Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-bd
August 31, 1999 - September 08, 1999
1" x 1" x 5' 2 pieces
1" x 1" x 7' 1 piece
1" x 1" x 6' 1 piece
3/4" x 1" x 8' 4 pieces
3/4" x 1/2" x 5' 2 pieces
5/8" x 1 1/4" x 9' 1 piece
3/16" x 1/2" x 6' 7 pieces
3/16" x 1/2" x 4' 7 pieces
________________________________________________________________________________
Honestly I used some of both. For the ribs, I used what worked best to get
the most out of my board. Those that were to be bent I used the flat grain,
since like you said it bends easier.
Steve (Stainless control cable) E.
-----Original Message-----
Gipson
Sent: Monday, August 30, 1999 11:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cap Strips
Now that I have the shop and benches set up, tools in place and a nice pile
of 5/4 lumber, when I re-saw the lumber into cap strips do I want verticle
grain or flat grain showing on the 1/2" side? I seems to me that the
verticle grain would be stronger but the flat grain certainly bends nicer.
At least this question is one I know someone has a for sure answer.
Thnx
Ron Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clay Spurgeon <cspurgeon(at)baseballexp.com> |
got it.
Clay
> From: Steve Eldredge
> Subject: test only
> Reply-to: Pietenpol Discussion
>
>
Director of Marketing & Merchandising
Baseball Express, Inc.
210-348-7000 X4300
________________________________________________________________________________
Casein glue was used for years and has worked well in most applications.
It is however made from dairy products and is suseptible under extreme
conditions to being eaten by microbes. During WW II, a DeHaviland
Mosquito or two fell apart in the hot and very humid jungles of Borneo
because the glue had been eaten away. This is why resorcinal glue was
developed. There are much better glues than casein out there, but here in
North America there should be no difficulties with its service life under
normal conditions.
John Langston
writes:
>> I think Allen Rudoff's plane is put together with
>>casein glue. Its not hanging in a museum its flying.Ted.T
>>
>>
>>
>
>Point in favor, if the glue holds better than the breaking point of
>the
>wood and is waterproff (even with the "help" of the barnish) is a good
>glue.
>
>It is still possible to find Casein Glue? Will like to know if
>someone uses
>it for any project, even is its not an airplane...
>
>Saludos
>
>Gary Gower
>
__________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How heavy is too heavy?? |
I live in Pipe Creek, Texas - in the Texas Hill Country - and I don't
think you will have any problem. One of my partners is over two hundred
pounds and we plan to use a Model A. Our runway is 2100 ft at 1200 ft
MSL.
John Langston
writes:
>Hi all,
> I've been reading with great interest the posts from the past 4
>days, and
>learning a lot about this wonderful aircraft. But, I have a question
>for
>y'all (from Texas!) that I was wondering about:
>I weigh about 250 lbs, and that being the case, is it still advisable
>for me
>to entertain thoughts of building a Pietenpol? I was planning on
>using an
>A65 or even C85 for power, any advantage there?
> Am I dreaming the impossible dream, or could I pull it off with all
>that
>mass in the back? I have a Cessna Cardinal that is big and roomy, but
>I
>really have always wanted to build a wood and fabric plane, and the
>Pietenpol seemed like the right answer to me. Any hope, or am I doomed
>to
>spam cans?
>
__________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding limiting
direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight bend
radius
of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the plans.
I guess I need to do three things:
-Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in direction.
I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in order.
-Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the sizes of the
control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front seat.
(This is
not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my partner's
garage 30 miles away).
-Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>
> Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
> not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the brace
> cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a pulley
> should be galvanized.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Dozens.
I used SS throughout, and a 2 inch pulley. No problems in 160 hours. Good
things to add to my annual inpection however.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
William C. Beerman
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 11:42 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding
limiting
direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight
bend radius
of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the plans.
I guess I need to do three things:
-Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in
direction.
I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in
order.
-Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the sizes
of the
control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front
seat. (This is
not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my
partner's
garage 30 miles away).
-Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>
> Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
> not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the
brace
> cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a pulley
> should be galvanized.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
According to the Aeronautics Safety Code published by SAE in 1925, the
recommendation for control pulley size is "20 times the cable
diameter".
For 3/32 cable the pulley should be 1.875" and for 1/8 cable the
pulley should be 2.5".
Also, on the Pietenpol, the front pulley is on the centerline of the
torque tube and the control column connecting tube is offset to the
side of the control column so there won't be any interference even if
you use a 3" pulley.
Alternately, use a push/pull tube from the control column to the
elevator bellcrank. Will Graf did this, I elected to do this also. No
real reason to do this other than it cleans up the cockpit
(flightdeck?) nicely.
Later, Greg Cardinal
>>> "William C. Beerman" 08/31 11:42 AM >>>
That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog
regarding limiting
direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the
tight bend radius
of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
plans.
I guess I need to do three things:
-Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given
change in direction.
I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably
in order.
-Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
sizes of the
control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the
front seat. (This is
not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in
my partner's
garage 30 miles away).
-Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or
stainless.
Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>
> Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized
cable
> not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all
the brace
> cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
pulley
> should be galvanized.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
That's a roger. Your coming in load and clear. Over.
It's hard to remember how to use the radio properly when you only fly
airplanes with no radio or electric.
My 10 year old son and me have come up with a game. When we're traveling
somewhere in the car
we pretend we are in two airplanes, and have to communicate over radio. (of
course he wants to be military
aircraft in battle) It's fun and his favorite game. Keeps me current on
"radio talk". I've almost taught him
the military alphabet. We also play spell the sign in military call
alphabet.
GY
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Eldredge
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:43 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: test only
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Greg,
You're right, and this should have been obvious to me. Looks like 2" pulleys
in back, and 3" in front (or a push/pull tube). With all the little details
to concern oneself with, sometimes it's hard to see the forest for the trees.
I'll happily resume building now; thanks much for the help!
-Bill
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:12:51 -0600
> From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> According to the Aeronautics Safety Code published by SAE in 1925, the
> recommendation for control pulley size is "20 times the cable
> diameter".
> For 3/32 cable the pulley should be 1.875" and for 1/8 cable the
> pulley should be 2.5".
> Also, on the Pietenpol, the front pulley is on the centerline of the
> torque tube and the control column connecting tube is offset to the
> side of the control column so there won't be any interference even if
> you use a 3" pulley.
> Alternately, use a push/pull tube from the control column to the
> elevator bellcrank. Will Graf did this, I elected to do this also. No
> real reason to do this other than it cleans up the cockpit
> (flightdeck?) nicely.
>
> Later, Greg Cardinal
> >>> "William C. Beerman" 08/31 11:42 AM >>>
> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog
> regarding limiting
> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the
> tight bend radius
> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
> plans.
> I guess I need to do three things:
> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given
> change in direction.
> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably
> in order.
> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
> sizes of the
> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the
> front seat. (This is
> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in
> my partner's
> garage 30 miles away).
> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or
> stainless.
>
> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
>
> -Bill
>
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>
> >
> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized
> cable
> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all
> the brace
> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
> pulley
> > should be galvanized.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to 1) save
time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be able to flight
train effectively from the front seat anyway. Am I making a big mistake by
not extending the flight controls to the front seat? This would allow me to
use a 3 inch pulley in the front part of the control column.
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
> ----------
> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:42 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>
> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding limiting
> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight bend
radius
> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the plans.
> I guess I need to do three things:
> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in direction.
> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in order.
> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the sizes of
the
> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front seat.
(This is
> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my partner's
> garage 30 miles away).
> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
>
> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
>
> -Bill
>
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
> >
> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the brace
> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a pulley
> > should be galvanized.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | front seat controls |
Bart wrote:
>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat
<
I removed the front controls four years ago. Haven't missed them.
Mike B Piet N678MB ( Mr sam )
Bart wrote:
I'm thinking about not extending the
flight
controls to the front seat
I removed the front controls four years ago.
Haven't
missed them.
Mike B Piet N678MB ( Mr sam
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: front seat controls |
Only time I miss them is when I want to give the controls to another pilot
up front to let them demo the handling. I think I would put them in per
plans and have the option to remove them just like I have now if I were to
build another one.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
Brusilow
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 1:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: front seat controls
Bart wrote:
>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat <
I removed the front controls four years ago. Haven't missed them.
Mike B Piet N678MB ( Mr sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin(at)pop.wwa.com |
| Subject: | Interesting item on eBay web site item#152258603: Pietenpol |
Air C
I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading community,
and thought that you might be interested.
Title of item: Pietenpol Air Camper-39" Model Aircraft Plan
Seller: svnseas(at)earthlink.net
Price: Currently $8.00
To bid on the item, go to: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=152258603
Free Flight Scale model plans (not a kit)for .049 gas power. Designed by
Dave Haught. Blue print copy. Buyer to pay an additional 2.50 for shipping.
Money orders will ship next day, please allow 14 days for personal checks to
to Wiley Post. Please email me for an email list.
Visit eBay, the world's largest Personal Trading Community at http://www.ebay.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Steve wrote:
>. I think I would put them in per
plans and have the option to remove them just like I have now if I were
to
build another one. <
To clarify, my controls were in, I removed them because for me, they
served no useful purpose. I don't have instruments in the front panel.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Steve wrote:
. I think I would put them in perplans and have the
option to
remove them just like I have now if I were tobuild another
one.
To clarify, my controls were in, I removed them because for me,
they served
no useful purpose. I don't have instruments in the front panel.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Bart,
The way I see it is, you have to run the torque tube fwd anyway. It would
only save putting in the joy stick and push/pull tube.. Sooner or later
you'll want to let someone fly.
If you mean to teach from the front seat as a CFI, It's not legal to teach
in an experimental plane
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Conrad, Bart D
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be able
to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway. Am I making a big
mistake by not extending the flight controls to the front seat? This would
allow me to use a 3 inch pulley in the front part of the control column.
>Bart D Conrad
>Boeing Field Service
>DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
>Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
>Fax: 713-640-5891
>Pager: 713-318-1625
>
>> ----------
>> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:42 AM
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>>
>> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding
limiting
>> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight
bend radius
>> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
plans.
>> I guess I need to do three things:
>> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in
direction.
>> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in
order.
>> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
sizes of the
>> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front
seat. (This is
>> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my
partner's
>> garage 30 miles away).
>> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
>>
>> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
>> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> > MIME-version: 1.0
>> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>> > X-Listname:
>> >
>> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>> >
>> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
>> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
>> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the
brace
>> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
pulley
>> > should be galvanized.
>> >
>> > Mike C.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
I was thrown by that note in the catalog. I think what they're saying is
that no more than 15deg side to side offset where it leaves the pulley ( as
to rub sideways on the side webs). If you look at a cub cables where the
strut meets wing, it turns about a 90 deg. Or all wing cables on a piet.
They are talking about like where the cable comes off the upper and lower
aileron pulley on the Piet.,as the aileron makes full travel, the cable
doesn't exit the pulley perfectly perpendicular. Thats the 15 deg in
question.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Conrad, Bart D
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be able
to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway. Am I making a big
mistake by not extending the flight controls to the front seat? This would
allow me to use a 3 inch pulley in the front part of the control column.
>Bart D Conrad
>Boeing Field Service
>DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
>Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
>Fax: 713-640-5891
>Pager: 713-318-1625
>
>> ----------
>> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:42 AM
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>>
>> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding
limiting
>> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight
bend radius
>> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
plans.
>> I guess I need to do three things:
>> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in
direction.
>> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in
order.
>> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
sizes of the
>> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front
seat. (This is
>> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my
partner's
>> garage 30 miles away).
>> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
>>
>> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
>>
>> -Bill
>>
>> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
>> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> > MIME-version: 1.0
>> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>> > X-Listname:
>> >
>> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>> >
>> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
>> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
>> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the
brace
>> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
pulley
>> > should be galvanized.
>> >
>> > Mike C.
>> >
>> >
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Walt,
There is no restriction on teaching in an experimental airplane! The only
restriction is that you can't use the airplane for hire. I've had several
primary students that baught homebuilts and I gave them their instruction in
their airplane and charged them for it. Many people think that since you can't
rent the airplane out you can't use it for instruction, not so.
David
walter evans wrote:
> Bart,
> The way I see it is, you have to run the torque tube fwd anyway. It would
> only save putting in the joy stick and push/pull tube.. Sooner or later
> you'll want to let someone fly.
> If you mean to teach from the front seat as a CFI, It's not legal to teach
> in an experimental plane
> walt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Conrad, Bart D
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:27 PM
> Subject: RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>
> >I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
> 1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be able
> to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway. Am I making a big
> mistake by not extending the flight controls to the front seat? This would
> allow me to use a 3 inch pulley in the front part of the control column.
> >Bart D Conrad
> >Boeing Field Service
> >DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
> >Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
> >Fax: 713-640-5891
> >Pager: 713-318-1625
> >
> >> ----------
> >> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:42 AM
> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> >>
> >> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog regarding
> limiting
> >> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the tight
> bend radius
> >> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
> plans.
