?
>5) Is there a source where I can look up such engine specs?
>6) Does anyone have an e-mail (or other) adress for Bill Rewey he is
also
>interested in a large piet
Hi Hank:
I will try to help you, but I do not have some specific info on hand.
1. The long fuselage prints were made by Vi Kapler to accommadate the
corvair engine. I do not have the precise figure, but I think it is 19 feet
something. The extra length was added in the cockpit aera.
2. That is one method. Another is to move the wing back.( as I did. )I know
of a Piet that has added lead weights to the motor mount.
3. The CG of the Piet has been discussed for as long as I can remember. It
is my impression that most Piets are flying near 20 inches. Not to be
contentious, but I believe that is a tail heavy condition. In my opinion the
ideal is between 14.5 & 18 inches. ( rough test, lift the tail to straight &
level, let go. the aircraft should teeter. That's good )
4. rough figure. add 100 lbs. 65=165. 85 = 185 plus. 0-200 minus altenator
& starter about 200 lbs, with accessories about 225 lbs.( I fly with a
0-200) The ford engine weighs about 240 lbs with the Al head minus the water
5. the data can be found in the repair manuals.
6. Can't help there.
I don't mean to go on here but, if I were to do it again & wanted a C65
Piet, I would build a Greiga. It was designed for the engine.
Mike B ( Piet N 687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
For those of you who want to wade through part 43:
http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-43.txt
I believe that you may do the 'conditional inspection' (annual) only if
you are the builder of the aircraft and applied for and possess a
repairman's certificate for it (required for each aircraft you build and
is specific to that aircraft). Otherwise, you can work on it all you
want, but the annual must be performed by an A&P or IA. I'm not as sure
about the engine stuff, though.
-Carmen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mr. Carmen A. Natalie" <carmen(at)cana.com> |
| Subject: | Re: inspections & Part 43 |
This is some correspondence that I did with Earl Lawrence of the EAA
back in August regarding what I could legally do with my homebuilt:
(I never did have any luck getting operating limitations as specified by
Mr. Lawrence, but I include this for those who would buy used Piets..)
-Carmen
> Dear Mr. Lawrence,
>
> I've just looked over Part 43 or the FARs
> (http://www.faa.gov/avr/AFS/FARS/far-43.txt)
> and they state that experimental aircraft are exempt from that section
> (Sec. 43.1 Applicability (b) ).
>
> My question is this - I own a Jodel D-11 built in 1969 (not by me)
> (http://www.cana.com/jodel) and each year I get an A&P to do the
> annual.
>
> It would appear that according to Part 43, this inspection is not
> required. I've read in the popular press that as the builder (and
> only
> the original/primary builder), one can apply for a repairman
> certificate, but what section details the certification of
> experimental
> aircraft and the rules (such as the 51% rule) regarding them? Which
> section of the FARs clarifies who can do these inspections, since I'm
> sure the FAA would not change rules requiring annual inspections of
> any
> category of aircraft...!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Carmen
> EAA #282153
Carmen:
You are only getting half the story. It is true part 43 does not apply
to experimental aircraft but each aircraft which holds a special
airworthiness certificate has something called operating limitations.
Operating limitations are legally part of the airworthiness certificate.
The operating limitations for experimental amateur-built aircraft have
statements that say:
"No person shall operate this aircraft unless within the preceding 12
calendar months it has had a condition inspection performed in
accordance with FAR Part 43, Appendix D, or other approved programs and
found to be in a condition for safe operation. Additionally, this
inspection shall be recorded in accordance with limitation xx."
"Only the builder of this aircraft, if certificated as a repairman, or a
FAA certificated mechanic holding an Airframe and Powerplant rating, may
perform condition inspections in accordance with FAR Part 43, Appendix
D."
Basically this means that the annual condition inspection must be done
by and A&P or the original builder. However because Part 43 does not
otherwise apply anyone and I do mean anyone can work on and sign off
repairs, changes, and maintenance on an experimental amateur-built
aircraft. Only the condition inspection must be done by a certificated
individual. One caution, major changes as defined in Part 21 of the
FAR's generally are required to have FAA review prior to further flight
as indicated by the operating limitations for that aircraft.
I would suggest you get out your operating limitations for your aircraft
and review them so that you know specifically what rules apply to your
aircraft as each set of operating limitations are different from each
other.
Earl Lawrence
>Thank you very much for the feedback! I guess I can do whatever needs
> to be done to the Jodel, but will keep working with the A&P each year
> for the annual I have. I have a registration and logs (engine &
> airframe) as well as the 'owner's manual', but none of these define
> any
> limitations other than flight performance , W&B, gross weight,etc.
Carmen:
If you do not have a set of operating limitations I would write the FAA
records division in OK city. They can send you a copy of your paper
work. You are required to have a set of operating limitations with your
aircraft. It would be in letter form usually two pages long.
Earl Lawrence
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Carmen gave use some solid info about who can work on a homebuilt. Ed
Snyder & I stand corrected.
Mike B ( N687MB )
Carmen gave use some solid info about who can work on a homebuilt.
Ed
Snyder I stand corrected.
Mike B ( N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: inspections & Part 43 |
> Basically this means that the annual condition inspection must be done
> by and A&P or the original builder.
This is so. HOWEVER, if you are very careful and document every little
scrap of maintenance you do on your machine, and I include sitting on your
duff getting technical data like this, and can piece together 30 months of
full time equivalent work, you can sit for the A&P exam.
If you pass, you can then not only sign off your OWN machine, but other
homebuilt machines as well. THere is a pretty fair trade being built up in
annual inspections on homebuilt aircraft.
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kyle Ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: decimal equivalents of gage measures |
i,ve heard that the conversion is different for aluminum versus steel.
this may or may not be true? anyone know for sure?
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 1999 7:57 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: decimal equivalents of gage measures
Mark and group,
Last year Grant put out a chart on his web site that
listed a gage to decimal conversion. There was some
discussion about this chart at Brodhead.
I have been looking into the gage vs. decimal thickness and I believe I have
it sorted out.
Tubing follows the Birmingham or Stubs Wire gage chart
Available decimal sizes follow this gage chart and there is no confusion.
Sheet and plate are a different story. Steel is no longer sized in gages. In
fact, available decimal thicknesses do not follow ANY gage thickness chart.
Commonly available thicknesses today follow a numbering system titled
"Preferred Thicknesses for Uncoated Metals and Alloys Under 0.250 Inch in
Thickness" (ANSI B32.1-1952, R1988)
I found this in "Machinery's Handbook 25th Edition"
Looking through the Dillsburg catalog confirms this numbering system for
available sizes.
So I made up my own gage to decimal chart as follows:
Gage Decimal
Greg Cardinal
>>> 01/11 12:02 PM >>>
Help:
Can anyone shed some light on how to figure decimal equivalents of the gage
measurements found on the 1933 plans from Don Pietenpol. I have a
conversion chart from The Machinery's Handbook (pg. 2420 from the 1997
edition), but it seems there were a few different systems of gage
measurement at the time the plans were drawn. For instance, the conversion
chart shows 12 gage steel as 0.1046 inches, and 13 gage as 0.0897. Any help
would be appreciated.
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Continental engines in Pietenpols |
Henry,
My Pietenpol was built from plans obtained from Mr Pietenpol in
1959 and are for the "Improved" version drawn by Mr. Hoopman.
They are true blueprints with the blue background, having white
lines and lettering. A relic of the past, because most plans today
have blue or black lines, etc. on a white (or nearly so) background.
Therefore my plans must be for the so-called "short" fuselage.
In the May 1956 EXPERIMENTER (the EAA publication that later
became SPORT AVIATION) there was a good article on the Pieten-
pol airplanes that included a number of letters from owners & build-
ers of Piets. Among these was a letter from Bernard Pietenpol him-
self in which he recommended moving the firewall forward by six inches if a
lighter Continental (or similar) engine was going to be us-
ed. The main reason for this is to get the center of gravity where it
belongs. Side benefits are more leg room in the front cockpit and more
space for a forward fuel tank, if used.
Bernard cautioned against extending the forward fuselage bay any
more than 6 inches, because he had tried this and found the aircraft
did not handle well in a steep slip.
I followed his advice and used the engine mount from an Aeronca
11AC Chief (the 7AC Champion mount is the same). This is an 8
inch mount, with the front mount pads 8 inches from the firewall. So,
in effect, the Continental engine mounting points are 8 + 6 = 14 in.
from the orginal firewall for the Ford engine. In 1963, a friend built
a Pietenpol with a 14 inch long (plus) mount using the original fire-
wall location and built recesses into the firewall to accomodate the
front occupant's feet! I opted for the lengthened fuselage, and made
it two inches wider (26 inches outside dimension) at the cockpits.
This modification has been a success, allowing more clothing to be worn for
cold weather flying.
For your information, my a/c Wt. and Balance document gives these
dimensions:
Datum is wing LE. Main wheel axle (weighing point) is 6.5 inches
aft of datum with the wing moved aft a bit for balance. The tail wheel
weighing point (axle) is 149 inches aft of datum. [Note that I moved
the main wheels forward from the position shown on the plans be-cause I was
using brakes (don't remember how much; it was a long time ago).]
With a C85-8 engine, wooden propeller, and full oil tank (4 litres, or
about 4 US quarts) the empty weigh is 638 lbs., the weight on the
tail scale is 18 lbs. with the top longeron level.
In the absence of definite center of gravity limits, I decided that the
ABSOLUTE LOADED AFT LIMIT must not exceed 20 inches aft of
datum (33% of chord) and that the aircraft should be flown carefully
as this limit is approached. By adjusting the wing position aft (a neat
Pietenpol feature) until the center section struts are nearly parallel to
the fuselage truss members directly below them, I was able to obtain these
CG figures:
Most Forward Loading 14.3 inches aft of datum
Maximum approved gross weight is 1150 lbs.
This a/c was flown for about 115 hours with an A 65, and had the
wing positioned as described above. Then a C85-12 (without start-
er & generator) was installed and the wing was moved forward a bit
to take into account the heavier engine. Subsequently, a C85-8, a
few pounds heavier than the A65, was installed and the wing was
once more moved to about the original position. A couple of years
ago, I installed a different C85-12 and simply left the wing where it
was.The slight nose-heaviness experienced now is, in my opinion,
far less dangerous than a tail-heavy condition and I have no intention
of changing anything again. One thing to watch is the weight of your
tail wheel assembly. Mine is very light with the tubing A-frame yoke,
compression spring (John Deere part), and a 4 inch castor wheel
(ball bearing type). The castor wheel is inexpensive and should be
replaced when the bearings get loose; I replace mine after about
60 - 75 hours in dusty conditions. This lightweight unit alone will im-prove
the CG picture a lot.
I must include the disclaimer that this information is provide as a
guide only. Just because it works for me doesn't necessarily mean
it will work for you because each homebuilt aircraft is unique (for ex-
ample, parts are not interchangeable). Hope this information is what
you need. Good luck.
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: continental eng. |
>to anyone who can help
>My name is Henry Williams , member of BPA(my e-adress is borodent(at)AOL.com), am
>just starting a piet with a continental engine and I have a few questions
>
>1) I have piet plans but I am not sure if they are the long body. What is
>the length of the long body ( firewall to tail end)
>2) in using a lightweight continental engine, builders now add 6 or so
>inches to the length of the long body. Correct??
>3) What is the optimum position for the center of balance ( I know its not
>to be over 20 inch past the leading edge - but what would be a perfect
>position)?( say 18 in , 16 in past leading edge?)
>4) What is the weight of the 65hp, the 85hp, the 100hp continental engins?
>5) Is there a source where I can look up such engine specs?
>6) Does anyone have an e-mail (or other) adress for Bill Rewey he is also
>interested in a large piet
>
Why not try the Grega GN-1? It is designed for the Cont. a-65 thru o-200
and is very similar to the
piet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | Gage numbers -- Machinery's Handbook plug |
Folks,
I am no authority, but I was educated as a manufacturing engineer and served
my first two years out of college in the machine-tool industry.
The information about metal gages that is contained in the Machinery's
Handbook is what I have consulted as needed. This book is a wonderful
reference and I highly recommend it to anyone. Mine is the nineteenth
edition -- I think the new ones are up to the 25th now. I'm not sure, but if
you elect not to purchase this book, you should be able to get your hands on
one at a good library.
Having a book like the Machinery's Handbook in your personal reference
library is highly desirable. Spend the money -- it will tell you all kinds
of things you never knew but may want to. For those of you near a city, you
may be able to get one of these used from a technical bookstore. In the
Portland, Oregon area (my nearest city) Powells Technical Books is the place
to look. Used ones are just as good, since the information doesn't go
obsolete too quickly.
Regards,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
I believe their is an article in Ap.96 EXPERIMENTER on built up spars.
Doug.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Continental engines in Pietenpols |
to Graham Hansen
Thanks so much for the information. I appreciate it, its just what I need.
Henry Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Douglas Fir Piet's |
Just got a table saw and found a local supply of some very nice vertical
grain doublas fir. Was curious if any fir Air Camper builders changed
the dimensions of their fuselage and tail feather stock to compensate
for the increased strength and weight of the fir over spruce.
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: continental eng. |
to Mike Brusilow from Henry Williams
Thanks for ther info, I appreciate it. I think I and my son saw you last
summer at Chapman field - but we didnt get to say hello
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Great discussion group! |
I want to say thanks to the guys who maintain this discussion group. I plan
on building soon, and have been saving all of the great building tips, email
adresses, and vendor adresses on all the mods that I want to try on my
plane. I have a question for you guys . . . not Piet related, but one of
you will know the answer anyway, given all the stuff you guys know. A
retired Boing engineer is mentoring my project, and he has been a tremendous
help to me so far. He is working on a project of his own design and is
trying to get some information on an old design and designer. Since he is
not computer literate, I told him I would search the net for him.
He is looking for information on a late 60's, early 70's single seat VW
powered "MacDonald S-21" (orS-20.) The designer, Robert A. MacDonald,
worked for Lear in Reno in the seventies and eighties. Where can I ask for
or find information on this design for my friend?
Thanks, Andy pickles(at)snowcrest.net (will be sawing fir by Summer!)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe & Marian Beck <flyretina(at)feist.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Douglas Fir Piet's |
Michael,
Plenty of DF in our Corvair version Aircamper. S.O.P. was to dimension
rough stock slightly below plan specs w/ Delta power planer. Most
fuselage and tail group pieces were 1/16" smaller prior to assembly.
Good building!
CJ Beck / Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Douglas Fir Piet's |
Mike,
I also have beautiful doug fir for my project. The way I understand it is
that the fir is 26% stronger than spruce, while being 23% heavier. To be on
the safe side, I was going to cut dimensions by 20% on some pieces. The only
problem I foresee is the "domino effect", where reducing dimensions will
effect dimensions down the line.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Hinchman <mikehi(at)molalla.net> |
| Subject: | Gage numbers -- Machinery's Handbook plug |
Folks,
I am no authority, but I was educated as a manufacturing engineer and served
my first two years out of college in the machine-tool industry.
The information about metal gages that is contained in the Machinery's
Handbook is what I have consulted as needed. This book is a wonderful
reference and I highly recommend it to anyone. Mine is the nineteenth
edition -- I think the new ones are up to the 25th now. I'm not sure, but if
you elect not to purchase this book, you should be able to get your hands on
one at a good library.
Having a book like the Machinery's Handbook in your personal reference
library is highly desirable. Spend the money -- it will tell you all kinds
of things you never knew but may want to. For those of you near a city, you
may be able to get one of these used from a technical bookstore. In the
Portland, Oregon area (my nearest city) Powells Technical Books is the place
to look. Used ones are just as good, since the information doesn't go
obsolete too quickly.
Regards,
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Douglas Fir Piet's |
In a message dated 1/24/99 12:23:47 AM Central Standard Time, mclist(at)ptw.com
writes:
<< Just got a table saw and found a local supply of some very nice vertical
grain doublas fir. Was curious if any fir Air Camper builders changed
the dimensions of their fuselage and tail feather stock to compensate
for the increased strength and weight of the fir over spruce.
Mike List >>
Mike,
I'm using 3/4" X 4 3/4" Doug fir spars, instead of the 1" Spruce that is in
the plans. This seems to be an acceptable practice amoung builders. My
partner built the longerons to original dimentions with fir, so the fitting
points would come out right. He also used Doug Fir, to original dimentions,
in the empenage. I just hope we don't end up too tail heavy.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Great discussion group! |
Andy,
Found a mention of the MacDonald S-20 and S-21 in a 1977 Janes Pocket
Book of Homebuilt Aircraft. Very cute all metal single seater with VW
engine. Address at that time was: Robert MacDonald, 1282 Fowler Creek
Road, Sonoma, CA 95476.
Mike List
Andy picklesimer wrote:
>
> He is looking for information on a late 60's, early 70's single seat VW
> powered "MacDonald S-21" (orS-20.) The designer, Robert A. MacDonald,
> worked for Lear in Reno in the seventies and eighties. Where can I ask for
> or find information on this design for my friend?
> Thanks, Andy pickles(at)snowcrest.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Douglas Fir Piet's |
>I'm using 3/4" X 4 3/4" Doug fir spars, instead of the 1" Spruce that is in
>the plans. This seems to be an acceptable practice amoung builders. My
>partner built the longerons to original dimentions with fir, so the fitting
>points would come out right. He also used Doug Fir, to original
dimentions,
>in the empenage. I just hope we don't end up too tail heavy.
Probably depends on which engine you're using. One Piet builder here
in New Hampshire used Doug fir throughout and found that he had to
move the wing (about three inches, I think) to get the c.g. where it needed
to be. He built the tail feathers to the original dimensions and believed
that this is where he had gone wrong. When I first considered building
a Piet, he suggested that I use fir in the heavily stressed members of
the tail and compensate by using pine for the rest. However, he used
a C-85. If he'd been carrying a Ford up front, I doubt that he would have
had much of a problem.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed |
-----Original Message-----
From: PMDF e-Mail Interconnect
Date: Sunday, January 24, 1999 10:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
>This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
>
> Message-id: <000e01be4812$5f356aa0$0c08a7d1@kfvtiuml>
> Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:25:29 -0500
> From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
> To: Piet-L(at)byu.edu
> Subject: My Pictures
>
>Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
>
> Recipient address: Piet-L(at)byu.edu
> Reason: Not found in directory
>
>
REPORT-TYPE=DELIVERY-STATUS
Original-envelope-id: 01J6XJXH8VN68WXGKH(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU
Reporting-MTA: dns;EMAIL1.BYU.EDU
Action: failed
Original-recipient: rfc822;Piet-L(at)byu.edu
Final-recipient: rfc822;Piet-L(at)byu.edu
id <01J6XJXH9QQC8WXGKH(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> (original mail from rbelliss(at)yesic.com)
by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-30 #31181)
by pluto.yesic.com (8.8.8/8.8.6) with SMTP id WAA27055 for ;
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 22:25:29 -0500
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Hey Guys,
Have any of you had a chance to check out my photo's on Richard
Decosta's site?
HTTP://Fly.to/pietenpol Received my flight permit, now just waiting for
the good weather to arrive.
Regards,
Domenic Bellissimo
Hey Guys,
Have any of you had a chance to
check out my
photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
href"http://Fly.to/pietenpol">HTTP://Fly.to/pietenpol
Received my flight permit, now just waiting for the good weather to
arrive.
Regards,
Domenic Bellissimo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Some general info on NX48MC:
Short Fuse Air Camper
A-65 Cont. Power
6" solid rubber tailwheel w/ 2 leaf springs
3 piece wing
17 gallon nose fuel
Baggage compartment in center section
No electrical system
Empty Wt. 632 lbs.
I extended the motor mount 1" longer than the plans show and moved the wing
back 4" aft of being vertical to keep the CG in the acceptable ranges. This is
with the short 'Improved 1933 Air Camper' fuselage.
The 'long fuse' Air Camper designed in the 1960's by Bernard Pietenpol was
primarily
aimed use with air cooled engines but not limited to. Actually the long
fuse. gives you
more leg room in each cockpit bay- about 2" per seat, then another 5" or so
longer
aft of the cockpits. I'm 5'10", 200lbs. and the short fuse is fine.