> >> I guess I need to do three things:
> >> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change in
> direction.
> >> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably in
> order.
> >> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
> sizes of the
> >> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the front
> seat. (This is
> >> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in my
> partner's
> >> garage 30 miles away).
> >> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or stainless.
> >>
> >> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
> >>
> >> -Bill
> >>
> >> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
> >> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> >> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
> >> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >> > MIME-version: 1.0
> >> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> >> > X-Listname:
> >> >
> >> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
> >> >
> >> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
> >> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized cable
> >> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all the
> brace
> >> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
> pulley
> >> > should be galvanized.
> >> >
> >> > Mike C.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
I am interested on feedback from all ayll that use weldwood glue in your
Piets/Greggas. How many of you do??
Thanks
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
By request, here's Lindy:
http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
===
http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
Richard,
Be sure to take the time to enjoy her every day. They
grow up fast. My boys are 6 and 10 and I really have a
hard time remembering them at that size.
Dave
>By request, here's Lindy:
>http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
>
>Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
>===
>http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
David,
Oh, I see, thats how it's written. I was told by a local female instructor
, who teaches with her planes. There was a chance for her to buy an
experimental plane. I mentioned that she could teach in it. Thats when she
told me, but I took it as not legal at all.
But still , Bart spoke of being 6'3" and him teaching from the front seat of
his plane, which , I guess, he still can't do.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: David B. Schober <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu>
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 5:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>Walt,
>There is no restriction on teaching in an experimental airplane! The only
>restriction is that you can't use the airplane for hire. I've had several
>primary students that baught homebuilts and I gave them their instruction
in
>their airplane and charged them for it. Many people think that since you
can't
>rent the airplane out you can't use it for instruction, not so.
>David
>
>walter evans wrote:
>
>> Bart,
>> The way I see it is, you have to run the torque tube fwd anyway. It
would
>> only save putting in the joy stick and push/pull tube.. Sooner or later
>> you'll want to let someone fly.
>> If you mean to teach from the front seat as a CFI, It's not legal to
teach
>> in an experimental plane
>> walt
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Conrad, Bart D
>> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:27 PM
>> Subject: RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>>
>> >I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat
to
>> 1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be
able
>> to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway. Am I making a
big
>> mistake by not extending the flight controls to the front seat? This
would
>> allow me to use a 3 inch pulley in the front part of the control column.
>> >Bart D Conrad
>> >Boeing Field Service
>> >DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
>> >Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
>> >Fax: 713-640-5891
>> >Pager: 713-318-1625
>> >
>> >> ----------
>> >> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 10:42 AM
>> >> To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> >> Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>> >>
>> >> That being said, I too have seen the note in the ASSCO catalog
regarding
>> limiting
>> >> direction change to 15 degrees, and have become concerned about the
tight
>> bend radius
>> >> of the front elevator control cable around the 2" pulley shown in the
>> plans.
>> >> I guess I need to do three things:
>> >> -Reread AC43-13 to see what bend radius is required for a given change
in
>> direction.
>> >> I looked once and didn't find it; a less cursory reading is probably
in
>> order.
>> >> -Assemble the torque tube into our fuselage to see if increasing the
>> sizes of the
>> >> control pulleys to 3" is achievable given the clearance under the
front
>> seat. (This is
>> >> not as easy as it sounds, since the fuselage is actually sitting in
my
>> partner's
>> >> garage 30 miles away).
>> >> -Check our control cables to see if we ordered galvanized or
stainless.
>> >>
>> >> Surely there's someone that's been through this before?....
>> >>
>> >> -Bill
>> >>
>> >> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 10:54:56 -0400
>> >> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>> >> > Subject: Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
>> >> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
>> >> > MIME-version: 1.0
>> >> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
>> >> > X-Listname:
>> >> >
>> >> > >I am getting ready to order the materials for the control column.
>> >> >
>> >> > Bart- Many guys have used the pulley sizes spec'd out on the
>> >> > Piet plans with no problems......but one tip here: use galvanized
cable
>> >> > not stainless. The wise older IA who runs our airport told me all
the
>> brace
>> >> > cables can be stainless but anything that will move or go round a
>> pulley
>> >> > should be galvanized.
>> >> >
>> >> > Mike C.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
Richard,
Beautiful...... congratulations to you and mom.
She has the keen eye of a future aviator.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard DeCosta
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 6:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baby picture
>By request, here's Lindy:
>http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
>
>Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
>===
>http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
Nice Picture, Nice Baby, Long Name, build her one of them Petal Airplanes
you see listed in Mag but make it look like a Piet.
New computer finally came, I can listen to radio shows, download pictures
and do mail all at the same time. Should hear the traffic at DFW this time
of day.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 3:51 PM
> By request, here's Lindy:
> http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
>
> Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
> ===
> http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
Richard,
It doesn't get any sweeter... Enjoy. They grow up soooo fast.
Mark Boynton
> By request, here's Lindy:
> http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
>
> Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
> ===
> http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
>
_______
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig L.Hanson" <chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12 guage
metal. It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong. I am
assuming that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the size
that others have used?
Craig Hanson from North Dakota
Craig & Shari Hanson
In the plans it says that the metal fittings should
be made of
12 guage metal. It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I
reading this
wrong. I am assuming that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this
correct and is
this the size that others have used?
Craig Hanson from North Dakota
Craig Shari Hanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Copinfo <Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com> |
Bart, put the front stick in. You'll take people up eventually and they
want to fly a little. It'll make it more fun for those passengers.
Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.Com
Tim Cunningham
Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
-
>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be able
to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
Going from memory, and not having the plans in front of me, I think the plans call
for 13 ga. on the hinges, control stick lugs, etc., which is about 0.090". It
sure looks about right to me...
> Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:31:21 -0500
> From: "Craig L.Hanson" <chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com>
> Subject: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12 guage metal.
It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong. I am assuming that
12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the size that others have
used?
>
> Craig Hanson from North Dakota
> Craig & Shari Hanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium sheet.
This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall, just
under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the wind out.
What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my a/c
spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my same
local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
Craig;
I used .i to .125 when 12ga. was called for depending on where it was
used.....
earl myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Craig L.Hanson <chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 8:40 PM
Subject: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12
guage metal. It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong.
I am assuming that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the
size that others have used?
Craig Hanson from North Dakota
Craig & Shari Hanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
The front stick is great when you take someone with you on cross country
excursions. The "auto pilot" in the front seat can hold the heading while
you take a break, dead reckon or try to refold the map with out loosing it.
I intend to make my front controls removeable for hopping rides with
nonpilots and to be sure my baggage doesn't foul the controls when I use it
for an Air Camper.
John Mc
>Bart, put the front stick in. You'll take people up eventually and they
>want to fly a little. It'll make it more fun for those passengers.
>
>Tim Cunningham
>Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
>-
>
>>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
>1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be
able
>to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com> |
Steve E.
With your answer regarding the cap strips the saw is going to be humming
and the chips flying. Found a batch of Douglas Fir with between 18 and
22 rings to the inch. Bought a bunch of it. Since I am going to be
hanging a little more power under the cowel the additional weight isn't
going to matter.
Thanks for the quick response,
Ron Gipson
Steve E.
With your answer regarding the cap strips the saw is going to be
humming
and the chips flying. Found a batch of Douglas Fir with between 18
and 22
rings to the inch. Bought a bunch of it. Since I am going to
be
hanging a little more power under the cowel the additional weight isn't
going to
matter.
Thanks for the quick response,
Ron Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Don't say that!!! |
In a message dated 8/31/99 11:51:18 PM Central Daylight Time,
ronr(at)onlinemac.com writes:
<< Found a batch of Douglas Fir with between 18 and 22 rings to the inch.
Bought a bunch of it. Since I am going to be hanging a little more power
under the cowel the additional weight isn't going to matter. >>
Ron,
I think Douglas Fir is a fine choice for for rib capstrip material.
However, I have to say...I kind of cringe when I hear anyone adopt the notion
that a little additional weight here or there will be ok since you'll have a
little more power. I am a strong believer in the philosophy that weight
should one of the foremost considerations in every component that goes into
an airplane. You may be talking just a few ounces here and a few there..and
before you blink you've got 16 ounces..then..more and more. I look at it as
though there will come a day when I want to get out of a certain airport and
I will appreciate the few pounds that I saved in the construction of the
plane. One of those days when its hot, perhaps I over ate for lunch, and my
passenger just bought some airplane part he couldn't do without to carry
home. It is on those days that you suddenly rethink your confidence in your
extra horsepower as the pine trees are looming taller and taller as you
approach them in ground effect. Sorry...don't mean to preach to the choir.
As for Douglas Fir for capstrip material, I have some data to pass on and
I have an opinion to pass along for what it is worth.
First, the data....you should expect a Douglas Fir rib to weigh in the
neighborhood of 11 or 12 ounces. I have a Douglas Fir rib that I built as a
"first-off" part when I made my rib jig. It is strictly dimensioned to the
plans in the 1932 flying and Glider Manual. Recently I compared it with one
of Chuck Gantzer's Red Cedar ribs and found mine to be almost 4.5 ounces
heavier. His cedar ribs all averaged around 7.8 ounces or so. So the bottom
line is...the difference in a wing with Douglas Fir ribs and an identical one
with cedar ribs comes out to about 8.5 pounds.
Now for my opinion. Red Cedar or Spruce is the way to go with Ribs. I
have chosen to go with Cedar after reading what others have posted about it
and after seeing Chuck G's wing. I have always felt that the 1/4 X 1/2
cross section for rib capstrips and bracing is a little on the
over-engineered side. Thats not based on anything more than a feeling I get
when I look at the Pietenpol wing as compared to various other wings of
bigger and faster type certified airplanes (like wacos etc..) which have much
smaller rib material cross-section. The Cedar isn't quite as strong as
Spruce, but is just about the same weight. The sacrifice in strength to me
is justified as I feel the ribs are over-designed to start with. And the
much lower cost of the cedar really makes it the best choice in my opinion.
I recently bought eight 2" X 4" X 12' boards for just under $50. This is
enough material to make 2 shipsets of ribs. I hand selected these from a
local Lumber supply place thats having a going out of business sale. Many of
the boards I rejected were knotty...but with some diligent searching I was
able locate some beautiful boards cut in the right direction with nice
straight vertical grain.
For some further data on the strength of the Western Red Cedar
ribs...refer below to a previous email post by Mike Cushway from a few weeks
back. Anyway..thats all I have for now.
Keep it light!!!!
Terry "always has an opinion" Bowden
Subj: Re: RIB TESTING RESULTS
Date: 8/21/99 5:07:52 PM Central Daylight Time
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote:
Is there anyone here that can tell me where I can buy some of this
western red cedar?? I live in Mississippi so I am looking near here or
how can I order some and NOT break the home bank.
Steve
writes:
> Group,
> I , like many of you, have been searching for an alternative to
> Sitka for use on the Pietenpol. I have been intrigued
> by Western Red Cedar ever since seeing some exceptional 4x4's at a
> local
> lumber co. The grade was called "ornamental/
> deck" and the grading gave me goose bumps. One of the 8 footers had
> perfectly vertical grain the full 8ft. When I ripped
> it the kerf followed the same growth ring nearly full length. I have
> tried with no success to get more detailed comparative info. from
> Forest
> Products Laboratory in Madison, WI. Not to be discouraged, I built a
> rib
> using the WRC, 1/16GL-2 3ply and
> T88. Using the guidelines suggested in AirCamper.org/info/tips and
> tricks/testing rib strength, I built a test jig that uses
> controlled spring force vs. bulk weight. I applied the force at the
> incremental spacing listed. I was very pleased to see
> the 204# load with no ill effects. I continued to load in 1.4#
> increments until I ran out of spring travel, at which point
> the rib sustained a 358# load! I would be interested in hearing from
> those of you have have tested ANY ribs and what
> pitfalls I might face with using the WRC for ribs. By the way a
> 4x4x8ft.
> "post" was $20. Two of them will make 90 cap
> strips.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Steve,
Yes, but most of those hours were "Interstate" miles. (smile) Probably a
lot less wear and tear (except on your rear).
Ted
BTW, great write up of the trip. I was reading parst of it yesterday and it
brought back a flood of good memories.
>Dozens.
>
>I used SS throughout, and a 2 inch pulley. No problems in 160 hours. Good
>things to add to my annual inpection however.
>
>Steve e.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
12 Gauge is .105 inch according to the chart I have gotten of the internet. Seems
like it varies from chart to chart by a few thousandths. AS & S has .100
inch available. I used whatever the plans called for, and went with whatever
came closest to the gauge thickness.
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
> ----------
> From: William C. Beerman[SMTP:wcb(at)bbt.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 5:56 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
>
> Going from memory, and not having the plans in front of me, I think the plans
call
> for 13 ga. on the hinges, control stick lugs, etc., which is about 0.090". It
> sure looks about right to me...