Good discussions lately on inspections, etc. The FAA guy who signed my
Piet off
last June GAVE me the paperwork on the spot to apply for my Repairman's
Certificate
so I could have my ticket and be legal to do my annual (condition insp. on
homebuilts)
this June ! Took several months for the paperwork to go thru, but now all
is in order.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
Michael Cuy e-mailed the info re: how to contact you and get on board with
the Piet discussion /chat group. I have been a member of BPA for several
years and am well along with my "A" powered Piet. I have been one of those
web holdouts but have decided the world is passing me by so I might as well
join the crowd. Besides I best get surf literate before the end of the year
when Grant will no longer be the newsletter editor and I'm concerned that it
might not be in existence or as good a product.
Like most begginers at the whole computer thing, I'm feeling my way but am
more confident each day. Please let me know when I am authorized to
participate with your group. I'm looking forward to getting acquainted and
sharing our Piet knowledge. Piets Forever, Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
I have just officially added the videos to my site, on their own page,
and given the screen saver its own button (may be moved a a 'misc'
page later.)
http://fly.to/pietenpol
Enjoy,
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
When ever I hit the link below I get an error... Netscape is unable to
Locate Server:
204.210.81.11 The Server does not have a DNS entry.
What's up with that?
Greg Yotz
Richard DeCosta wrote:
> I have just officially added the videos to my site, on their own page,
> and given the screen saver its own button (may be moved a a 'misc'
> page later.)
>
> http://fly.to/pietenpol
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Richard
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Welcome aboard Don. The Piet discussion group has been running for about
2.5 years now and most everyone in friendly most days. Mail to the list can
be sent to:
PIET(at)BYU.EDU
Subscribe/unsubscribe requests can be mailed to the list, but faster service
is had by mailing direct to Steve(at)byu.edu. Please include the list name in
all correspondence (piet list) since I run the tailwind list too. Hope you
have fun. The piet is a great sport plane.
STeve E.
-----Original Message-----
DonanClara(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 3:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Subscribe
Hi Steve
Michael Cuy e-mailed the info re: how to contact you and get on board with
the Piet discussion /chat group. I have been a member of BPA for several
years and am well along with my "A" powered Piet. I have been one of those
web holdouts but have decided the world is passing me by so I might as well
join the crowd. Besides I best get surf literate before the end of the year
when Grant will no longer be the newsletter editor and I'm concerned that it
might not be in existence or as good a product.
Like most begginers at the whole computer thing, I'm feeling my way but am
more confident each day. Please let me know when I am authorized to
participate with your group. I'm looking forward to getting acquainted and
sharing our Piet knowledge. Piets Forever, Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
Mike,
Thanx for sharing all the info you've sent out to us. It really helps!
Don Cooley
________________________________________________________________________________
i COULD NOT DOWN LOAD THAT SCREEN SAVER EITHER. i GOT TO WITHIN 30 SECONDS
OF FINISHING WHEN A WARNING CAME UP THAT "INTERNET EXPLORER COULDN'T OPEN UP
THAT SITE"...........EARL MYERS
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
Date: Monday, January 25, 1999 6:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: video page
>When ever I hit the link below I get an error... Netscape is unable to
>Locate Server:
>204.210.81.11 The Server does not have a DNS entry.
>
>What's up with that?
>
>Greg Yotz
>
>Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
>> I have just officially added the videos to my site, on their own page,
>> and given the screen saver its own button (may be moved a a 'misc'
>> page later.)
>>
>> http://fly.to/pietenpol
>>
>> Enjoy,
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> ==
>> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Me too. I down loaded for almost 40 minutes then stalled out at 5
seconds. Upon checking I could not find any files transferred. I am
using Netscape, not Exploder.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: video page, etc... |
My appologies to anyone who had trouble downloading the files. I had
to run my Web site off my home PC for a spell while I made some
changes to my Web server at work, and my connection at home isnt as
reliable as the T-1 at work. If you go to http://Fly.to/pietenpol
Richard
---Ian Holland wrote:
>
> Me too. I down loaded for almost 40 minutes then stalled out at 5
> seconds. Upon checking I could not find any files transferred. I am
> using Netscape, not Exploder.
>
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: video page, etc... |
For all that you've shared, no apologies are ever necessary. Thanks
>Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 06:10:14 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard DeCosta
>Subject: Re: video page, etc...
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>My appologies to anyone who had trouble downloading the files. I had
>to run my Web site off my home PC for a spell while I made some
>changes to my Web server at work, and my connection at home isnt as
>reliable as the T-1 at work. If you go to http://Fly.to/pietenpol
>
>Richard
>
>
>---Ian Holland wrote:
>>
>> Me too. I down loaded for almost 40 minutes then stalled out at 5
>> seconds. Upon checking I could not find any files transferred. I am
>> using Netscape, not Exploder.
>>
>>
>>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
To all,
Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
Domenic
To all,
Anyone looked at my photo's on
Richard Decosta's
site?
Domenic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
I tried to find them. What are they located under?
>>>>
To all,
Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
Domenic
<<<<<<<<
________________________________________________________________________________
This also happened to me, twice using Netscape. Got to 8 seconds when it
quit at the same point. Tried a third time using AOL, and it downloaded
fine. Its now on my computer at home and at work. I love it- Thanks for
posting it.
Al Swanson
>Me too. I down loaded for almost 40 minutes then stalled out at 5
>seconds. Upon checking I could not find any files transferred. I am
>using Netscape, not Exploder.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
The same happened to me on my system at home but at work where the college
has its own server the screen saver down loaded very quickly and is now on
my desktop there. My workmates are convinced I am plane crazy! Oh
well.......
Richard I managed to down load That particular Piet is
a Skyscout single seater. Nice landing.
Has anyone considered the Skyscout type gear on an Aircamper?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: video page
>This also happened to me, twice using Netscape. Got to 8 seconds when it
>quit at the same point. Tried a third time using AOL, and it downloaded
>fine. Its now on my computer at home and at work. I love it- Thanks for
>posting it.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>Me too. I down loaded for almost 40 minutes then stalled out at 5
>>seconds. Upon checking I could not find any files transferred. I am
>>using Netscape, not Exploder.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kevin Southwick <ksouth(at)urjet.net> |
Domenic,
Yes, I've looked at some of them. Very nice. I recommend it to anyone
building. (I'm not yet.)
Kevin Southwick
-----Original Message-----
From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:21 PM
Subject: Photo's
To all,
Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
Domenic
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGASKIN <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
Kevin Southwick wrote:
>
> Domenic,
>
> Yes, I've looked at some of them. Very nice. I recommend it to anyone
> building. (I'm not yet.)
>
> Kevin Southwick
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 5:21 PM
> Subject: Photo's
>
> To all,
> Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
> Domenic
I'm using netscape and cannot download the file. Netscape mesg. says
"cannot find file. Please help. Randy Gaskins
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Sure have they look great!Fine job.Would be interested in your wieght and
balance data if you don't mind.
Doug Hunt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
To all,
Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
Domenic
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Screen Saver |
Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message. What Gives?
bed(at)mindspring.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
I hear that there is supposed to be an engine builders talk list. Does
anybody belong? could one of you guys tell me how to get on this list?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Mike C wrote:
I extended the motor mount 1" longer than the plans show and moved the
wing
back 4" aft of being vertical to keep the CG in the acceptable ranges.
This is
with the short 'Improved 1933 Air Camper' fuselage.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
Here's what I did when I converted from the Ford to a 0-200.
I knew the weights of both engines & their CG's. The 0-200 numbers I
obtained from the continental book. I weighed the Ford engine. Its CG is
located at the oil pump,
I made a phantom weight & balance for the 0-200 using some of the
numbers from the Ford installation. Using these as a reference I moved
the CG of the 0-200 11 inches foward of the Ford engine. I moved the
wing back 11.5 inches.
It worked ( lucky ).My actual CG is 14.5 inches.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: hope I didn.t confuse everyone. It sure did me when I was working on
it.
Mike C wrote: I extended the motor mount
1
longer than the plans show and moved the wingback 4 aft of
being
vertical to keep the CG in the acceptable ranges. This iswith
the
short 'Improved 1933 Air Camper' fuselage. -----
color#000000>---------------------------------------------------------=
-------------------------------------------------
Here's what I did when I converted from
the Ford
to a 0-200.
I knew the weights of both engines
their
CG's. The 0-200 numbers I obtained from the continental book. I weighed
the Ford
engine. Its CG is located at the oil pump,
I made a phantom weight balance
for the
0-200 using some of the numbers from the Ford installation. Using these
as a
reference I moved the CG of the 0-200 11 inches foward of the Ford
engine. I
moved the wing back 11.5 inches.
It worked ( lucky ).My actual CG is 14.5
inches.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
PS: hope I didn.t confuse everyone. It sure did me when I was
working on
it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Screen Saver |
Sounds like the same problem most people with regular modems have...
the modems cant maintain the data stream fast enough through a huge
file transfer, and the server thinks its died or given up.
If anyone is having no luck getting the file, let me know, and I will
personally email it to you. WARNING!! 5.3MB!! Make sure your email
providor can handle files that big before you request it! If it cant
and I send it, it will spit it back at me! :)
Richard
---Barry Davis wrote:
>
> Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message.
What Gives?
>
> bed(at)mindspring.com
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGASKIN <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Screen Saver |
Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> Sounds like the same problem most people with regular modems have...
> the modems cant maintain the data stream fast enough through a huge
> file transfer, and the server thinks its died or given up.
>
> If anyone is having no luck getting the file, let me know, and I will
> personally email it to you. WARNING!! 5.3MB!! Make sure your email
> providor can handle files that big before you request it! If it cant
> and I send it, it will spit it back at me! :)
>
> Richard
>
> ---Barry Davis wrote:
> >
> > Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message.
> What Gives?
> >
> > bed(at)mindspring.com
> >
> >
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>
>
Yes, please send it to me : randy(at)icomnet.com Thanks, Randy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
My last com said <<. I moved the wing back 11.5 inches.>>
Wrong! I moved the wing back 3.5 inches,
Mike B ( Piet N 678MB )
My last com said . I moved the wing
back 11.5
inches.
Wrong! I moved the wing back 3.5
inches,
Mike B ( Piet N 678MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks for the clarification Mike! Tried a quick pencil calc and
determined that you must weigh about 512 pounds..{;
)
Warren
Michael Brusilow wrote:
> My last com said <<. I moved the wing back 11.5 inches.>> Wrong! I
> moved the wing back 3.5 inches, Mike B ( Piet N 678MB )
Thanks for the clarification Mike! Tried a quick pencil calc and
determined that you must weigh about 512 pounds..{;
)
Warren
Michael Brusilow wrote:
My last com said .
I moved the wing back 11.5 inches.>>Wrong!
I moved the wing back 3.5 inches,Mike
B ( Piet N 678MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Screen Saver |
Sounds like a download/connection problem. Just try it again. I have had
it happen with all sorts of files. Usually I just give it another go and it
works.
Brent Reed
-----Original Message-----
From: Barry Davis
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 7:48 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Screen Saver
>Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message. What
Gives?
>
>bed(at)mindspring.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Screen Saver |
>Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message. What Gives?
>
>bed(at)mindspring.com
>
>
Same to me 1 hr and error :-(
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Screen Saver |
Same here. 39 minutes....7 seconds to go...and it accussed me of hitting the
Back button to cancel the download?????
Gary Gower wrote:
> >Downloaded all but the last few seconds. Got an error message. What Gives?
> >
> >bed(at)mindspring.com
> >
> >
> >
> Same to me 1 hr and error :-(
>
> Saludos
>
> Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Looking for this Piet |
I saw this on the rec.aviation.homebuilt newsgroup, and thought I would post
it here for this guy. Anyone who know of this might want to contact him:
back in 1971 i built a piet and powered it with a model b engine and
sold it about 2 years later. the n number was N4272 . it was
distinctive because it had a brass 1917 style radiater complete with
ford script. had wire wheels that were antique hareley davidson. it was
doped in cream and st fe red. thee was a list of credits on the tail of
the people that helped . last seen up in the minn or ws area. if any one
knows of the wherabouts of this bird please give me a collect call at
915 692 0538 or e mail me at minotpiper(at)webtv.net thanks a lot
still flying
with a pitts and a helton lark minot piper,
chief balloon launcher of the underground balloon corps
________________________________________________________________________________
=A0
=A0
Steve Eldredge
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT
Steve(at)byu.edu
=A0
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RGASKIN <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
| Subject: | New Member and building |
Well I haven't started cutting wood but have ordered plans for the Piet
and consider this a start in building. Any ssgestions for a beginer
would be appreciated. Any sugestions on what to start building first?
Anyone have a wing jig that I may use when I'm ready? Thanks in advance
for your help, Randy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com> |
Doug, It came in very heavy, but then I did a lot of conversions on the
engine. Brian Kenny did my calculations and the balance is okay. I can't
figure where else except the engine that makes it so heavy.
Dom.
-----Original Message-----
From: D.J.H. <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com>
Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 9:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Photo's
>Sure have they look great!Fine job.Would be interested in your wieght and
>balance data if you don't mind.
> Doug Hunt
>
>----------
>From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Photo's
>Date: Tuesday, January 26, 1999 4:22 PM
>
>To all,
>Anyone looked at my photo's on Richard Decosta's site?
>Domenic
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Alan wrote:
back in 1971 i built a piet and powered it with a model b engine and
sold it about 2 years later. the n number was N4272 .
It is not in the FAA data base. I may be no longer registered.
Mike B ( N 687MB )
Alan wrote:back in 1971 i built a piet
and powered
it with a model b engine andsold it about 2 years later. the n
number
was N4272 .
It is not in the FAA data base. I may be no
longer
registered.
Mike B ( N 687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
-----Original Message-----
From: RGASKIN <randy(at)icomnet.com>
Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 10:36 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Member and building
>Well I haven't started cutting wood but have ordered plans for the Piet
>and consider this a start in building. Any ssgestions for a beginer
>would be appreciated. Any sugestions on what to start building first?
>Anyone have a wing jig that I may use when I'm ready? Thanks in advance
>for your help, Randy.
Welcome aboard Randy. My suggestion is that you build the tail surfaces
first ( smallest monetary outlay for materials ) If you then wish to go
foward. then the fuselage & gear & then the wings & all the other stuff.
Good luck.
IWhen you are ready, I can send you a rib from which you can make your own
jig.
Mike B ( Piet N687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
Hi Randy,
Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your head
working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and 1933
Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the plans
and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears up an
error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
information. These are available from the EAA Library.
Best Regards,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
Tnx.Dom,what was the wieght of the Piet?
Doug
> From: Raffaele Bellissimo <rbelliss(at)yesic.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Photo's
> Date: Wednesday, January 27, 1999 5:56 PM
>
> Doug, It came in very heavy, but then I did a lot of conversions on the
> engine. Brian Kenny did my calculations and the balance is okay. I can't
> figure where else except the engine that makes it so heavy.
> Dom.
> -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
PLease excuse me for this question.
You say to buy the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual because it clears up an error
on
the Rib Drawing Plans.
Do you mean that the current plans that Don Pietenpol sells still has errors?
I have the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual but have not bought the plans yet from
Don.
Gordon
Warren Shoun wrote:
> Hi Randy,
> Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your head
> working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
> The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and 1933
> Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the plans
> and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears up an
> error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
> information. These are available from the EAA Library.
> Best Regards,
> Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
Re: Weight & Balance . I am just getting started with the group so bear with
me if this subject has been overdone. My 'A' powered Piet is close to being
ready for cover..have been at it for about 3 yrs. Built the long fuselage
before finding out about tail heavy tendencies. In an early issue of BPANews
Frank Pavliga Sr. said his was the long fus. and he was happy that it was..no
mention of any CG problems. I understand the a/c now has an av engine. I know
there are other 'A' powered ships w/ the long fus. and would appreciate anyone
who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not be
handled with a wing movement of under 3" or so. I have not done any
preliminary weighing but have gone with spruce throughout and have been weight
conscious so anticipate final weight at about 675 to 700. don hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Don Wrote:
who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not be
handled with a wing movement of under 3" or so>>
In my experience it should work without moving the wing. If it does not,
3 inches or so will work.
Mike B ( Piet N678MB )
Don Wrote:who has info on whether they
experienced
any problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under
3
or so
In my experience it should work without
moving the
wing. If it does not, 3 inches or so will work.
Mike B ( Piet N678MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Don Wrote:
who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not be
handled with a wing movement of under 3" or so>>
In my experience it should work without moving the wing. If it does not,
3 inches or so will work.
Mike B ( Piet N678MB )
Don Wrote:who has info on whether they
experienced
any problems that could not behandled with a wing movement of under
3
or so
In my experience it should work without
moving the
wing. If it does not, 3 inches or so will work.
Mike B ( Piet N678MB
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
I don't know for certain that the currently marketed plans still have the error
in
the rib dimensions and the layout. I have heard from others that it does, as these
are black and white copies of the origional "blue prints".
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> PLease excuse me for this question.
>
> You say to buy the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual because it clears up an error
on
> the Rib Drawing Plans.
>
> Do you mean that the current plans that Don Pietenpol sells still has errors?
>
> I have the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual but have not bought the plans yet from
> Don.
>
> Gordon
>
> Warren Shoun wrote:
>
> > Hi Randy,
> > Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your head
> > working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
> > The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and 1933
> > Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the plans
> > and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears up
an
> > error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
> > information. These are available from the EAA Library.
> > Best Regards,
> > Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
Thanks for the info Warren.
Hopefully they would finally be corrected after 70 yrs. At least you would think
so as the
family keeps pushing the plans, the BPA or whatever the group is keeps pushing
the plans.
Gordon
Warren Shoun wrote:
> I don't know for certain that the currently marketed plans still have the
error in
> the rib dimensions and the layout. I have heard from others that it does, as
these
> are black and white copies of the origional "blue prints".
>
> Gordon Brimhall wrote:
>
> > PLease excuse me for this question.
> >
> > You say to buy the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual because it clears up an error
on
> > the Rib Drawing Plans.
> >
> > Do you mean that the current plans that Don Pietenpol sells still has errors?
> >
> > I have the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual but have not bought the plans yet
from
> > Don.
> >
> > Gordon
> >
> > Warren Shoun wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Randy,
> > > Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your head
> > > working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
> > > The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and
1933
> > > Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the
plans
> > > and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears
up an
> > > error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
> > > information. These are available from the EAA Library.
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
Trade your long for my short... :)
STevee
-----Original Message-----
DonanClara(at)aol.com
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 9:12 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: subscribe
Re: Weight & Balance . I am just getting started with the group so bear with
me if this subject has been overdone. My 'A' powered Piet is close to being
ready for cover..have been at it for about 3 yrs. Built the long fuselage
before finding out about tail heavy tendencies. In an early issue of BPANews
Frank Pavliga Sr. said his was the long fus. and he was happy that it
was..no
mention of any CG problems. I understand the a/c now has an av engine. I
know
there are other 'A' powered ships w/ the long fus. and would appreciate
anyone
who has info on whether they experienced any problems that could not be
handled with a wing movement of under 3" or so. I have not done any
preliminary weighing but have gone with spruce throughout and have been
weight
conscious so anticipate final weight at about 675 to 700. don hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Looking for this Piet |
I recall seeing a red Piet with a nifty brass radiator shell in a magazine
about three years ago...might have been Kitplanes, but not sure. Was, as I
recall, a really pretty airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve
Please remove my old address and change me to my new Email address
arkiesacres(at)juno.com
Thanks
Gordon Brimhall
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve, Please also change my address to my new one: adamson(at)wnmd.org
Thanks, Arden
-----Original Message-----
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Address
Steve
Please remove my old address and change me to my new Email address
arkiesacres(at)juno.com
Thanks
Gordon Brimhall
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
On or about several years ago, I heard the story of a squadron of p-38
fighters that had to crash land in greenland during WW11. All the pilots
survived, but the planes were abandoned.
Over the years I had heard of attempts to locate and recover the p-38s.
The following web page is the story + photographs of the recovery of one
of the lost p-38 fighters from under 250 feet (!) of greenland ice cap.
They say the airplane will be flying again soon.
Http://www.thelostsquadron.com/
Check this out if you would, it's well worth the trip.
ocb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | EAA/RAA chapter hangars |
Hi,
I know this is a little off topic, but it is experimental aircraft
related. Our RAA chapter (Canadian org simular to EAA) is currently
looking at the feasibility of getting a hangar for club members and
projects. I know that a lot of the active chapters have already done this
and I was hoping to get a little input on how well it's worked out. THings
like how capital was raised, how you decide who uses the hangar, etc.
would be really useful. This will be a big step for our club and we want
to do it right.