>
> > Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:31:21 -0500
> > From: "Craig L.Hanson" <chanson(at)polar.polarcomm.com>
> > Subject: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > MIME-version: 1.0
> > Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> > X-Listname:
> >
> > In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12 guage metal.
It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong. I am assuming
that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the size that others have
used?
> >
> > Craig Hanson from North Dakota
> > Craig & Shari Hanson
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
I used .090 on mine and I feel this is PLENTY strong enough.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Craig L.Hanson" 08/31 6:31 PM >>>
In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12 guage
metal. It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong. I am
assuming that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the size
that others have used?
Craig Hanson from North Dakota
Craig & Shari Hanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
I dont think it's the strength they are after as much as the hardness.
2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far more resistant to
denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line boy drops the fuel
nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however, I'm pretty sure that
they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check tonight for you.
You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or is this an orphanned
design.
Ken.
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
> I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium sheet.
>
> This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall, just
> under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the wind out.
>
> What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my a/c
> spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
>
> Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
>
> I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my same
> local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
>
> Bob
>
>
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
As long as there is no stress/load/primary structure depending on your cover,
I don't see any problem with going with 5052. Just remember the above
caveat. I know of a couple of WW II fighters that were skinned in condition
"O" (dead soft). The reasoning was that if/when a bullet went through, no
stress areas were developed around the hole, hence no cracking. A quick
patch of tape, and off they went again. When time/circumstances allowed, the
perforated plate was replaced or repaired. If you look closely at a WW II
Spitfire, you will find that the fairings are attached with wood screws, into
a backing bar of that genuine renewable resource, wood.
Airplane people are not only dreamers, they're downright resourceful!
Ed
"I don't suffer from insanity...I enjoy every minute!"
________________________________________________________________________________
I used to say that a little extra weight wouldn't hurt anything, and all of a
sudden I had outgrown my blinkin' pants! If you've ever priced "fat boy"
pants, you'll see how it hurts(Besides looking bad, unhealthy, and
uncomfortable, that is) Save all the weight you can safely save on your
airframe, and don't rely on brute force to get you around the sky. Since
weight translates into power required, it'll also save you money on fuel.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
Thanks Ted,
Interstate miles, Well mostly, except when I got bored and did a few miles
inverted, then knife edge, and some hammerheads, and rolling 360's.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
Brousseau
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 6:27 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S
Steve,
Yes, but most of those hours were "Interstate" miles. (smile) Probably a
lot less wear and tear (except on your rear).
Ted
BTW, great write up of the trip. I was reading parst of it yesterday and it
brought back a flood of good memories.
>Dozens.
>
>I used SS throughout, and a 2 inch pulley. No problems in 160 hours. Good
>things to add to my annual inpection however.
>
>Steve e.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys |
First off, the next time you go out to the strip, look at the nearest J3.
The aileron cables go up the front strut, do a (about) 285 degree turn, and
then disappear into the wing. Somebody never told Mr. Taylor not to change
directions. Also, I cringe when somebody says to use galvanized cable
instead of SS. If you've never seen a cable rust, you're missing a real
sight. It gets rusty in the middle first, from my experience, and by the
time you find it the cable is so BRITTLE it almost separates in your hands.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Baby picture |
Nice shot Richard. What a cutie!
Stevee.
-----Original Message-----
Richard DeCosta
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 4:52 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baby picture
By request, here's Lindy:
http://www.aircamper.org/lindy.jpg
Richard "Proud Papa" DeCosta
===
http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
what are the pros and cons or criteria for building
the long fuse verses the short. Is william wynn from
florida a good source for corvair conversions? his
web page has some very interesting facts.
www.omnispace.com/corvair/infopack.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randall Reihing <rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting item on eBay web site item#152258603: |
Pietenpol A
Hi, can you e-mail me a list of the plans that are available? thanks,
Randall R eihing
>I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading
community, and thought that you might be interested.
>
>Title of item: Pietenpol Air Camper-39" Model Aircraft Plan
>Seller: svnseas(at)earthlink.net
>Price: Currently $8.00
>To bid on the item, go to:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=152258603
>
>
> Free Flight Scale model plans (not a kit)for .049 gas power. Designed
by
Dave Haught. Blue print copy. Buyer to pay an additional 2.50 for
shipping. Money orders will ship next day, please allow 14 days for
aircraft plans, Aeromarine to Wiley Post. Please email me for an email list.
>
> Visit eBay, the world's largest Personal Trading Community at
http://www.ebay.com
>
>
Randall Reihing
University of Toledo
College of Engineering
MIME Department
419-530-8244
FAX: 419-530-8206
E-Mail: rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
Weight also shifts all your performance over so you will have higher stall
speeds, higher sink rates, higher Vx, higher Vy . . .
Ed0248(at)aol.com wrote:
> I used to say that a little extra weight wouldn't hurt anything, and all of a
> sudden I had outgrown my blinkin' pants! If you've ever priced "fat boy"
> pants, you'll see how it hurts(Besides looking bad, unhealthy, and
> uncomfortable, that is) Save all the weight you can safely save on your
> airframe, and don't rely on brute force to get you around the sky. Since
> weight translates into power required, it'll also save you money on fuel.
>
> Ed
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Low and Slow ....over town? |
I have to agree here. the glide ratio is nill. I fly my patterns in most
aircraft so that if I lose my engine I can glide to the runway, and in the
piet, I cross the threshold at 500'. :)
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
Brousseau
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 1999 8:09 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Low and Slow ....over town?
Glide ratio? Didn't know it had one. Mine is more like a fall ratio. I
would guess maybe 2:1 on a good day. Depends on how hard you want to hit
the ground when you get there.
Ted B
>Would anyone care to estimate the glide ratio of a Piet?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
I thought the same thing about an ultralight I used to have. A buddy of
mine had the same plane except his was trimmed for
weight. Only the bare essentials for his. His plane always
outperformed mine with the same engine. I thought it was because my
engine wasn't running well. After much work and testing it turned out to
be completely related to wing loading.
We had the same wings but mine were loaded heavier than his. After that
I just took the notion I had to be satisfied with
what I had. Until I had to make a forced no power landing. I almost
didn't make the flat spot in a pasture.
We did some tests and found that he could go almost 25% farther on a
dead stick at a given altitude than my plane.
Now I give weight a little more thought.
Greg Yotz
-----Original Message-----
From: Ron Gipson <ronr(at)onlinemac.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 11:27 PM
Steve E.
With your answer regarding the cap strips the saw is going to be
humming and the chips flying. Found a batch of Douglas Fir with between
18 and 22 rings to the inch. Bought a bunch of it. Since I am going to
be hanging a little more power under the cowel the additional weight
isn't going to matter.
Thanks for the quick response,
Ron Gipson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Burroughs <glenn(at)sysweb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Builder's manual |
>Ted, I found the Builders Manual a good deal. There are chapters from
>Modern Mechanics magazine written by Bernard, also 3 chapters on coverting
>the Ford A. Also chapters on building the Sky Scout- it was in this chapter
>I found a great step-by-step recommendation on how to put the fuselage sides
>and bottom together. The last 15 pages are builders hints. In addition
>there is a color photograph of Bernard, and the manual is personalized to
>the purchaser and signed by Don Pietenpol. It is worth it just from the
>history it contains.
Is this the manual that Don Pietenpol sells for $27 including shipping?
Thanks, Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John R Bayer <jrbayer2(at)juno.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting item on eBay web site item#152258603: |
Pietenpol A
Anything on the NC-4?
John B
>I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading
>community, and thought that you might be interested.
>
>Title of item: Pietenpol Air Camper-39" Model Aircraft Plan
>Seller: svnseas(at)earthlink.net
>Price: Currently $8.00
>To bid on the item, go
>to: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=152258603
>
>
> Free Flight Scale model plans (not a kit)for .049 gas power.
>Designed by Dave Haught. Blue print copy. Buyer to pay an additional
>2.50 for shipping. Money orders will ship next day, please allow 14
>scale model aircraft plans, Aeromarine to Wiley Post. Please email me
>for an email list.
>
> Visit eBay, the world's largest Personal Trading Community at
>http://www.ebay.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
EAA AIRVENTURE '99 TV SPECIAL TO AIR SEPT. 15-19 ON
have ended
event on the
to the hour-long
action that make
AirVenture Oshkosh 1999
slightly over a
some fast work by
said Scott Guyette,
with our in-house
crews shot miles of
art equipment,
ultimate insider's
include:
Camper
Patrick and features
specials have aired
will air exclusively
systems throughout
at Satcom C4,
be available for
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Interesting item on eBay web site item#152258603: |
Pietenpol A
you'll have to go into e-bay to get that info---subject "aircraft" or "aviation"
JoeC
Randall Reihing wrote:
> Hi, can you e-mail me a list of the plans that are available? thanks,
> Randall R eihing
>
> >I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading
> community, and thought that you might be interested.
> >
> >Title of item: Pietenpol Air Camper-39" Model Aircraft Plan
> >Seller: svnseas(at)earthlink.net
> >Price: Currently $8.00
> >To bid on the item, go to:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=152258603
> >
> >
> >Item Description:
> > Free Flight Scale model plans (not a kit)for .049 gas power. Designed
by
> Dave Haught. Blue print copy. Buyer to pay an additional 2.50 for
> shipping. Money orders will ship next day, please allow 14 days for
> aircraft plans, Aeromarine to Wiley Post. Please email me for an email list.
> >
> > Visit eBay, the world's largest Personal Trading Community at
> http://www.ebay.com
> >
> >
> Randall Reihing
> University of Toledo
> College of Engineering
> MIME Department
> 419-530-8244
> FAX: 419-530-8206
> E-Mail: rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu
you'll have to go into e-bay to get that info---subject "aircraft" or "aviation"
JoeC
Randall Reihing wrote:
Hi, can you e-mail me a list of the plans that are
available? thanks,
Randall R eihing
>I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading
community, and thought that you might be interested.
>
>Title of item: Pietenpol Air Camper-39" Model Aircraft Plan
>Seller: svnseas(at)earthlink.net
>Starts: 08/24/99, 15:09:30
PDT
>Price: Currently $8.00
>To bid on the item, go to:
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItemitem=152258603
>
>
>Item Description:
> Free Flight Scale model plans
(not a kit)for .049 gas power. Designed by
Dave Haught. Blue print copy. Buyer to pay an additional 2.50
for
shipping. Money orders will ship next day, please allow 14 days
for
model
aircraft plans, Aeromarine to Wiley Post. Please email me for an email
list.
>
> Visit eBay, the world's largest
Personal Trading Community at
http://www.ebay.com
>
>
Randall Reihing
University of Toledo
College of Engineering
MIME Department
419-530-8244
FAX: 419-530-8206
E-Mail: rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chad Johnson <cjohnson(at)jayhawkpl.com> |
Greg, have you been getting my emails? CJ
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz [SMTP:gyachts(at)kans.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 11:06 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re:
I thought the same thing about an ultralight I used to have. A buddy of
mine had the same plane except his was trimmed for
weight. Only the bare essentials for his. His plane always
outperformed mine with the same engine. I thought it was because my
engine wasn't running well. After much work and testing it turned out to
be completely related to wing loading.
We had the same wings but mine were loaded heavier than his. After that
I just took the notion I had to be satisfied with
what I had. Until I had to make a forced no power landing. I almost
didn't make the flat spot in a pasture.
We did some tests and found that he could go almost 25% farther on a
dead stick at a given altitude than my plane.
Now I give weight a little more thought.
Greg Yotz
-----Original Message-----
From: Replicraft(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 15:46:12 -0400 (EDT)
Craig-
There is a chart somewhere in the world that converts guage to decimal.
The material thickness for our wing fittings are as follows:
Outer strut and cabane attach- .090 4130
Drag wire attach- .065" 4130
Pulley assembly- .065" 4130
Steve
Replicraft Aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
There are several charts to convert gage to decimal thickness for sheet
steel. It is not real clear which chart should be consulted. To add
further confusion, if you look through any supply catalog such as
Dillsburg, Wicks or Aircraft Spruce, you will find that available
thicknesses of steel do not follow ANY gage to decimal chart.
So, I made up my own:
>>> 09/01 1:46 PM >>>
Craig-
There is a chart somewhere in the world that converts guage to decimal.
The material thickness for our wing fittings are as follows:
Outer strut and cabane attach- .090 4130
Drag wire attach- .065" 4130
Pulley assembly- .065" 4130
Steve
Replicraft Aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
The original prints were calling out 1010( I think) steel which is not as
strong as 4130. In the newer three piece wing print, which calls out 4130 ,
call out .080"
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:13 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg.
I used .090 on mine and I feel this is PLENTY strong enough.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Craig L.Hanson" 08/31 6:31 PM >>>
In the plans it says that the metal fittings should be made of 12 guage
metal. It seems that it is quite heavy. Am I reading this wrong. I am
assuming that 12 guage is .100 ". Is this correct and is this the size that
others have used?