Thanks,
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA/RAA chapter hangars |
Ken,
At our EAA Chapter, we could only lease a hanger at our local airport.
Prior to signing a lease on two adjacent hangers, our Chapter laid out work
spaces and literally taped them off on the floor with 3" Blue Duct Tape and
signed sublease contracts with members. We then went on a scavenger hunt for
shop tools and obtained an amazing number of both useable and unusable shop
tools, which we worked over (all volunteer time and labor). This is an ongoing
piece of business.
A new Chapter Officer was elected, as shop foreman(one of the builders) to
enforce neatness and only airplane building ( one chap immediately began
building a rowboat). We have also built an adjacent sunshade with barbecue
stands and picnic benches which are used once a month, weather permitting for
a Chapter Event.
All labor, time & materials was donated by members and friends of members
and anybody we could convince to be helpful.
The nature of problems have been small and quickly handled. We have now
added a requirement that some noticeable progress must take place each month,
after having one chap homesteaded his spot for several months (and paid his
rent) and not do anything at all. As in most chapters (personal viewpoint
here) we have builders, serious planners for building and....some "others" who
kind of wore out their welcome by making the shop their second home, drinking
the donated soft drinks (and in one case restocking his motor home from the
shop refrig), distracting the working builders and in general contributing
little or nothing to the chapter. This small group was given a designated
picnic table under the sunshade and their own Igloo cooler, which they stock
on their own. We have 5 projects going at all times in this area, we have a
waiting list for the workstations, and it has served us well, and has been the
main cause of the size of the Chapter growing rather dramatically.
Good Luck,
Warren
Ken Beanlands wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know this is a little off topic, but it is experimental aircraft
> related. Our RAA chapter (Canadian org simular to EAA) is currently
> looking at the feasibility of getting a hangar for club members and
> projects. I know that a lot of the active chapters have already done this
> and I was hoping to get a little input on how well it's worked out. THings
> like how capital was raised, how you decide who uses the hangar, etc.
> would be really useful. This will be a big step for our club and we want
> to do it right.
>
> Thanks,
> Ken
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "BELLISSIMO, DOMENIC" |
For Doug Hunt,
----------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | weight and balance |
Tnx.Dom, what was the weight of the Piet?
Doug,
Sorry I didn't mean to be so short with you. I opened your mail at work and
didn't have the exact figures to give you. Also I'm not suppose to be
reading personal e-mail at work, so I replied with a very short response.
That's why I said it was 'very heavy'. I still can't remember the exact
figure, but it came in empty above 800 lbs. I did it twice with the same
bathroom scales at two different times. I really don't know if those scales
were accurate. I calibrated them with my known body weight. I submitted the
W&B forms assuming the scales were ok, but I still have doubts. I was
conscious of adding too much weight, but perhaps I didn't notice.
Dom.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Hannan <khannan(at)gte.net> |
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
The new plans are the improved versions they have added two up rights near
the spars and the rear diagonal brace has change direction.
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Thursday, January 28, 1999 6:31 PM
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
>PLease excuse me for this question.
>
>You say to buy the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual because it clears up an
error on
>the Rib Drawing Plans.
>
>Do you mean that the current plans that Don Pietenpol sells still has
errors?
>
>I have the 1932 Flying and Gliding manual but have not bought the plans yet
from
>Don.
>
>Gordon
>
>
>Warren Shoun wrote:
>
>> Hi Randy,
>> Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your
head
>> working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
>> The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and
1933
>> Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the
plans
>> and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears
up an
>> error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
>> information. These are available from the EAA Library.
>> Best Regards,
>> Warren
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
No problem,and thanks for the reply now.When do you suppose you will be
ready for the "BIG DAY"?
Doug
> From: BELLISSIMO, DOMENIC
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject:
> Date: Monday, February 01, 1999 2:21 PM
>
> For Doug Hunt,
> ----------
> From: D.J.H.
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: weight and balance
> Date: Thursday, January 28, 1999 8:19PM
>
>
> Tnx.Dom, what was the weight of the Piet?
>
> Doug,
>
> Sorry I didn't mean to be so short with you. I opened your mail at work
and
> didn't have the exact figures to give you. Also I'm not suppose to be
> reading personal e-mail at work, so I replied with a very short response.
> That's why I said it was 'very heavy'. I still can't remember the exact
> figure, but it came in empty above 800 lbs. I did it twice with the same
> bathroom scales at two different times. I really don't know if those
scales
> were accurate. I calibrated them with my known body weight. I submitted
the
> W&B forms assuming the scales were ok, but I still have doubts. I was
> conscious of adding too much weight, but perhaps I didn't notice.
> Dom.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
I have not recieved any mail from the group in three days. Wondering if
it's a slow couple of days, or if I some how was accidently removed from
list.
John Duprey
________________________________________________________________________________
Test A.O.K....
Its good to get back in the loop on the discussions. Missed reading and
inputting my two cents.
Any cool projects going on this winter. I've been to busy running a Fligh=
t
School out of three locations and working a real job to support the Fligh=
t
School, just kidding. I'm in southern Ohio and if anyone has something
going on, fairly locally, please advise. I would like to get a look, smel=
l,
touch, or even strap one on. To date I've not flown in a Piet. I've
sponsored a Piet Fly-In at Waynesville in Chapt.284 Grass Roots annual
Fly-In. I know 'Big' Jim Vandervort and met Dick Alkire. I even have a Sk=
y
Scout fuselage in my barn given to me by 'Big' Jim. I believe it is'nt
usable but could be used as a template.
Anyway, Low and Slow, Piet's forever, but, New Skyhawk's are pretty nice.=
As far as a Flight School is concerned.
Mark Morgan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Attn: Walt Evans |
I put up a bunch of pics that were called wbe*.jpg on my site. Can you
confirm that these are in fact yours? I get sent so many pics sometime
I get confused.... :)
http://Fly.to/pietenpol
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Let me introduce Myself |
Hello,
I have been dreaming about building an airplane since I was 3. Found
an early issue of "Kitplanes" on the newstand, and eventually stumbled
into an EAA chapter and became a member. The First set of plans I
purchased were Pietenpol plans from Mr. Hoopman for $35 in 1986.
I have looked them over many times but currently I have misplaced them
due to 2 educations and 5 relocations.
Now I have landed in Milwaukee working for Rockwell Automation/Allen
Bradley which is very close to Oshkosh and Broadhead Wisconsin so my
interest in Piets has been renewed. Since Wisconsin winters aree long
and cold I purchased woodworking equipment so I could build a cedar
strip canoe, and I have since concluded the logical progression would
be a wood airplane.
My Dilemma is do I build Jim Maupins Woodstock Glider or BH
Pietenpol's Aircamper? I hope this list will help me sort things out!
==
Matt Naiva
Piet1929(at)usa.net
EAA MEMBER SINCE 1986
Piet plans Holder since 1986
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
>
>
Matt,
>Now I have landed in Milwaukee working for Rockwell Automation/Allen
>Bradley which is very close to Oshkosh and Broadhead Wisconsin so my
>interest in Piets has been renewed. Since Wisconsin winters aree long
>and cold I purchased woodworking equipment so I could build a cedar
>strip canoe, and I have since concluded the logical progression would
>be a wood airplane.
>
You sound like me. My canoe is the Prospector from the Canoecraft
book. Next up is the plane. You may want to consider a Dunbar
Windsor chair for a moaning chair. That is what I am going to
use mine for :-).
>My Dilemma is do I build Jim Maupins Woodstock Glider or BH
>Pietenpol's Aircamper? I hope this list will help me sort things out!
>
>
I went for the Piet. I am waiting for the company bonus before
I order my wood. That should be next month.
Dave
>EAA MEMBER SINCE 1986
EAA member since December
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | CHANGING "N" NUMBERS |
Hey guys,
I bought a GN-1 last year and finally got it to Dallas. The
plane was built in 1985 and went through four owners before
landing here.
The son of the second owner (also a pilot) called and said
his dad had passed away. His dad always used the "N"
designation 121SP. Over the 30 years of owning 20 airplanes,
he would put this number on various craft including the GN-1.
He said he would help me in obtaining a new tail number
in exchange. I told him as soon I can find a replacement
designation, I would surrender mine.
My question is, since "Experimental" is painted on both sides
of my plane, can I have a designation beginning with "NX"
and whatever number and drop the "Experimental" signage?
I think I read somewhere if the design and/or plane is 30 years
or older the above is permitted. Again, I don't know the ruling
on that.
I thought I would let the pros in the group steer me in the right
direction.
Thanks.....
Mike King
GN-1
Dallas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999, Dave and Connie wrote:
> >
> >
> Matt,
>
> >Now I have landed in Milwaukee working for Rockwell Automation/Allen
> >Bradley which is very close to Oshkosh and Broadhead Wisconsin so my
> >interest in Piets has been renewed. Since Wisconsin winters aree long
> >and cold I purchased woodworking equipment so I could build a cedar
> >strip canoe, and I have since concluded the logical progression would
> >be a wood airplane.
> >
>
> You sound like me. My canoe is the Prospector from the Canoecraft
> book. Next up is the plane. You may want to consider a Dunbar
> Windsor chair for a moaning chair. That is what I am going to
> use mine for :-).
>
OK, this is down-right creepy. I finished building my Prospector canoe
from the "Canoecraft" book in July. I wonder how many other
canoe/boatbuilders do we have out there?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
>OK, this is down-right creepy. I finished building my Prospector canoe
>from the "Canoecraft" book in July. I wonder how many other
>canoe/boatbuilders do we have out there?
I'm not suprised there are lots of boatbuilders out there. Seems like a
natural progression.
I put together a MacGregor sailing canoe (glued lapstrake), three Dyson
baidarkas (kayaks), and a crappy tortured plywood kayak. Oh, also a strip-
built bahama dinghy cradle boat for my daughter. If you're interested,
you can see the cradle boat on my daughter's website:
(http://home.earthlink.net/~jillnpeter) You have to go to the 1-2 months
section and then click on the only frame that's missing the thumbnail
photo. You can also see Scott Liefeld's Piet on the "adventures" section
of my daughter's website; click on "plane ride" (the girl stayed on
the ground).
By the way, I think some pictures of my kayaks are still up on the Southern
CA
kayak builder's website: (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/btreecs/).
Just go to the kayak registry section.
--Peter Frantz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
Guilty...Ifinished my strip built Canoe 3 years ago.
John Duprey
Peter P Frantz wrote:
>
> >OK, this is down-right creepy. I finished building my Prospector canoe
> >from the "Canoecraft" book in July. I wonder how many other
> >canoe/boatbuilders do we have out there?
>
> I'm not suprised there are lots of boatbuilders out there. Seems like a
> natural progression.
>
> I put together a MacGregor sailing canoe (glued lapstrake), three Dyson
> baidarkas (kayaks), and a crappy tortured plywood kayak. Oh, also a strip-
> built bahama dinghy cradle boat for my daughter. If you're interested,
> you can see the cradle boat on my daughter's website:
> (http://home.earthlink.net/~jillnpeter) You have to go to the 1-2 months
> section and then click on the only frame that's missing the thumbnail
> photo. You can also see Scott Liefeld's Piet on the "adventures" section
> of my daughter's website; click on "plane ride" (the girl stayed on
> the ground).
>
> By the way, I think some pictures of my kayaks are still up on the Southern
> CA
> kayak builder's website: (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/btreecs/).
> Just go to the kayak registry section.
>
> --Peter Frantz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
Peter:
Great pic's. Cute kid!
Mark Boynton
Phoenix, AZ
> >OK, this is down-right creepy. I finished building my Prospector canoe
> >from the "Canoecraft" book in July. I wonder how many other
> >canoe/boatbuilders do we have out there?
>
> I'm not suprised there are lots of boatbuilders out there. Seems like a
> natural progression.
>
> I put together a MacGregor sailing canoe (glued lapstrake), three Dyson
> baidarkas (kayaks), and a crappy tortured plywood kayak. Oh, also a
strip-
> built bahama dinghy cradle boat for my daughter. If you're interested,
> you can see the cradle boat on my daughter's website:
> (http://home.earthlink.net/~jillnpeter) You have to go to the 1-2 months
> section and then click on the only frame that's missing the thumbnail
> photo. You can also see Scott Liefeld's Piet on the "adventures" section
> of my daughter's website; click on "plane ride" (the girl stayed on
> the ground).
>
> By the way, I think some pictures of my kayaks are still up on the
Southern
> CA
> kayak builder's website:
(http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/btreecs/).
> Just go to the kayak registry section.
>
> --Peter Frantz
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Glenn Burroughs <glenn(at)sysweb.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol with a Model A Ford engine? |
Hello,
I'm new to the group, and am standing in for someone that does not have
access to the internet.
He is planning to build a Pietenpol if the government red tape is not too
strict. He has the plans, but has several questions:
1. Has anyone on this group built (or own) a Pietenpol with a Model A Ford
engine?
2. Can anyone describe the arrangement of the oil lines on the Model A Ford
engine. The plans are vague in this area.
3. The plans do not indicate the type of radiator (assume it is a Model A
radiator), nor how the radiator is installed. Is there any way to lower the
radiator for better visibility? Or perhaps use another radiator?
Thanks for any help,
Glenn Burroughs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: New Member and building |
Get all of them (4 or five, cant remember, got them home) they are great for
the money, you will enjoy them (and learn) a lot.
Saludos
Gary Gower
>Hi Randy,
> Concur with Mike on starting with the tail pieces first. Gets your head
>working on how this goes together and isn't too hard or too expensive.
> The additional recommendation that I would make, is get the 1932 and 1933
>Flying & Glider Manual that has many pages of explanations regarding the plans
>and points out some seriously helpful "how to do it" ideas. Also clears up an
>error on the rib drawing plans. For $15.00 you will get a world of
>information. These are available from the EAA Library.
>Best Regards,
>Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Greater Milwaukee Piet Builders? |
I would appreciate it if any builders in the Greater Milwaukee area
could Identify themselves to me via email.
==
Matt Naiva B.Eng (Mechanical)
Piet1929(at)usa.net
EAA MEMBER SINCE 1986
Piet plans Holder since 1986
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | michael list <mclist(at)ptw.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Let me introduce Myself |
Ken Beanlands wrote:
>
> OK, this is down-right creepy. I finished building my Prospector canoe
> from the "Canoecraft" book in July. I wonder how many other
> canoe/boatbuilders do we have out there?
>
> Ken
>
Yep, another wooden kayak builder here, a DK-13 from an old WoodenBoat
magazine. A beautiful craft she is, and good practice for the
woodworking in the Piet.
Mike List
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol with a Model A Ford engine? |
I don't know a whole lot about the Ford A engine, but It seems that I
remember somewhere about a fellow who put his radiator at the chin
location. ( at the bottom next to the fire wall.
The purists will probably get mad at you if you do though...
OCB
>From steve(at)byu.edu Thu Feb 4 14:49:52 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 4940"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-30 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J7CNGKXJIG8WXS58(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 17:45:20 -0500
>From: Glenn Burroughs <glenn(at)sysweb.com>
>Subject: Pietenpol with a Model A Ford engine?
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id: <91D5A217D4(at)adena.byu.edu>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.4 (32) (via Mercury MTS
v1.44 (NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>Hello,
>
>I'm new to the group, and am standing in for someone that does not have
>access to the internet.
>
>He is planning to build a Pietenpol if the government red tape is not
too
>strict. He has the plans, but has several questions:
>
>1. Has anyone on this group built (or own) a Pietenpol with a Model A
Ford
>engine?
>
>2. Can anyone describe the arrangement of the oil lines on the Model A
Ford
>engine. The plans are vague in this area.
>
>3. The plans do not indicate the type of radiator (assume it is a Model
A
>radiator), nor how the radiator is installed. Is there any way to lower
the
>radiator for better visibility? Or perhaps use another radiator?
>
>Thanks for any help,
>
>Glenn Burroughs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm getting ready to weld the spoke flanges, to the wheel shaft on my
spoke wheels, and would like some advice if somebody has any.
I need to know how you guys located the flanges (spoke disk) at a 90
degree angle to the wheel shaft, so that when these pieces are welded
they run true.
Also, I dont have tig at home, just gas. Can these wheels be welded up
using a gas welder?
ocb
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheels |
>I'm getting ready to weld the spoke flanges, to the wheel shaft on my
>spoke wheels, and would like some advice if somebody has any.
>
>I need to know how you guys located the flanges (spoke disk) at a 90
>degree angle to the wheel shaft, so that when these pieces are welded
>they run true.
>
>Also, I dont have tig at home, just gas. Can these wheels be welded up
>using a gas welder?
Bob- Either method of welding will be fine. Before I welded my flanges to
the hub I drilled and countersunk the spoke holes. You can do this after
welding though too. Another item is to weld each flange opposite the other
with one spoke hole aligned between the other sides spoke holes. In other
words offset the two flanges by splitting the difference between holes.
This will help you lace the spoke easier. Looks better too.
Mike C.
>
>ocb
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Got some new stuff on my website for anyone interested:
1. Three new mpeg videos:
a. 'A' Ford doing two really neat fly-by's
b. Same ship doing a neat looking slip to landing
c. Same ship again, this time from another Piet
2. Piet sounds in WAV, MP3 and RealAudio formats
a. 'A' Ford Fly by sounds
b. Corvair take-off
3. About 40+ new images
Enjoy! I sure do!
http://Fly.to/Pietenpol
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fw: Spoke wheel lacing |
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Myers
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 11:32 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spoke wheel lacing
For what it's worth, there is a video available on spoke wheel lacing.
It is called "V-TWIN WHEEL LACING" by Ken Buchanan. It is intended for
(who else?) Harley-Davidson Motorcycles, however, the techniques are the
same. If anyone is interested, I will dig for the info as to where I got
it and so forth.
Ken Buchanan is infamous on the west coast because of his life long
dedication to building and fixing Harleys. He has the art of wheel
lacing in his blood. I purchased a set of Sun aluminum cycle rims, the
spokes, nipples, etc., from them and had them assemble the parts using
my hubs that I sent to them. What I got back was a pair of 21" completed
spoke wheels that were perfect in balance and appearence. Nice, shiny
stainless spokes, polished aluminum rims, powder coated black
hubs....only to cover them with fabric!
The hubs were made from the article published in Kitplanes Magazine a
number of years ago (and reprinted in the BPA Newsletter several times).
I had mine made by the two guys at Broadhead, a work of art unto
themselves!..............Anyways, mine are NARROWER than the norm as I
discovered you don't need the superwide hubs afterall. Also note, DO NOT
install the spokes on the outside of the hubs! I know of two failures of
the spokes (causing crash landings, so to speak....could ruin your
whole day!) when done this way due to the spoke rubbing on the edge of
the hub. If you insist on having brakes, make sure the spokes are
offset, not radial or straight out from the hub. This will absorb the
twisting action from stomping on the 6.00 x6 Cleveland brakes that
everyone likes to use................. End of Lecture!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Builders of the Greater Milwaukee Area |
I remember reading a story of a Piet builder North of Milwaukee who
was turbochargiing a Model A Ford. Does anyone know his name? Email
etc? Please email me directly.
==
Matt Naiva B.Eng (Mechanical)
Piet1929(at)usa.net
EAA MEMBER SINCE 1986
Piet plans Holder since 1986
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Help... do I have a major problem? |
I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
well either.
Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
scuffing?
Concerned,
Richard
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Only my opinion but before I scrapped all 25 I would do some destructive testing
on one and see if I thought it was up to snuff (does material rip away from
the solid member for example).
But then my opinion is only that!
Bill
> ----------
> From: Richard DeCosta[SMTP:aircamper(at)yahoo.com]
> Reply To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Sent: Friday, February 05, 1999 5:51 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Help... do I have a major problem?
>
> I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
> have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
> ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
>
> I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
> plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
> water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
> is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
> book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
> kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
> well either.
>
> Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
> 25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
> scuffing?
>
> Concerned,
>
> Richard
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.J.H." <ve6zh(at)cnnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Richard, penitraition is good.
Doug
> From: Richard DeCosta
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Help... do I have a major problem?
> Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 6:51 PM
>
> I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
> have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
> ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
>
> I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
> plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
> water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
> is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
> book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
> kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
> well either.