Craig Hanson from North Dakota
Craig & Shari Hanson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
Page 362 Machinery's Handbook 24th edition has the chart for sheet metal
gages. For steel
10 gage .1345
11 gage .1196
12 gage .1046
13 gage .0897
14 gage .0747
15 gage .0673
16 gage .0598
17 gage .0538
18 gage .0478
19 gage .0418
20 gage .0359
21 gage .0329
22 gage .0299
If you are using galvanized (firewall), the decimal equivelant is
different.
Replicraft(at)aol.com wrote:
> Craig-
> There is a chart somewhere in the world that converts guage to decimal.
> The material thickness for our wing fittings are as follows:
>
> Outer strut and cabane attach- .090 4130
> Drag wire attach- .065" 4130
> Pulley assembly- .065" 4130
>
> Steve
> Replicraft Aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Covering Systems |
I know we've discussed this here before but I thought maybe some of you
have some new experiences to share.
I was wondering what covering systems everyone is using? I'm getting
ready to help a friend start to cover and he asked
me where to get the covering. I of course said, "From a aircraft
covering supplier." He didn't seem to be impressed with
my vast knowledge of aircraft covering. So I thought I might become
enlightened from the group.
Greg Yotz
I know we've discussed this here
before but I
thought maybe some of you have some new experiences to
share.
I was wondering what covering
systems everyone
is using? I'm getting ready to help a friend start to cover and he
asked
me where to get the covering.
I of course
said, From a aircraft covering supplier. He didn't
seem to be
impressed with
my vast knowledge of aircraft
covering. So
I thought I might become enlightened from the group.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed0248(at)aol.com <Ed0248(at)aol.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 9:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re:
>I used to say that a little extra weight wouldn't hurt anything,
The last page of the "Cozy" plans ststes that if you want to add anything to
the plans, " Throw it up into the air. If it comes back down don't put it in
the aircraft!"
I once saw a comparison of Pietenpols, (in one of the BPA Newsletters I
think,) that stated the engines weights and performances of about six
different aircraft, both Ford and other powerplants. The Ford powered Piets
were lighter! I expect the builders with more power figured they could get
away with it while the Ford powered guy's were weight consious.
The lighter the aircraft is the more you can afford to weigh. (I seem to be
stuck at 190.) The lighter the aircraft is at gross weight the less the wing
has to lift and the less overall drag is created. I know Piets are draggy
but every little bit adds up. I suggest that we all build as well as we can
and the weighty ones among us should be looking at the lighter stronger
methods of building the airframe regardless of available power.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
>The front stick is great when you take someone with you on cross country
>excursions. The "auto pilot" in the front seat can hold the heading while
>you take a break, dead reckon or try to refold the map with out loosing it.
>
>I intend to make my front controls removeable for hopping rides with
>nonpilots and to be sure my baggage doesn't foul the controls when I use it
>for an Air Camper.
>
>John Mc
>
>
>>Bart, put the front stick in. You'll take people up eventually and they
>>want to fly a little. It'll make it more fun for those passengers.
>>
>>Tim Cunningham
>>Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
>>-
>>
>>>I'm thinking about not extending the flight controls to the front seat to
>>1) save time and money and 2) because being 6'3"" probably would not be
>able
>>to flight train effectively from the front seat anyway.
>>
A very interesting "foldable" pedals, are the ones in The Tailwind
(passenger side), they rest flat in the floor when not used, also with a
removable front stick with a quick pin it will be great... mainly to put
camping gear in front without danger of jamming the controls.
If there is someone near you building a Wittman Tailwind, take a look at the
page of the pedals, it might work for you.
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Builder's manual |
Glenn- Yes, it is. And he signs and numbers each copy and personlizes it
to you,
Al Swanson
>>Ted, I found the Builders Manual a good deal. There are chapters from
>>Modern Mechanics magazine written by Bernard, also 3 chapters on coverting
>>the Ford A. Also chapters on building the Sky Scout- it was in this chapter
>>I found a great step-by-step recommendation on how to put the fuselage sides
>>and bottom together. The last 15 pages are builders hints. In addition
>>there is a color photograph of Bernard, and the manual is personalized to
>>the purchaser and signed by Don Pietenpol. It is worth it just from the
>>history it contains.
>
>Is this the manual that Don Pietenpol sells for $27 including shipping?
>
>Thanks, Glenn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Don't say that!!! |
Ron,
I'll second the vote to keep it as light as possible, for the same reasons as
Terry mentioned...the wing is over designed, and lighter wood will certainly
pay dividends. I don't measure weight in ounces...I measure it in grams !!
A couple of other weight saving things I've done are rounding the sharp
corners of every stick in the wing (saved about 10 grams), and I scaluped all
the gussets (saved over 3 ounces here), and as for all the hardware, I used
lengths that showed 2 threads and no more. Also, I weighed each completed
rib, and located the densest ones closest to the center of the wing, and
progressivly lighter toward the tips. It's important (when possible) to
locate mass as close as possible to the centerline, to aid in handling
characteristics. Think about it...a baton twirler throws her baton up in the
air at a givin rpm, and as a result of Newton's law, it's spinning at almost
the same rpm when she catches it. This occurs because the mass is at the
tips. Well, that's my two cents worth.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
Hay Ken,
Yes I would like to know what you are using on that cowling. As for my
airplane.."an orphaned design" One could just about call it that. The plans
were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have written 3 letters for
help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce, but no help.
The project is comming along well however.
Bob
>From: Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
>Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600 (MDT)
>
>I dont think it's the strength they are after as much as the hardness.
>2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far more resistant to
>denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line boy drops the fuel
>nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however, I'm pretty sure that
>they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check tonight for you.
>You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
>
>Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or is this an orphanned
>design.
>
>Ken.
>
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
>
> > I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium sheet.
> >
> > This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall, just
> > under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the wind
>out.
> >
> > What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my
>a/c
> > spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
> >
> > Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
> >
> > I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my same
> > local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
><http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind of
performance?
Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum available and
what are the sources? I've head of the following:
Builders Manual
Building video
1932 Flying and glider manual
Long fuselage
3 piece wing
Steel fuselage
Corvair engine
Entry Door
Hinged wing section for easy entry
Any others you guy know about?
Do you know sources for the above?
Which of these have worked well or not so well?
Thank you,
Marc Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi all!
Well, I've gone through all the messtages that everyone was so kind to
send me, and I think I'm almost ready to proceed with the project!
I'm about to move into a new home in a couple of weeks, but it has a nice
big garage that looks perfect to build a plane in. I think I'll do a little
work in it to get it ready, I think a nice sturdy workbench, some good
lighting, I may also put in a small window-unit air conditioner! I don't
think I'll have any problems with the weight, and I think I've changed my
mind on the powerplant from using an A65 or C85 over to using the Corvair
engine. I studied the Corvair conversion some and it really looks very safe,
light and powerful. I do like the sound of the old Ford "A", but that extra
power would be sooo nice!
Thanks again to everyone for the advice and encouragement, I think I may
order my plans and get to studying them during lulls in the
move/paint/paper/decorate process. There were a lot of great suggestions
thrown out by several folks that I may want to incorporate into my plane.
Tailwinds & wide grass runways to you all!
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kyle ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
Yes there are four different polyurethane glues tested in one
of the experimenters, there doesn't seem to be any thing wrong
with the glue, however it doesn't quite stand up to resorcinol in these
test, just call the EAA and order the issue with the test comparison.
Also don't repeat me on this but I think Roger Mann is using
this type glue in his ultra light (polyurethane no brand name) designs such
as the ultra Piet.
I choose epoxy because a fellow EAA member uses it and
I'm impressed with his own mixed breed design.
Russell
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 1999 8:48 PM
> Russell,
>
> Have you researched the Titebond Polyurethane glue which is listed as
being
> waterproof? You can go to their website and find some info on it - but it
> doesn't
> say how it compares to Titebond II strengthwise. It does claim, however,
that
> it
> is "twice as thick as other polyurethanes" and is "unaffected by
finishes."
> Good
> luck on your Piet.
>
> Jim
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
looking for the pros and cons or criteria in chosing
between the long fuse or short. Is William wynn from
florida a good source for corvair engines and tech
advice?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
I used Poly Fiber ( Stits) for my first one , it's great,easy, and I'll
use it on my Aircamper.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 5:04 PM
Subject: Covering Systems
I know we've discussed this here before but I thought maybe some of
you have some new experiences to share.
I was wondering what covering systems everyone is using? I'm
getting ready to help a friend start to cover and he asked
me where to get the covering. I of course said, "From a aircraft
covering supplier." He didn't seem to be impressed with
my vast knowledge of aircraft covering. So I thought I might become
enlightened from the group.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | the poop on airspaces |
Ran accross this in my files, that I had scanned from the Ultralight
News. Interesting reading and refference.
posted it under "airspace"
http://www.aircamper.org/users/wevans/Airspace.jpg
walt
Ran accross this in my files, that I
had scanned
from the Ultralight News. Interesting reading and
refference.
posted it under
airspace
href"http://www.aircamper.org/users/wevans/Airspace.jpg">http://www.ai=
rcamper.org/users/wevans/Airspace.jpg
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Bell <mbell(at)sctcorp.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Don't say that!!! |
Did you consider lightening the last 25% of the spar on either
side? The outboard ends carry about 75% less load this far out.
I'm working up a box spar out of plywood sides and spruce or
poplar center. According to "Stress Without Tears", the spars
can be lightened a great deal as you proceed from root to tip. A
built up spar will allow progressively lighter construction
towards the ends. A routed spar could also have more and more
wood removed as you progress from root to tip. When I finish
laying it out, I'm going to go over it with a civil engineer who
works in my office to verify my calculations. I'll be glad to
put it on line at that time for further comments.
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
Rcaprd(at)aol.com on 09/02/99 12:29:30 AM
Please respond to Pietenpol Discussion
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Don't say that!!!
Ron,
I'll second the vote to keep it as light as possible, for the
same reasons as
Terry mentioned...the wing is over designed, and lighter wood
will certainly
pay dividends. I don't measure weight in ounces...I measure it
in grams !!
A couple of other weight saving things I've done are rounding the
sharp
corners of every stick in the wing (saved about 10 grams), and I
scaluped all
the gussets (saved over 3 ounces here), and as for all the
hardware, I used
lengths that showed 2 threads and no more. Also, I weighed each
completed
rib, and located the densest ones closest to the center of the
wing, and
progressivly lighter toward the tips. It's important (when
possible) to
locate mass as close as possible to the centerline, to aid in
handling
characteristics. Think about it...a baton twirler throws her
baton up in the
air at a givin rpm, and as a result of Newton's law, it's
spinning at almost
the same rpm when she catches it. This occurs because the mass
is at the
tips. Well, that's my two cents worth.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Bell <mbell(at)sctcorp.com> |
I'm interested in the entry door!! I'd like to see what
others have done here.
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
"Davis, Marc" on 09/01/99 08:09:32 PM
Please respond to Pietenpol Discussion
cc:
Subject:
I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind
of
performance?
Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum
available and
what are the sources? I've head of the following:
Builders Manual
Building video
1932 Flying and glider manual
Long fuselage
3 piece wing
Steel fuselage
Corvair engine
Entry Door
Hinged wing section for easy entry
Any others you guy know about?
Do you know sources for the above?
Which of these have worked well or not so well?
Thank you,
Marc Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
I have front controls and made the stick
removeable. I made the front stick, then
sawed it about 4" from the bottom, epoxied
an alum. rod into the removeable part and just
slip it in the 'socket' when I want someone
to fly. When the baggage sack is snapped in around
the longerons I had the upholstry shop make it with
a curved bottom so not to interfere with the stub socket
or my feet going up to the rudder bar.
There is nothing like seeing the face of a young
person (or any age for that matter) handling an airplane
for the first time. Showing them how to make turns, etc.
The last real hoot I had was getting my flight review two
weeks ago with a local CFI tailwheel guy who rode in the
front seat. Every so often he would take the controls and
show me a turn about a point, a slip, a skid, a steep turn....
we had a ball.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton |
Well, there goes another perfectly good fly-in I'm gonna miss. Actually
it's probably one of the best fly-ins I'll miss this year because it's
all about Pietenpols!
My younger brother has the nerve to get married on the same day as the
fly-in.
And to a girl that doesn't even like small planes! Can you believe it.
I was gonna hall my parts and engine down so everyone could point and
laugh. And eat hotdogs and other hanger food. And now I've got to wear
a suit and eat orderves made of stuff worse than hotdogs.
I hope you guys take pictures and post them! Have fun on the 11th!!!
(How in the hell do you spell orderves? I could have built another rib
in the time I tried to figure out how to spell that word. Isn't there
an 'h' in there somewhere? Where is my third grade teacher at?)