>
> Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
> 25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
> scuffing?
>
> Concerned,
>
> Richard
>
>
>
>
> ==
> http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
> http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Richard;
I have built11 wing panels over the years both scuffed and unscuffed
gussets. All my planes are low and slows....If you were building a Christin
Eagle or monster Pitts Special, then you might have cause for concern what
with the aerobatic loads. Everything in the manuals stress what to do to
achieve "the Max" on finish, weight savings and strength. I would suggest
that you take two ribs of each gusset method (total four) ribs and slip them
onto "phony spars" at 12" intervals. Place two 2x4's on top of the ribs
between the spars and get up there and dance around a bit untill you either
fall off, get tired or break something. If you used T-88 glue or the West
System, I'll bet you get tired of dancing on the 2x4's before anything
breaks! If you used Resorcinol Glue with unscoffed gussets, you then now
have a whole flock of ribs for decorating your Den walls! (I am still
wrestleing with that .zip thing!)
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 8:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help... do I have a major problem?
>I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
>have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
>ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
>
>I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
>plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
>water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
>is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
>book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
>kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
>well either.
>
>Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
>25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
>scuffing?
>
>Concerned,
>
>Richard
>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
>http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Richard,
Years ago, my brother and I built a replica Eidecker. The ribs were
gussetted with mahogany door skins. The glue we used was yellow carpenter
glue. Scuffing? Whats scuffing? I think if you try to pull a gussett off
one of your rib joints that has been glued with T-88 you will find the
integrity much greater than any joint in the entire plane we built and flew
in the early 1960s.
One other thing, an illustration with water does not mean that the solvents
found in epoxy resins will not penetrate the smooth, undisturbed surface of
the plywood. The resins in the epoxy have a far greater affinity for the
resins in the wood that will water.
Thanks again for the great website and for posting my humble screen saver
for others to enjoy.
Ron Gipson
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta
Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 5:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help... do I have a major problem?
>I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
>have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
>ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
>
>I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
>plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
>water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
>is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
>book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
>kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
>well either.
>
>Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
>25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
>scuffing?
>
>Concerned,
>
>Richard
>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
>http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
How about redwood? Has anybody used that yet to build? Any input on
this wood for aircraft construction?
Brent Reed
How about redwood? Has anybody
used that
yet to build? Any input on this wood for aircraft
construction?
Brent
Reed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: spoke wheels |
I have drilled pilot holes in the flanges...36 holes for easier to find
US style rims, but I don't know what size the holes should be for the
spokes, also what size should be the countersinks?
Lastly what size were the spokes you used, and did you roll the threads
?
>From steve(at)byu.edu Fri Feb 5 05:25:50 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1275"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-30 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J7DI5V49J88WY200(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 08:23:40 -0500
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>Subject: Re: spoke wheels
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id:
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.1 (via Mercury MTS
v1.44 (NDS))
> (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>>I'm getting ready to weld the spoke flanges, to the wheel shaft on my
>>spoke wheels, and would like some advice if somebody has any.
>>
>>I need to know how you guys located the flanges (spoke disk) at a 90
>>degree angle to the wheel shaft, so that when these pieces are welded
>>they run true.
>>
>>Also, I dont have tig at home, just gas. Can these wheels be welded up
>>using a gas welder?
>
>Bob- Either method of welding will be fine. Before I welded my
flanges to
>the hub I drilled and countersunk the spoke holes. You can do this
after
>welding though too. Another item is to weld each flange opposite the
other
>with one spoke hole aligned between the other sides spoke holes. In
other
>words offset the two flanges by splitting the difference between holes.
>This will help you lace the spoke easier. Looks better too.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
>>
>>ocb
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Gezz, I hate to say this...
It depends upon what plywood you used for the gussets. If Mahogany
plywood, then you are probably ok, as it is really poris stuff. But, if
you used birch...you could be in for trouble.
When i started using birch ply, with hemlock for capstrips, I did some
distructive testing, and found that the birch would pull away from the
hemlock with little trouble, and the t-88 joint failed at the glue joint
almost every time.
Hemlock doesnt glue as well as spruce however.
The problem with birch plywood, is the smooth glassey surface. It
doesn't take glue well...no tooth.
After that I roughed up my gussets on a sanding wheel with a few good
swipes, and the joints went from weak, to very strong.
I also ended up throwing out about 7 ribs. And the truth is, I still
have a few gussets (5 or 6) ...(not ribs) that are not sanded, but I
think there is enough redundancy to take care of it.
On the plus side, I read once about an airplane that had been glued with
casin glue that had all dried out, but was still flying, held together
only with the nails.
ocb
>From steve(at)byu.edu Fri Feb 5 17:50:50 1999
>Received: from adena.byu.edu ("port 1660"@adena.byu.edu
[128.187.22.180])
> by EMAIL1.BYU.EDU (PMDF V5.2-31 #31181)
> with ESMTP id <01J7E861Q04E8WY56G(at)EMAIL1.BYU.EDU> for
oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com;
>Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 17:51:32 -0800 (PST)
>From: Richard DeCosta
>Subject: Help... do I have a major problem?
>Sender: Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Errors-to: Steve(at)byu.edu
>Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>Message-id:
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS) (via Mercury MTS v1.44 (NDS))
>Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>X-Listname:
>
>I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
>have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
>ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
>
>I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
>plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
>water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
>is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
>book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
>kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
>well either.
>
>Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
>25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
>scuffing?
>
>Concerned,
>
>Richard
>
>
>==
>http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
>Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
>http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
You should consider reading the articles on selecting and grading wood
suitable for aircraft construction carried in the last three months of
Sport Aviation. I think the specific weight of redwood might be a
little high. Douglas fir can meet the milspecs and would prove a more
suitable replacement for spruce if cost savings is what you are after,
rumored to me 30% of the cost of and only 10% heavier. Given that the
shipping cost is the same for spruce and Douglas fir from an aircraft
wood supplier and the overall expenditure should be around $1000
(correct me if I am wrong). Unless you know what you are doing you
should follow the advice of the articles and avoid the temptation to
buy wod from non aircraft suppliers. Cold brittlement might not
bother you if you want to fly in the summers only since a piet rarely
goes to altitude, but the flaw would haunt me especially if I did not
know how the plane would be operated if it changes hands.
---Brent Reed wrote:
>
> How about redwood? Has anybody used that yet to build? Any input
on this wood for aircraft construction?
>
> Brent Reed
>
==
Matt Naiva B.Eng (Mechanical)
Piet1929(at)usa.net
EAA MEMBER SINCE 1986
Piet plans Holder since 1986
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Thanks for the advice. I have a couple ribs that i made early on
(practice types) that I will test to destruction. After hearing other
people's comments I think I am going to be ok. It would be absolutely
heartbreaking to have to scrap a year's work, although I would do it
if it meant my ship would be a safe one.
Still cant get that zip to work eh? Hmmm... How about I email you the
exe file (the actual setup file) thats inside the zip? That is, if you
dont mind downloading another 5MB file?
Richard
---Earl Myers wrote:
>
> Richard;
> I have built11 wing panels over the years both scuffed and
unscuffed
> gussets. All my planes are low and slows....If you were building a
Christin
> Eagle or monster Pitts Special, then you might have cause for
concern what
> with the aerobatic loads. Everything in the manuals stress what to
do to
> achieve "the Max" on finish, weight savings and strength. I would
suggest
> that you take two ribs of each gusset method (total four) ribs and
slip them
> onto "phony spars" at 12" intervals. Place two 2x4's on top of the
ribs
> between the spars and get up there and dance around a bit untill you
either
> fall off, get tired or break something. If you used T-88 glue or the
West
> System, I'll bet you get tired of dancing on the 2x4's before anything
> breaks! If you used Resorcinol Glue with unscoffed gussets, you then
now
> have a whole flock of ribs for decorating your Den walls! (I am still
> wrestleing with that .zip thing!)
> Earl Myers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard DeCosta
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Friday, February 05, 1999 8:50 PM
> Subject: Help... do I have a major problem?
>
>
> >I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
> >have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
> >ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
> >
> >I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
> >plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
> >water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
> >is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
> >book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
> >kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in
as
> >well either.
> >
> >Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
> >25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
> >scuffing?
> >
> >Concerned,
> >
> >Richard
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >==
> >http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
> >Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
> >http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
________________________________________________________________________________
Brent,
I can tell you first hand that redwood will not work. I am in the sign
business and use redwood almost exclusively. When I asked a EAA tech. advisor
about it's usage in aircraft, he said I might be able to use it for a rear
view mirror mount. (After he quit laughing.)
There are a recent series of good articles in Sport Aviation on alternative
woods, covering selection, properties,etc. Check it out.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Help... do I have a major problem? -Reply |
I used birch ply and Aerolite glue. Tested gussets both sanded and
unsanded. NO failures in any of the glue joints. I concur with most of
the
others, test a couple to destruction and get on with the rest of the
plane.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Richard DeCosta 02/05 7:51 pm >>>
I just got my copy of "Aircraft Building Techniques" from the EAA and
have read 3-4 chapters. I am now on rib #25, meaning I have done 24
ribs before reading the section of the book on plywood.
I am a little concerned now, as I have not "scuffed" or sanded my
plywood before gluing to the ribs as the book suggests. I did the
water test as described in the book, whereby one pice of scap plywood
is scuffed and the other is not, then water is placed on both. As the
book predicted the water soaked readily into the scuffed piece but
kindof beaded on the un-scuffed one, meaning glue would not soak in as
well either.
Is this a major factor in the strength of my ribs? Should I scap the
25 ribs I have built? or will they be strong enough without this
scuffing?
Concerned,
Richard
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id968
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ray Masters <masters(at)bleriot.cac.psu.edu> |
| Subject: | Model "A" Advice |
I recently acquired a Model "A" longblock in pretty good shape. I have a
machinist who's going to rebuild it, and while he's rebuilt many in the
past, this'll be the first one for an aeroplane. What are the critical
things I should be considering? Any general advice or recommendations?
Thanks in advance, Ray.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Warren Shoun <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model "A" Advice |
Ray,
You may enjoy going to
http://users.aol.com/BPANews/www.html
and reading all of the notes and articles about Ford motors there. Lots of
good information and links to other Ford information.