Everything is now measured in rib building time in my life. My wife
wants me to put a new light kit on the ceiling fan in the kitchen....
1.5 ribs.... New railing on stairs on porch.... 1 rib.... Hell, I
probably could have built a whole wing for the time it took to ceramic
tile the kitchen!
Greg Yotz
P.S. Robert Hensarling, I talked to Don Tevis today and he wanted me
to ask you how it was going?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, August 14, 1999 12:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In
> Announcing the 1st annual Pietenpol Fly-In, at Benton Airport on
Sept 11,
>1999. Benton KS is about 10 miles northeast of Wichita KS. The
2600' hard
>surface 36/18 runway is in fair condition, with a grass strip on the
west
>side that is about 2000'. There is no forum, just lots of
interesting
>discussions are planned. We will probably have some stuff like ribs,
jigs,
>misc. parts, and info on how to order the plans from Don Pietenpol.
An
>informal gathering of anyone interested in a seeing replicas of the
design
>that is the grandfather of all homebuilt planes. There should be at
least
>five Pietenpol airplanes there, four Model A, and one Corvair powered
model.
> Three of these are airworthy. The Ford Model A car club also plans
to
>attend, with 20 to 30 Model A cars planning to attend.
> No camping is allowed on the airport, for the simple reason that
there is
>no restroom facilities, except for the bathroom in the office, however
we are
>looking into renting a porta-john. Camping is available at Sante Fe
Lake,
>about 5 miles southeast of Benton. Their rates are $4.00 / night, and
for a
>motorhome it will set ya back $10.00. There is a new motel near
Jabara
>Airport, which is about 8 miles to the west of Benton.
> If ya can't e-mail me with your questions call me, Chuck Gantzer,at
>316-262-3392 in the evenings. Or call Doug Bryant at 316-733-2324
>
>Pietenpols Forever
>
Well, there goes another perfectly good fly-in I'm gonna
miss.
Actually it's probably one of the best fly-ins I'll miss this year
because it's
all about Pietenpols!
My younger brother has the nerve to get married on the same day as
the
fly-in.
And to a girl that doesn't even like small planes! Can you
believe
it.
I was gonna hall my parts and engine down so everyone could point
and
laugh. And eat hotdogs and other hanger food. And now I've
got to
wear a suit and eat orderves made of stuff worse than hotdogs.
I hope you guys take pictures and post them! Have fun on the
11th!!!
(How in the hell do you spell orderves? I could have built
another
rib in the time I tried to figure out how to spell that word.
Isn't there
an 'h' in there somewhere? Where is my third grade teacher
at?)
Everything is now measured in rib building time in my life.
My wife
wants me to put a new light kit on the ceiling fan in the
kitchen.... 1.5 ribs.... New railing on
stairs on
porch.... 1 rib.... Hell, I probably could have built
a whole
wing for the time it took to ceramic tile the kitchen!
Greg Yotz
faceArial
size3>P.S. Robert Hensarling, I
talked to
Don Tevis today and he wanted me to ask you how it was going?
-----Original Message-----From:
Discussion
piet(at)byu.eduDate:
Saturday, August
14, 1999 12:55 AMSubject: 1st Annual Pietenpol
Fly-In Announcing the 1st
annual
Pietenpol Fly-In, at Benton Airport on Sept 11,
1999. Benton
KS is about 10 miles northeast of Wichita KS. The 2600' hard
surface 36/18 runway is in fair condition, with a grass strip on
the
west side that is about 2000'. There is no
forum, just
lots of interesting discussions are planned.
We will
probably have some stuff like ribs, jigs, misc. parts, and info
on how
to order the plans from Don Pietenpol. An
informal
gathering of anyone interested in a seeing replicas of the design
that
is the grandfather of all homebuilt planes. There should be
at least
five Pietenpol airplanes there, four Model A, and one Corvair
powered
model. Three of these are airworthy. The Ford
Model A
car club also plans to attend, with 20 to 30 Model A cars
planning to
attend. No camping is allowed on
the
airport, for the simple reason that there is no restroom
facilities,
except for the bathroom in the office, however we are looking
into
renting a porta-john. Camping is available at Sante Fe Lake,
about 5 miles southeast of Benton. Their rates are
$4.00 /
night, and for a motorhome it will set ya back
$10.00.
There is a new motel near Jabara Airport, which is about 8 miles
to the
west of Benton. If ya can't
e-mail me
with your questions call me, Chuck Gantzer,at 316-262-3392 in
the
evenings. Or call Doug Bryant at
316-733-2324Pietenpols Forever
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Don't say that!!! |
I would like to see the math for the progress load. Post it on the web when
your done, along
with a drawing.
Greg Yotz
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bell <mbell(at)sctcorp.com>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Don't say that!!!
>
>
>Did you consider lightening the last 25% of the spar on either
>side? The outboard ends carry about 75% less load this far out.
>I'm working up a box spar out of plywood sides and spruce or
>poplar center. According to "Stress Without Tears", the spars
>can be lightened a great deal as you proceed from root to tip. A
>built up spar will allow progressively lighter construction
>towards the ends. A routed spar could also have more and more
>wood removed as you progress from root to tip. When I finish
>laying it out, I'm going to go over it with a civil engineer who
>works in my office to verify my calculations. I'll be glad to
>put it on line at that time for further comments.
>
>Mike Bell
>Columbia, SC
>
>
>Rcaprd(at)aol.com on 09/02/99 12:29:30 AM
>
>Please respond to Pietenpol Discussion
>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>cc:
>Subject: Re: Don't say that!!!
>
>
>Ron,
>I'll second the vote to keep it as light as possible, for the
>same reasons as
>Terry mentioned...the wing is over designed, and lighter wood
>will certainly
>pay dividends. I don't measure weight in ounces...I measure it
>in grams !!
>A couple of other weight saving things I've done are rounding the
>sharp
>corners of every stick in the wing (saved about 10 grams), and I
>scaluped all
>the gussets (saved over 3 ounces here), and as for all the
>hardware, I used
>lengths that showed 2 threads and no more. Also, I weighed each
>completed
>rib, and located the densest ones closest to the center of the
>wing, and
>progressivly lighter toward the tips. It's important (when
>possible) to
>locate mass as close as possible to the centerline, to aid in
>handling
>characteristics. Think about it...a baton twirler throws her
>baton up in the
>air at a givin rpm, and as a result of Newton's law, it's
>spinning at almost
>the same rpm when she catches it. This occurs because the mass
>is at the
>tips. Well, that's my two cents worth.
>Chuck Gantzer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks for all the comments on the front stick. I was convinced not to put it
in before the comments. The main reason I would put it in is if I thought I could
effectively learn how to fly in it from the front seat. Yes, I am going
at it a bit backwords...builder first, pilot second.
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
> ----------
> From: Michael D Cuy[SMTP:Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 7:38 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Front Stick
>
> I have front controls and made the stick
> removeable. I made the front stick, then
> sawed it about 4" from the bottom, epoxied
> an alum. rod into the removeable part and just
> slip it in the 'socket' when I want someone
> to fly. When the baggage sack is snapped in around
> the longerons I had the upholstry shop make it with
> a curved bottom so not to interfere with the stub socket
> or my feet going up to the rudder bar.
> There is nothing like seeing the face of a young
> person (or any age for that matter) handling an airplane
> for the first time. Showing them how to make turns, etc.
> The last real hoot I had was getting my flight review two
> weeks ago with a local CFI tailwheel guy who rode in the
> front seat. Every so often he would take the controls and
> show me a turn about a point, a slip, a skid, a steep turn....
> we had a ball.
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Instrument panel |
I'm in the process of getting together an instrument panel and would like
some advice. I believe that the Piet uses a wooden panel. What material is
used? The Christavia plans call for an aluminum panel made from 1/8"
plate. It is rather difficult to cut with typical hand dools. Other than
holding the instruments and upper boot cowl in place, the panel serves no
other structural purpose. Any ideas are welcome.
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lightsey, Mark - TP2MAL" <MLightsey(at)socalgas.com> |
| Subject: | RE: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
On my Super Ace I used 2024 anyplace that wasn't a compound curve which
included the area between the firewall and the cockpit. For most of the
cowling ahead of the firewall I used 5052 because of the forming required. I
don't remember the exact thicknesses, but .025-.032 sounds about right,
although you need to go a little heavier(oops bad word) I mean thicker on
any pieces requiring deep forming. I've got a couple of images on my web
page if you're interested.
The original plans are very vague when it comes to the cowling and engine
installation.
Mark
http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/index.html
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
Hay Ken,
Yes I would like to know what you are using on that cowling. As for my
airplane.."an orphaned design" One could just about call it that. The plans
were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have written 3 letters for
help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce, but no help.
The project is comming along well however.
Bob
>From: Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
>Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600 (MDT)
>
>I dont think it's the strength they are after as much as the hardness.
>2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far more resistant to
>denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line boy drops the fuel
>nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however, I'm pretty sure that
>they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check tonight for you.
>You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
>
>Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or is this an orphanned
>design.
>
>Ken.
>
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
>
> > I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium sheet.
> >
> > This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall, just
> > under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the wind
>out.
> >
> > What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my
>a/c
> > spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
> >
> > Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
> >
> > I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my same
> > local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
><http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
>
>
5.5.2448.0">
RE: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
On my Super Ace I used 2024 anyplace that wasn't a
compound curve which included the area between the firewall and the
cockpit. For most of the cowling ahead of the firewall I used 5052
because of the forming required. I don't remember the exact
thicknesses, but .025-.032 sounds about right, although you need to go
a little heavier(oops bad word) I mean thicker on any pieces requiring
deep forming. I've got a couple of images on my web page if you're
interested.
The original plans are very vague when it comes to
the cowling and engine installation.
Mark
HREF"http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/index.html"
TARGET"_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/index.html
>
-----Original Message-----
From: oil can [
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:46 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
Hay Ken,
Yes I would like to know what you are using on that
cowling. As for my
airplane..an orphaned design One could
just about call it that. The plans
were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have
written 3 letters for
help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce,
but no help.
The project is comming along well however.
Bob
From: Ken Beanlands
kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca
Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
piet(at)byu.edu
To: Pietenpol Discussion
piet(at)byu.edu
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs
2024
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600
(MDT)
I dont think it's the strength they are after as
much as the hardness.
2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will
be far more resistant to
denting. You know, the dents that occur when the
line boy drops the fuel
nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia,
however, I'm pretty sure that
they spec 0.025 6061 for that area. I'll
double check tonight for you.
You should find that this is similar in price to
2024.
Is it still possible to get the designer's
opinion or is this an orphanned
design.
Ken.
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
I need to cover the upper cowling of my
super ace in aluminium sheet.
This is the area foreward of the cockpit,
and behind the firewall, just
under the wing. It is not a stressed
part...mostly just keeps the wind
out.
What I wonder is, can I substitute
.025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my
a/c
spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
Would I be able to, if I were to go
with .032 5052 ?
I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00
,where the 2024 from my same
local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft
sheet at around 180.00 .
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
POLYFIBER !
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: Covering Systems
I used Poly Fiber ( Stits) for my first one , it's great,easy, and
I'll use it on my Aircamper.
walt
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 5:04 PM
Subject: Covering Systems
I know we've discussed this here before but I thought maybe some
of you have some new experiences to share.
I was wondering what covering systems everyone is using? I'm
getting ready to help a friend start to cover and he asked
me where to get the covering. I of course said, "From a
aircraft covering supplier." He didn't seem to be impressed with
my vast knowledge of aircraft covering. So I thought I might
become enlightened from the group.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Greg Yotz wrote:
> I know we've discussed this here before but I thought maybe some of you
> have some new experiences to share. I was wondering what covering
> systems everyone is using? I'm getting ready to help a friend start to
> cover and he asked me where to get the covering. I of course said,
> "From a aircraft covering supplier." He didn't seem to be impressed
> with my vast knowledge of aircraft covering. So I thought I might
> become enlightened from the group.
>
> Greg Yotz
>
Check out my covering page: <http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan/part16.html>
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Greg that you will be MISSING you brother's wedding, eh ? :)))))
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Instrument panel |
Ken;
I used 1/8" Mahogany on my Scout...works fine....
Earl Myers, Ohio, USA
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 11:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Instrument panel
>I'm in the process of getting together an instrument panel and would like
>some advice. I believe that the Piet uses a wooden panel. What material is
>used? The Christavia plans call for an aluminum panel made from 1/8"
>plate. It is rather difficult to cut with typical hand dools. Other than
>holding the instruments and upper boot cowl in place, the panel serves no
>other structural purpose. Any ideas are welcome.
>
>Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
><http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
Areas that need a lot of forming, go to 3003. All the cowl pieces on my
Howard are 3003.
Lightsey, Mark - TP2MAL wrote:
>
>
> On my Super Ace I used 2024 anyplace that wasn't a compound curve
> which included the area between the firewall and the cockpit. For most
> of the cowling ahead of the firewall I used 5052 because of the
> forming required. I don't remember the exact thicknesses, but
> .025-.032 sounds about right, although you need to go a little
> heavier(oops bad word) I mean thicker on any pieces requiring deep
> forming. I've got a couple of images on my web page if you're
> interested.
>
> The original plans are very vague when it comes to the cowling and
> engine installation.
> Mark
> http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/index.html
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:46 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
>
> Hay Ken,
> Yes I would like to know what you are using on that cowling. As for my
>
> airplane.."an orphaned design" One could just about call it that. The
> plans
> were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have written 3 letters
> for
> help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce, but no help.
> The project is comming along well however.
>
> Bob
>
> >From: Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
> >Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
> >Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600 (MDT)
> >
> >I dont think it's the strength they are after as much as the
> hardness.
> >2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far more resistant
> to
> >denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line boy drops the
> fuel
> >nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however, I'm pretty sure
> that
> >they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check tonight for
> you.
> >You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
> >
> >Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or is this an
> orphanned
> >design.
> >
> >Ken.
> >
> >On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
> >
> > > I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium
> sheet.
> > >
> > > This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall,
> just
> > > under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the
> wind
> >out.
> > >
> > > What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength
> by my
> >a/c
> > > spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
> > >
> > > Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
> > >
> > > I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my
> same
> > > local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
> >Calgary, Alberta, Canada
> >Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
> ><http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
> >
> >
>
Areas that need a lot of forming, go to 3003. All the cowl pieces on my
Howard are 3003.
Lightsey, Mark - TP2MAL wrote:
On my Super Ace I used 2024 anyplace that wasn't a compound
curve which included the area between the firewall and the cockpit. For
most of the cowling ahead of the firewall I used 5052 because of the forming
required. I don't remember the exact thicknesses, but .025-.032 sounds
about right, although you need to go a little heavier(oops bad word) I
mean thicker on any pieces requiring deep forming. I've got a couple of
images on my web page if you're interested.
The original plans are very vague when it comes to the
cowling and engine installation.
Mark
http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/index.html
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 1999 10:46 PM
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
Hay Ken,
Yes I would like to know what you are using on that cowling.
As for my
airplane.."an orphaned design" One could just about call
it that. The plans
were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have written
3 letters for
help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce, but
no help.
The project is comming along well however.
Bob
>From: Ken Beanlands kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
>Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion piet(at)byu.edu>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion piet(at)byu.edu>
>Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
>Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600 (MDT)
>
>I dont think it's the strength they are after as much
as the hardness.
>2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far
more resistant to
>denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line
boy drops the fuel
>nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however,
I'm pretty sure that
>they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check
tonight for you.
>You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
>
>Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or
is this an orphanned
>design.
>
>Ken.
>
>On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
>
> > I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace
in aluminium sheet.
> >
> > This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind
the firewall, just
> > under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly
just keeps the wind
>out.
> >
> > What I wonder is, can I substitute .025
5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my
>a/c
> > spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
> >
> > Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032
5052 ?
> >
> > I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where
the 2024 from my same
> > local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at
around 180.00 .
> >
> > Bob
> >
> >
>
>Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
>Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
>http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
I like Airtex. If you are big on finish, go to PPG and use Durethane.PPG
has a sheet listing products for Ceconite from primers to top coats.
Airtex products are made by PPG (I think) and just relabeled.
Earl Myers wrote:
> POLYFIBER !
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Covering SystemsI used Poly Fiber ( Stits) for
> my first one , it's great,easy, and I'll use it on my
> Aircamper.walt
>
>
--
David B.Schober, CPE
Instructor, Aviation Maintenance
Fairmont State College
National Aerospace Education Center
1050 East Benedum Industrial Drive
Bridgeport, WV 26330-9503
(304) 842-8300
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
Randolph dope....light, easy to repair, and if you use
the light fabric 1.7 oz or whatever it will save lots of
wt. due to the finer fabric weave takes less coats to fill, finish.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | David Swagler <dswagler(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
Earl,
Could you be a little more specific? ;<)
--- Earl Myers wrote:
> POLYFIBER !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
Sorry for replying to my own post but I forgot to put in a subject. I also
had another question.
On drawing #1 of the 1933 plans on the top down view I can tell what's going
on at the tail end. Are there 3 gussets across the back?
One 7"
A 6" space
A 2" gusset
A short space
Then a 4" gusset
If so what is the 2" gusset for?
Thanks
Marc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind of
performance?
Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum available and
what are the sources? I've head of the following:
Builders Manual
Building video
1932 Flying and glider manual
Long fuselage
3 piece wing
Steel fuselage
Corvair engine
Entry Door
Hinged wing section for easy entry
Any others you guy know about?
Do you know sources for the above?
Which of these have worked well or not so well?
Thank you,
Marc Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Plans questions |
That looks to be the mounting point for forward end of the vertical stab. See
drawing # 2, middle and left hand top. That brings up a question for me. Shouldn't
there be a cross brace under that gusset for the mounting bolt to attach
to? The drawing doesn't show a brace there.
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
> ----------
> From: Davis, Marc[SMTP:marc.davis(at)intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:59 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Plans questions
>
> Sorry for replying to my own post but I forgot to put in a subject. I also
> had another question.
> On drawing #1 of the 1933 plans on the top down view I can tell what's going
> on at the tail end. Are there 3 gussets across the back?
> One 7"
> A 6" space
> A 2" gusset
> A short space
> Then a 4" gusset
>
> If so what is the 2" gusset for?
>
> Thanks
> Marc
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------
>
> I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
>
> Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind of
> performance?
>
> Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum available and
> what are the sources? I've head of the following:
>
> Builders Manual
> Building video
> 1932 Flying and glider manual
> Long fuselage
> 3 piece wing
> Steel fuselage
> Corvair engine
> Entry Door
> Hinged wing section for easy entry
>
> Any others you guy know about?
> Do you know sources for the above?
> Which of these have worked well or not so well?
>
> Thank you,
> Marc Davis
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
OK, three things are apparent:
1. Nearly everyone has used a different system
2. Everyone has been happy with the system they've used.
3. Each system has it's good and bad points.
I like Aircraft Finishing systems stuff because:
- Low toxicity so I can spray it in the basement
- Great support
- Water borne top coats can be used on fabric or metal (no matching
problems)
- One less step than Stits. THe equivalent of the PolyTak and PolyBrush
are one product, Cecobond
- Small Company
Cons:
- small company ;-)
- Not as widely used as Stits/Polyfiber
- Original compant has a less than stellar reputation
The bottom line is to use what you feel comfortable with and be sure to
follow the direction exactly. I've heard of some people using latex and
other experimental top coats on thier plane to save money. Let's see, the
top coats for my plane were around the $500-$800 CDN mark. The complete
covering system is $3000. The entire plane is around the $20,000 mark. Why
risk having to re-cover your plane (another $3000) to save only $500-$800.
Worse case is the top coat reacting with the rest of the system and
loosing integrity. This result could be disasterous. In a lot of cases,
the use of other top-coats has required re-covering the plane prematuraly.
In the end, it ends up costing more than using the manufacturers
reccommended topcoats. If you use AFS, use thier topcoats (as yet unamed).
Polyfiber should be covered with PolyTone or that other product they have
(PolyThane?). etc. At the very least, if something goes wrong you can
always go back to the manufacturer. Otherwise, you're on your own.
Wow, I really jumped on the soapbox there. The fore-runner to AFS was Blue
River. They had a few problems that I think were caused by not having a
compatible top-coat. Customers used whatever they wanted causing some real
problems with quality. The AFS product line is far more complete and has
not had these problems. Just ask Dick Starks of the Kansas City Dawn
Patrol as they fully endorse the AFS products.
Ken
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <duprey(at)excite.com> |
Entry door plans are available From Gary Price in North Hampton N.H. Sorry
I misplaced his phone #
John Duprey
>
>
> I'm interested in the entry door!! I'd like to see what
> others have done here.
>
> Mike Bell
> Columbia, SC
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Davis, Marc" on 09/01/99 08:09:32 PM
>
> Please respond to Pietenpol Discussion
>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> cc:
> Subject:
>
>
> I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
>
> Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind
> of
> performance?
>
> Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum
> available and
> what are the sources? I've head of the following:
>
> Builders Manual
> Building video
> 1932 Flying and glider manual
> Long fuselage
> 3 piece wing
> Steel fuselage
> Corvair engine
> Entry Door
> Hinged wing section for easy entry
>
> Any others you guy know about?
> Do you know sources for the above?
> Which of these have worked well or not so well?
>
> Thank you,
> Marc Davis
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
"the Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient"
_______
Get FREE voicemail, fax and email at http://voicemail.excite.com
Talk online at http://voicechat.excite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I just entered two items into the Known Errors section of the subject site. The
second one got entered twice (my mistake). Can anyone fix it for me? Thanks,
Bart
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Plans questions |
the 2" gussett acts as a filer block and resting pad for the spar of the
horizontal surface. It is also through which the stab is bolted. Not
nessasarily strutural to the fuse. The vertical stab is just screwed to the
the horizontal stab, not through bolted to the gusset (or fuse). But you
can put a crosspiece in if you don't mind about adding grams, ounces etc in
the tail of *your* plane..
Just having fun,
Stevee
Provo UT>
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
> -----Original Message-----
> Conrad, Bart D
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 11:18 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: RE: Plans questions
>
>
> That looks to be the mounting point for forward end of the
> vertical stab. See drawing # 2, middle and left hand top.
> That brings up a question for me. Shouldn't there be a cross
> brace under that gusset for the mounting bolt to attach to?
> The drawing doesn't show a brace there.
> Bart D Conrad
> Boeing Field Service
> DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
> Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
> Fax: 713-640-5891
> Pager: 713-318-1625
>
> > ----------
> > From: Davis, Marc[SMTP:marc.davis(at)intel.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:59 AM
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: Plans questions
> >
> > Sorry for replying to my own post but I forgot to put in a
> subject. I also
> > had another question.
> > On drawing #1 of the 1933 plans on the top down view I can
> tell what's going
> > on at the tail end. Are there 3 gussets across the back?
> > One 7"
> > A 6" space
> > A 2" gusset
> > A short space
> > Then a 4" gusset
> >
> > If so what is the 2" gusset for?
> >
> > Thanks
> > Marc
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind of
> > performance?
> >
> > Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat
> addendum available and
> > what are the sources? I've head of the following:
> >
> > Builders Manual
> > Building video
> > 1932 Flying and glider manual
> > Long fuselage
> > 3 piece wing
> > Steel fuselage
> > Corvair engine
> > Entry Door
> > Hinged wing section for easy entry
> >
> > Any others you guy know about?
> > Do you know sources for the above?
> > Which of these have worked well or not so well?
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Marc Davis
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Plans questions |
Just as clarification... the bolt goes through the stab spar, the gussett
and the top longeron on each side of the vertical stab.
Hope this helps.
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
> -----Original Message-----
> steve(at)byu.edu
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 12:48 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: RE: Plans questions
>
>
> the 2" gussett acts as a filer block and resting pad for the
> spar of the
> horizontal surface. It is also through which the stab is bolted. Not
> nessasarily strutural to the fuse. The vertical stab is just
> screwed to the
> the horizontal stab, not through bolted to the gusset (or
> fuse). But you
> can put a crosspiece in if you don't mind about adding grams,
> ounces etc in
> the tail of *your* plane..
>
> Just having fun,
>
> Stevee
> Provo UT>
>
> Steve Eldredge
> IT Services
> Brigham Young University
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Conrad, Bart D
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 11:18 AM
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Plans questions
> >
> >
> > That looks to be the mounting point for forward end of the
> > vertical stab. See drawing # 2, middle and left hand top.
> > That brings up a question for me. Shouldn't there be a cross
> > brace under that gusset for the mounting bolt to attach to?
> > The drawing doesn't show a brace there.
> > Bart D Conrad
> > Boeing Field Service
> > DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
> > Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
> > Fax: 713-640-5891
> > Pager: 713-318-1625
> >
> > > ----------
> > > From: Davis, Marc[SMTP:marc.davis(at)intel.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:59 AM
> > > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > > Subject: Plans questions
> > >
> > > Sorry for replying to my own post but I forgot to put in a
> > subject. I also
> > > had another question.
> > > On drawing #1 of the 1933 plans on the top down view I can
> > tell what's going
> > > on at the tail end. Are there 3 gussets across the back?
> > > One 7"
> > > A 6" space
> > > A 2" gusset
> > > A short space
> > > Then a 4" gusset
> > >
> > > If so what is the 2" gusset for?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Marc
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------
> > > ------------------------------
> > >
> > > I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat?
> What kind of
> > > performance?
> > >
> > > Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat
> > addendum available and
> > > what are the sources? I've head of the following:
> > >
> > > Builders Manual
> > > Building video
> > > 1932 Flying and glider manual
> > > Long fuselage
> > > 3 piece wing
> > > Steel fuselage
> > > Corvair engine
> > > Entry Door
> > > Hinged wing section for easy entry
> > >
> > > Any others you guy know about?