Good Luck,
Warren
Ray Masters wrote:
> I recently acquired a Model "A" longblock in pretty good shape. I have a
> machinist who's going to rebuild it, and while he's rebuilt many in the
> past, this'll be the first one for an aeroplane. What are the critical
> things I should be considering? Any general advice or recommendations?
> Thanks in advance, Ray.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Help... do I have a major problem? |
Sorry guys, but i feel I have to put my two cents worth in
on this, too. Richard, if you are to do destructive
testing, do it right and controlled. I like the idea of
placing them on mock spars. But the dancing on the 2x4, I
don't. You want to establish if the ribs will safely carry
the wing loads. The 2x4 does not spread the load, it
concentrates it. You need to determine the load strength of
the wing. I don't recall what the wing is rated for, I
think it is +4 g's -1g. You can find it on Grant's page.
Then establish the wing loading (lbs/sqft). Now line the
ribs on the mock spars and cover them. You can use an old
bed sheet and probably latex paint. This is not important,
as you are trying to establish a minimum (threshold)
number. After the test bed is stretched, load the panel
with bags of sand. The amount of weight you add is a simple
calculation. e.g. if the loading is 5 lb/sqft, stressed 4g+
1g- and you have a 20 sqft test area you load a minimum 400
lbs evenly across the surface. Actually you want to take it
beyond that. (You can keep adding weight till it fails and
then you know how well it is built). Another test you can
do is if you get to, say 500 lbs, remove the weight and flip
it over and try the other side. By all means, if it fails
prematurely, examine the pieces and identify the failure.
Now here is the kicker. If you look closely at the blue
prints, the ribs are designed to rest on the main spars,
the truss work on the ribs between the spars will make for a
very strong design. I would be curious where that rib
failed, but it may take a lot of sand. Piece of mind is
much better than pieces of debris on the ground. Remember,
you are going to bet your life on it.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
Appreciate a survey of those GN-1 owners, builders,
or those in the know. Would like to know what prop and
engine combination you are using or recommend.
Thanks in advance.
Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rib strength & testing |
I have actually run out of capstrip for the moment, having purchased
just enough the last time I ordered, but I do have 2 spare ribs I can
use for testing. Does anyone have a method for testing single ribs? or
two at a time? (can't do 4 just now).
Finishing rib #28 tomorrow!
RD
---Bill Talbert wrote:
>
> Sorry guys, but i feel I have to put my two cents worth in
> on this, too. Richard, if you are to do destructive
> testing, do it right and controlled. I like the idea of
> placing them on mock spars. But the dancing on the 2x4, I
> don't. You want to establish if the ribs will safely carry
> the wing loads. The 2x4 does not spread the load, it
> concentrates it. You need to determine the load strength of
> the wing. I don't recall what the wing is rated for, I
> think it is +4 g's -1g. You can find it on Grant's page.
> Then establish the wing loading (lbs/sqft). Now line the
> ribs on the mock spars and cover them. You can use an old
> bed sheet and probably latex paint. This is not important,
> as you are trying to establish a minimum (threshold)
> number. After the test bed is stretched, load the panel
> with bags of sand. The amount of weight you add is a simple
> calculation. e.g. if the loading is 5 lb/sqft, stressed 4g+
> 1g- and you have a 20 sqft test area you load a minimum 400
> lbs evenly across the surface. Actually you want to take it
> beyond that. (You can keep adding weight till it fails and
> then you know how well it is built). Another test you can
> do is if you get to, say 500 lbs, remove the weight and flip
> it over and try the other side. By all means, if it fails
> prematurely, examine the pieces and identify the failure.
> Now here is the kicker. If you look closely at the blue
> prints, the ribs are designed to rest on the main spars,
> the truss work on the ribs between the spars will make for a
> very strong design. I would be curious where that rib
> failed, but it may take a lot of sand. Piece of mind is
> much better than pieces of debris on the ground. Remember,
> you are going to bet your life on it.
>
>
==
http://www.wrld.com/w3builder
Now you can buy my CD at MP3.com:
http://db.mp3.com/Visitor/order.php3?cd_id=968
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model "A" Advice |
Ray,
I just found two (more) A's in Alabama I'm going to pick up next week. The
first two blocks I bought were no good, so I put the word out for "complete"
motors that were rebuildable.
Up to this point, I didn't pay much attention to tips I read on rebuilding,
but now, like you, I am all ears.
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Model "A" Advice |
Ray,
For the record, where are you located?
Ron E.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib strength & testing |
Richard,
You can use one or two. Although remember the larger your
sample the more accurate your test.. If you test one, you
will know the results for that one. If you test two and
there is not a significant deviation, you have a better
answer. Remember, you can do NDT ("non-destructive
testing", also known as "quality control") just by bringing
the weight up to minimum numbers (for instance the 400 lbs
in my example) once you have satisfied yourself it will
hold, stop. If it fails before you reach the minimum,
wouldn't you rather know that on the ground? Decide what
you want to know. If you want to know how much weight the
rib can withstand, you have to take it to failure. If you
want to know if you have a good glue joint, then take it to
the minimum weight (personally, I would take it to min +20%,
it is known as a safety factor). By the way make sure you
use gross weight and not dry. Also don't fudge the
numbers. If the expected gross weight is 857 pounds, use
857. don't say " 857, let's call it 900 to be safe" it
compounds the problem . because if you use 900 then add a
safety factor of 20% you are now 30% above. I cringe at
this but.... but. Write a procedure. determine what you
want to do and write it down and how you plan to accomplish
this. Then give it to an engineer type and ask them to
review it, see if they concur. (I hope none of you work
with me, I could never live this down, suggesting you write
a procedure). One last thing, you don't have to test every
rib. If you are satisfied after doing "x" number without a
failure, assume they are all of that quality. (assuming you
don't change the process, i.e.. different glue, scuffing vs
not, etc.) Good luck and great website
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Rib strength & testing |
Bill and Richard;
Bill, I appreciate your sensible advice. It is what this list should be
all about. The education and learning is as much fun as the flying. Well
almost. :-) Just a side note: We are allowed to build our own airplanes
here, in Canada, for the purposes of recreation and education.
Richard, the education is still going on, but the big question is are we
having fun yet? I'll bet that answer is yes. Knowing that as you are flying
your pretty bird with wings that are tested and true will be a comfortable
feeling. Recreating instead of worrying. I have built several parts over and
been happier with the second go around. It seemed tough at first but then
when I do fly it I'll be working on pilotage not worrying if the wings or
whatever are going to fall off.
If you do the NDT or decide to go all the way to failure, record the test
and let us know what happens.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Talbert <wtalbert(at)flash.net>
Date: Saturday, February 06, 1999 7:14 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib strength & testing
>Richard,
>You can use one or two. Although remember the larger your
>sample the more accurate your test.. If you test one, you
>will know the results for that one. If you test two and
>there is not a significant deviation, you have a better
>answer. Remember, you can do NDT ("non-destructive
>testing", also known as "quality control") just by bringing
>the weight up to minimum numbers (for instance the 400 lbs
>in my example) once you have satisfied yourself it will
>hold, stop. If it fails before you reach the minimum,
>wouldn't you rather know that on the ground? Decide what
>you want to know. If you want to know how much weight the
>rib can withstand, you have to take it to failure. If you
>want to know if you have a good glue joint, then take it to
>the minimum weight (personally, I would take it to min +20%,
>it is known as a safety factor). By the way make sure you
>use gross weight and not dry. Also don't fudge the
>numbers. If the expected gross weight is 857 pounds, use
>857. don't say " 857, let's call it 900 to be safe" it
>compounds the problem . because if you use 900 then add a
>safety factor of 20% you are now 30% above. I cringe at
>this but.... but. Write a procedure. determine what you
>want to do and write it down and how you plan to accomplish
>this. Then give it to an engineer type and ask them to
>review it, see if they concur. (I hope none of you work
>with me, I could never live this down, suggesting you write
>a procedure). One last thing, you don't have to test every
>rib. If you are satisfied after doing "x" number without a
>failure, assume they are all of that quality. (assuming you
>don't change the process, i.e.. different glue, scuffing vs
>not, etc.) Good luck and great website
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
Brent,
I think the question will raise a little dispute. The one answer you
received considering specific weight gives cause to ask, what is their
reference? The specific weight of redwood is less than that of Douglas
Fir if my Reference book is correct. That reference is attributed to
government data. I wish when people gave their answers they would give
numbers to support their thought and where those numbers came from.
Again, as far as the "statement" of the EAA tech, What is the reason
behind the opinion?
If a cubic foot of air dried spruce weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot of
air dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried Douglas
Fir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based on weight.
If the sheer strength of spruce is 1,000 lbs. and the sheer strength of
Douglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheer strength of redwood is 1100 lbs.
it cannot be that redwood in not strong enough.
Much redwood comes from older growth trees and have ring counts of 16
and better.
So, since the answer to the question of redwood was so obvious to the
EAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone please be specific as to the
reason redwood is unexceptable for the building of light aircraft?
I hope I am not the only one out here that doesn't want to accept an
answer just because somebody says that it is so. If I am just call me
mister skeptic.
Ron Gipson
Brent,
I think the question will raise a
little
dispute. The one answer you received considering specific weight
gives
cause to ask, what is their reference? The specific weight of
redwood is
less than that of Douglas Fir if my Reference book is correct.
That
reference is attributed to government data. I wish when people
gave their
answers they would give numbers to support their thought and where those
numbers
came from.
Again, as far as the
statement of
the EAA tech, What is the reason behind the opinion?
If a cubic foot of air dried spruce
weighs 26
lbs. and a cubic foot of air dried redwood weighs 26 lbs. and a cubic
foot of
air dried Douglas Fir weighs 34 lbs. the reason cannot be based on
weight.
If the sheer strength of spruce is
1,000 lbs.
and the sheer strength of Douglas fir is 1200 lbs. and the sheer
strength of
redwood is 1100 lbs. it cannot be that redwood in not strong
enough.
Much redwood comes from older growth trees and have
ring
counts of 16 and better.
So, since the answer to the question
of redwood
was so obvious to the EAA tech. as to make it a joke, can someone please
be
specific as to the reason redwood is unexceptable for the building of
light
aircraft?
I hope I am not the only one out
here that
January 09, 1999 - February 07, 1999
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-an