> > > Do you know sources for the above?
> > > Which of these have worked well or not so well?
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Marc Davis
> > >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: AIRCAMPER .ORG |
I'll take care of it. -Richard
--- "Conrad, Bart D" wrote:
> I just entered two items into the Known Errors section of the subject
> site. The second one got entered twice (my mistake). Can anyone fix
> it for me? Thanks, Bart
> Bart D Conrad
> Boeing Field Service
> DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
> Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
> Fax: 713-640-5891
> Pager: 713-318-1625
>
===
http://www.AirCamper.org/w3builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Plans questions |
I think I understand now. The vertical stabilizer gets screwed to the horizontal
stabilizer and the horizontal stabilizer gets bolted to the upper longeron.
Thanks!
Bart D Conrad
Boeing Field Service
DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
Fax: 713-640-5891
Pager: 713-318-1625
> ----------
> From: steve(at)byu.edu[SMTP:steve(at)byu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 12:06 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: RE: Plans questions
>
> Just as clarification... the bolt goes through the stab spar, the gussett
> and the top longeron on each side of the vertical stab.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Steve Eldredge
> IT Services
> Brigham Young University
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > steve(at)byu.edu
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 12:48 PM
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Plans questions
> >
> >
> > the 2" gussett acts as a filer block and resting pad for the
> > spar of the
> > horizontal surface. It is also through which the stab is bolted. Not
> > nessasarily strutural to the fuse. The vertical stab is just
> > screwed to the
> > the horizontal stab, not through bolted to the gusset (or
> > fuse). But you
> > can put a crosspiece in if you don't mind about adding grams,
> > ounces etc in
> > the tail of *your* plane..
> >
> > Just having fun,
> >
> > Stevee
> > Provo UT>
> >
> > Steve Eldredge
> > IT Services
> > Brigham Young University
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > Conrad, Bart D
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 11:18 AM
> > > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > > Subject: RE: Plans questions
> > >
> > >
> > > That looks to be the mounting point for forward end of the
> > > vertical stab. See drawing # 2, middle and left hand top.
> > > That brings up a question for me. Shouldn't there be a cross
> > > brace under that gusset for the mounting bolt to attach to?
> > > The drawing doesn't show a brace there.
> > > Bart D Conrad
> > > Boeing Field Service
> > > DC-9/MD-80/DC-10 & 737 Heavy Mtc
> > > Phone: 713-640-5882/713-324-4192
> > > Fax: 713-640-5891
> > > Pager: 713-318-1625
> > >
> > > > ----------
> > > > From: Davis, Marc[SMTP:marc.davis(at)intel.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:59 AM
> > > > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > > > Subject: Plans questions
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for replying to my own post but I forgot to put in a
> > > subject. I also
> > > > had another question.
> > > > On drawing #1 of the 1933 plans on the top down view I can
> > > tell what's going
> > > > on at the tail end. Are there 3 gussets across the back?
> > > > One 7"
> > > > A 6" space
> > > > A 2" gusset
> > > > A short space
> > > > Then a 4" gusset
> > > >
> > > > If so what is the 2" gusset for?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Marc
> > > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > --------------
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat?
> > What kind of
> > > > performance?
> > > >
> > > > Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat
> > > addendum available and
> > > > what are the sources? I've head of the following:
> > > >
> > > > Builders Manual
> > > > Building video
> > > > 1932 Flying and glider manual
> > > > Long fuselage
> > > > 3 piece wing
> > > > Steel fuselage
> > > > Corvair engine
> > > > Entry Door
> > > > Hinged wing section for easy entry
> > > >
> > > > Any others you guy know about?
> > > > Do you know sources for the above?
> > > > Which of these have worked well or not so well?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you,
> > > > Marc Davis
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton |
Greg,
Since you're hot into the rib building phase maybe you can tell me if I'm
doing it wrong - or have the wrong expectations.
I'm getting springback when I take the ribs out of the jig. The undercamber
tries to flatten out and drags the top of the airfoil with it.
Are you steaming the rib bottom strip as well as the upper forward part?
Did you over bend the undercamber and upper strip to compensate? If so, how
much?
What wood are you using?
Thanx,
DG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton |
DG,
I never got any springback on mine, and I only soak front 16" in boiling
water for 10 min. They seem to lift out of jig as solid as a rock. You are
putting gussets on one side, before removing from jig? and not till fully
dry.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: GREA738(at)aol.com <GREA738(at)aol.com>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 3:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton
>Greg,
>Since you're hot into the rib building phase maybe you can tell me if I'm
>doing it wrong - or have the wrong expectations.
>I'm getting springback when I take the ribs out of the jig. The
undercamber
>tries to flatten out and drags the top of the airfoil with it.
>Are you steaming the rib bottom strip as well as the upper forward part?
>Did you over bend the undercamber and upper strip to compensate? If so,
how
>much?
>What wood are you using?
>Thanx,
>DG
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LaurenMWilliams(at)webtv.net (Lauren Williams) |
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys |
If your stainless steel cable ever has just one strand broken and
sticking out, cashier it. Throw it out and get a new cable. In
stainless, if one wire breaks the rest are likely to follow close
behind. That one strand breaking is the only warning that you are
likely to get.
Notice that elevators and cranes use only galvanized cable. The
advantage is that, the steel used in flexible wire rope can be maliable
and tough. Stainless becomes hard and brittle as it gets worked and
old. Unfortunately, stainless will stay bright right up to the day it
breaks.
Sure, galvanized cable will eventually rust. At least it rusts before
it breaks, giving you a warning.
Lauren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Bart wrote:
snip >>. The vertical stabilizer gets screwed to the horizontal
stabilizer >>>
I bolted mine. I suggest you do the same.
Mike B Piet N698MB ( Mr Sam )
Bart wrote:
snip . The vertical
stabilizer gets
screwed to the horizontal stabilizer
I bolted mine. I suggest you do the same.
Mike B Piet N698MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | awl942(at)webtv.net |
| Subject: | looking for project |
I'm looking for a Piet project that has been started and not finished ,
or has been damaged and needs rebuilding. During the last couple of days
there have been a few letters about these type of projects here. If
anyone can forward information on any of this type of project I would
appreciate it. I would be especially interested about one that is built
using T-88 and corvair powered.
Thanks in advance for any and all help.
Autry W. "Bud" Leonard
233 Angle Road
West Seneca, New York 14224-4347
716-674-5246
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys |
Ahmen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: looking for project |
Autry,
I don't know about any projects for sale but I do know
of a few Piets in your area. I am building one in Retsof,
at the stage of building ribs, Tom Bowdler is almost done
with his in Brockport and just bought a completed one, and
Watson Hardaway has one flying from Perry-Warsaw (01G).
I'll be glad to show you my project when I get a little
farther along.
Dave
>I'm looking for a Piet project that has been started and not finished ,
>or has been damaged and needs rebuilding. During the last couple of days
>there have been a few letters about these type of projects here. If
>anyone can forward information on any of this type of project I would
>appreciate it. I would be especially interested about one that is built
>using T-88 and corvair powered.
>Thanks in advance for any and all help.
>Autry W. "Bud" Leonard
>233 Angle Road
>West Seneca, New York 14224-4347
>716-674-5246
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024 |
Sorry to say, they spec 0.020 or 0.025 2024-t3. BUMMER!
Ken
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, oil can wrote:
> Hay Ken,
> Yes I would like to know what you are using on that cowling. As for my
> airplane.."an orphaned design" One could just about call it that. The plans
> were drawn up by the president of the EAA. I have written 3 letters for
> help, and 1 e-mail, and received one nice responce, but no help.
> The project is comming along well however.
>
> Bob
>
> >From: Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca>
> >Reply-To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >To: Pietenpol Discussion
> >Subject: Re: aluminium, 5052 vs 2024
> >Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 08:40:00 -0600 (MDT)
> >
> >I dont think it's the strength they are after as much as the hardness.
> >2024is a harder aluminum than the 5052 and will be far more resistant to
> >denting. You know, the dents that occur when the line boy drops the fuel
> >nozzle on your boot cowl. On the Christavia, however, I'm pretty sure that
> >they spec 0.025" 6061 for that area. I'll double check tonight for you.
> >You should find that this is similar in price to 2024.
> >
> >Is it still possible to get the designer's opinion or is this an orphanned
> >design.
> >
> >Ken.
> >
> >On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, oil can wrote:
> >
> > > I need to cover the upper cowling of my super ace in aluminium sheet.
> > >
> > > This is the area foreward of the cockpit, and behind the firewall, just
> > > under the wing. It is not a stressed part...mostly just keeps the wind
> >out.
> > >
> > > What I wonder is, can I substitute .025 5052 ( 1/2 the strength by my
> >a/c
> > > spruce catalog) for .025 2024 ?
> > >
> > > Would I be able to, if I were to go with .032 5052 ?
> > >
> > > I can get the 5052 locally for about 60.00 ,where the 2024 from my same
> > > local source requires a full 4 by 12 ft sheet at around 180.00 .
> > >
> > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> >
> >Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
> >Calgary, Alberta, Canada
> >Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
> ><http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
> >
> >
>
>
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | performance charts |
Hello again:
Can any one post some performance charts or data for the piet using the
A-65 and also the Corvair. Thanks, Ryder Olsen PS, Today was one of "
Those " days when exuberance jumped ahead of intelligence. I get to Re-do a
little work. I guess I'm doing what every Piet builder says he does when he
builds one, " builds Two."
By the way, by the action on this site I'd say the pietenpole airforce is
alive and well. Thanks for sharing your ideas and deeds guys.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Gaskins <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
I haven't seen any e-mails from the Piet Group. I'm just checking to
see if I'm still signed up.
________________________________________________________________________________
unsubscribe
please
________________________________________________________________________________
Say What, 50 messages have come thru today.
Your Loud and Clear,
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Gaskins <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 8:24 PM
> I haven't seen any e-mails from the Piet Group. I'm just checking to
> see if I'm still signed up.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug <ve6zh(at)oanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
Consider Airtech System,no silver build up,7 to 10 lbs (cub size
bird)lighter than Stits. UV protection is in the primer/filler and in the
finish.Finish is second to none.Uses ceconite fabric(EXACTLY THE SAME AS
STITS)
Doug,Hunt
> From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Covering Systems
> Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 9:49 PM
>
> Ditto to what Michael said...about the Randolph process and about the 1.7
oz
> fabric. Or at least use the Randolph process thru the silver. After the
> silver, there are three good options I know of.
>
> 1) My dad's best results have been with Butyrate dope...using as few or
as
> many coats as it takes to get the desired finish. This he has used both
on
> his Robin and on his F-17D staggerwing - picture attached. The Robin has
I
> think 5 cross-coats sprayed and not rubbed out, so the finish is nice and
> even but not shiny. The Staggerwing has about 24 sprayed cross-coats,
> sanding between coats, and hand rubbed to final finish. (On a Piet...you
> wouldn't want more than about 2 or 3 sprayed cross coats if you are
weight
> conscious.) Either way....patch repairs can be made and buffed out to be
> almost unnoticable with Butyrate. One drawback to Butyrate is that you
have
> to go to some other paint for all of the sheet metal. For this
> reason...sometimes it is hard to get a nice color match between the
fabric
> and metal parts.
> 2) On a Champ restoration, we used a combination of Butyrate (for the
> primary color) and Dupont Imron polyurethane enamel (for all of the trim
> colors). This paint will give a really beautiful finish. Also...you use
the
> same paint on fabric and sheet metal. And though polyurethane generally
> cures to a very hard layer, you can utilize plasticizer additives to
minimize
> this. Without it...it would likely crack over time due to the flexing
> fabric. I used plasticizer in Imron to paint a vinyl dash pad on a '67
Chevy
> pick-up. It didn't crack in the 5 years I drove it...and that stuff
baked in
> the TX sun for that time. Still looked like new when I sold the truck.
The
> biggest drawback to Imron is that it is nearly impossible to blend when
> making repairs. You don't buff this stuff.
> 3) I have seen other airplanes that used Randolph (thru silver) and
followed
> with Ditzler polyurethane. The finish can be just as gorgeous as any
because
> you can buff and hand rub this paint. You can use plasticizer with
Ditzler
> too to add crack resistance. I am guessing that you can blend repairs
pretty
> well with it too...but I am not sure. I have never used Dizler....but I
am
> thinking about trying it on my Piet....whenever I finally get to that
stage.
>
> Terry B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
David;
I always use the 1.7oz fabric with the textbook Stits or now the Polyfiber
process. It gives a nice low luster finish plus I used the flat rib chord
with the knots pulled inside the fabric. That makes for a really nice final
finish to the rib stitching, no knots.
Mike Cuy had a standard dope finish with a brightener added in his final
coat to give it a VERY high gloss...........I just wanted to stay with an
antique finish which mostly were low luster even then except for the
high-priced ships with hand rubbed Nitrate/Butyrate (dope) finishes.....
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: David Swagler <dswagler(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 12:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Covering Systems
>Earl,
>Could you be a little more specific? ;<)
>
>--- Earl Myers wrote:
>> POLYFIBER !
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randy Gaskins <randy(at)icomnet.com> |
Thanks, I just got resuscribed. I don't know how I got un- suscribed. I
think it happened several days ago while I was out of town. I'm sorry I
missed all the info.
May you be blessed with a tailwind. Randy Gaskins
Gordon Brimhall wrote:
> Say What, 50 messages have come thru today.
>
> Your Loud and Clear,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Gaskins <randy(at)icomnet.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 8:24 PM
> Subject: test
>
> > I haven't seen any e-mails from the Piet Group. I'm just checking to
> > see if I'm still signed up.
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
Earl M. mentioned the fairly glossy finish we obtained using
Randolph dope on NX48MC.....the trick here is on the last
color coat to add to your pigment some CLEAR dope.
For those who want a more authentic dope look you simply
leave out that extra clear dope. Do not let this process scare
you off just because it doesn't have a 'trade name' assoctiated
with it. It's really much easier than you might think...just read,
read, and follow how to books and instructions.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys - Stainless vs. Galvanized Control |
Cable
Thanks a lot for this one. Would you believe, I'm going to go with
GALVANIZED.
Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/02/99 06:21:10 PM
Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Control pulleys
If your stainless steel cable ever has just one strand broken and
sticking out, cashier it. Throw it out and get a new cable. In
stainless, if one wire breaks the rest are likely to follow close
behind. That one strand breaking is the only warning that you are
likely to get.
Notice that elevators and cranes use only galvanized cable. The
advantage is that, the steel used in flexible wire rope can be maliable
and tough. Stainless becomes hard and brittle as it gets worked and
old. Unfortunately, stainless will stay bright right up to the day it
breaks.
Sure, galvanized cable will eventually rust. At least it rusts before
it breaks, giving you a warning.
Lauren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys - Stainless vs. Galvanized Control |
Cable
>Thanks a lot for this one. Would you believe, I'm going to go with
>GALVANIZED.
Mike- You rebel :)) The comment someone made about stainless
happened to me where the my rudder and upper elev. cables rub
sometimes as they come out of the same hole in my fuse....and low
and behold after about 90 hours I felt and saw one strand of the stainless
that nicked my fingers. I bent the cable to look more closely and
found about 3 or 4 strands were next to go soon...but they sure still
looked shiney. I replaced all those with galvanized cable.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com |
Mike,
I enjoyed the video and I was hoping to see your plane at Brodhead or
Oshkosh. Somehow or other, I missed it both places. (I didn't get to Oshkosh
until Sunday)
I did get to see fourteen? other Piets at Brodhead and another at Osh. What a
great time. I got lots of great pics of every Piet but yours. Lots of good
ideas and information and encouragement. I was sick and it was hotter than
"blue hades" but it was still a great place to be. I met the mysterious Mr.
Wynn and purchased a Corvair manual. Later at Oshkosh, I found a used
Corvair maintenance manual and felt good buying it for $35. Since then this
discussion group pointed out that these manuals are available new from
Chevrolet for $25 (but I got mine at Osh!!). I have the Piet screen saver
installed on both PC's and Piet pics on my wall at work. What has Bernard
done to me?
Enough BS. Just like everyone to know how much I am enjoying this.
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/03/99 08:22:23 AM
Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Control pulleys - Stainless vs. Galvanized Control
Cable
>Thanks a lot for this one. Would you believe, I'm going to go with
>GALVANIZED.
Mike- You rebel :)) The comment someone made about stainless
happened to me where the my rudder and upper elev. cables rub
sometimes as they come out of the same hole in my fuse....and low
and behold after about 90 hours I felt and saw one strand of the stainless
that nicked my fingers. I bent the cable to look more closely and
found about 3 or 4 strands were next to go soon...but they sure still
looked shiney. I replaced all those with galvanized cable.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Control pulleys - Stainless vs. Galvanized Control |
Cable
And, if you're in Canada, you can buy the MIL Spec. 7x19 1/8" galvanized
"aircraft cable" at Canadian Tire at an EXCELLENT price. It's exactly the
same stuff. I moved the spool over and read the side and sure enough, it's
exactly the same. You can also see no difference if you put it beside the
stuff from ASS. THey also sell some other sizes, but nothing of much use
on our planes (1/4", 3/8", etc). THere is no 3/32" available.
Ken
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999 mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com wrote:
> Thanks a lot for this one. Would you believe, I'm going to go with
> GALVANIZED.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/02/99 06:21:10 PM
> Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET
>
>
> To: piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET
> cc:
>
> Subject: Re: Control pulleys
>
> If your stainless steel cable ever has just one strand broken and
> sticking out, cashier it. Throw it out and get a new cable. In
> stainless, if one wire breaks the rest are likely to follow close
> behind. That one strand breaking is the only warning that you are
> likely to get.
>
> Notice that elevators and cranes use only galvanized cable. The
> advantage is that, the steel used in flexible wire rope can be maliable
> and tough. Stainless becomes hard and brittle as it gets worked and
> old. Unfortunately, stainless will stay bright right up to the day it
> breaks.
>
> Sure, galvanized cable will eventually rust. At least it rusts before
> it breaks, giving you a warning.
>
> Lauren
>
>
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
while at Oshkosh EAA last week I visited the old hangers (Pioneer Vil )
and noticed something on NX211 (see something new every time I go
there)...it has the same cable rub area on the upper leading edge of the
horizontal stabilizer as the Piets..the rub area is solved with the use
of a small guide pulley mounted on the top leading edge.....has any Piet
builder tried this? I know extra weight back there is taboo but if the
building is kept light and W&B permits it??? looked to no more than a
1" pulley..
any comments???
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
This is a quick note -->
Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).
The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an experimental,
however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:
and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.
But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.
The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences could
be legally
devastating.
Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulation
David Scott
CFII
---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7
/--------------------\ |~~\_____/~~\__ |
|scott(at)haulpak.com | o' ~~\|~~~ |
REF: 14CFR91.319
----------------------
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 14, Volume 2, Parts 60 to 139]
[Revised as of January 1, 1999]
[CITE: 14CFR91.319]
[Page 219-220]
CHAPTER I--FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PART 91--GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES--Table of Contents
Sec. 91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
(a) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate--
(1) For other than the purpose for which the certificate was issued;
or
(2) Carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate outside of an area assigned by the Administrator until it is
shown that--
(1) The aircraft is controllable throughout its normal range of
speeds and throughout all the maneuvers to be executed; and
(2) The aircraft has no hazardous operating characteristics or
design features.
(c) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator in special
operating limitations, no person may operate an aircraft that has an
experimental certificate over a densely populated area or in a congested
airway. The Administrator may issue special operating limitations for
particular aircraft to permit takeoffs and landings to be conducted over
a densely populated area or in a congested airway, in accordance with
terms and conditions specified in the authorization in the interest of
safety in air commerce.
(d) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate shall--
(1) Advise each person carried of the experimental nature of the
aircraft;
(2) Operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator; and
(3) Notify the control tower of the experimental nature of the
aircraft when operating the aircraft into or out of airports with
operating control towers.
(e) The Administrator may prescribe additional limitations that the
Administrator considers necessary, including
[[Page 220]]
limitations on the persons that may be carried in the aircraft.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
2120-0005)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doug <ve6zh(at)oanet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cable rub wear |
I raised the bellcrank on mine,and added 2 pulleys at the rear side of
the pilots seat due to the direction change of the cables(galvanized),also
added nylon fairleads just under the covering where all cables exit,cables
clear the horizontal stab now,looks better to me anyway.
Doug Hunt.....
> From: fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: cable rub wear
> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 8:36 AM
>
> while at Oshkosh EAA last week I visited the old hangers (Pioneer Vil )
> and noticed something on NX211 (see something new every time I go
> there)...it has the same cable rub area on the upper leading edge of the
> horizontal stabilizer as the Piets..the rub area is solved with the use
> of a small guide pulley mounted on the top leading edge.....has any Piet
> builder tried this? I know extra weight back there is taboo but if the
> building is kept light and W&B permits it??? looked to no more than a
> 1" pulley..
> any comments???
> JoeC
> Zion, Illinois
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton |
Make sure you have the gussets on the front side and they are fully dry
first.
I only soak the first 18" or so of the top capstrip. The first rib I did, I
got in a hurry and didn't
glue the gussets on.(duh) Pulled it out and things moved everywhere. The
gussets are where
all the strength come from. They have to be glued well and fully dry before
you remove
the rib from the jig. I guess this is really a prestressed assembly.
I use spruce.
GY
-----Original Message-----
From: GREA738(at)aol.com <GREA738(at)aol.com>
Date: Thursday, September 02, 1999 2:28 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: 1st Annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Benton
>Greg,
>Since you're hot into the rib building phase maybe you can tell me if I'm
>doing it wrong - or have the wrong expectations.
>I'm getting springback when I take the ribs out of the jig. The
undercamber
>tries to flatten out and drags the top of the airfoil with it.
>Are you steaming the rib bottom strip as well as the upper forward part?
>Did you over bend the undercamber and upper strip to compensate? If so,
how
>much?
>What wood are you using?
>Thanx,
>DG
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
>The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an
>experimental,
>however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:
>
David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn't charge me
a nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in his Citabria
to boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it would have been
a large pizza and beer though :))
Mike C.
The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while
flying an
experimental,
however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is
deemed:
David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn't
charge me
a nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in his
Citabria
to boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it would
have been
a large pizza and beer though :))
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Commercial Ops in a Piet |
As a side not, a legal way of making $$ with your Piet is
to sell a roll of film. (with photos on it that you
took of a shopping center going up, an addition onto
a church or industrial parkway, someone's new home
being built...before and after shots are always tempting
for them once they see them......but you're only selling
a roll of film to somebody.)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
My take on the charging for flight instruction in an experimental:
If the person you are instructing is already a Private pilot, then you are
not carrying a person for hire, since HE is PIC. The line "carrying persons
or property for hire" desribes carrying non-pilot passengers or cargo which
would be covered partly by part 91 or 135.
I think that primary instruction of student pilots where you charge for the
plane and Instructor would be forbidden.
It should be okay to charge for transition training to
owners/prospective-owners of experimentals if they are at least Private
Pilots.
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Found someones glasses! |
I was giving rides on Saturday, and to my surprise I came across a pair of
reading glasses. Anyone having trouble seeing since Brodhead? There was
also a hat pin with the red piet. Anyone?
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Van Brendle <vbrendle(at)twave.net> |
I have found a pietenpol for sale, in my area. It has a Model A engine,
and a Zenith Carb. The owner says it is normal for the engine to spit
and sputter on takeoff, until in the air. He further states this is due
to the the uneven grassy surface, and the fuel in the zenith carb.
moving around. It has an aluminum head and turns 2150 static. Is this
alittle high? I believe he said it had a 72" x 44" propeller. Does
anyone have any comments or answers? Many thanks...
Van Brendle
Hickory NC
828 466-3748
I have found a pietenpol for sale,
in my
area. It has a Model A engine, and a Zenith Carb. The owner
says it
is normal for the engine to spit and sputter on takeoff, until in the
air.
He further states this is due to the the uneven grassy surface, and the
fuel in
the zenith carb. moving around. It has an aluminum head and turns
2150
static. Is this alittle high? I believe he said it had a
72 x
44 propeller. Does anyone have any comments or
answers? Many
thanks...
Van Brendle
Hickory NC
828
466-3748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
When this talk started I did wonder how you would get your BFR. You
would have to pay him. Or is a BFR not considered instruction?
Another hypo. question.....There would be no way for a guy to build an
experimental,before he learned to fly, and get his flight training and
licence in his own plane?
And another.....If you had your PPL but no taildragger signoff, you
couldn't fly your own plane till you got endorsement in another
taildragger?
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:46 AM
Subject: Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)...
>The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while
flying an
>experimental,
>however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is
deemed:
>
David- This is a very interesting FAR. Luckily my CFI didn't charge
me
a nickel ! What a great guy....and in fact traded me rides in his
Citabria
to boot. I think if he would have accepted anything it would have
been
a large pizza and beer though :))
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Randall Reihing <rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Carb. |
The last time I rode in a Piet it was from a slightly uneven grass strip
and there was no hint of irregular operation of the engine. I have watched
guys bounce down our 2200 foot strip for several years now and have never
heard an engine miss a beat during it's takeoff run. Everything from
certified, to homebuilts and ultralights. As a thought, what if the engine
decides to quit at the moment of lift off? Is there sufficient room to
reland? If the strip is that bad perhaps it also might be a good idea to
check the integrity of the landing gear and the gear's fuselage attach
points. Be careful........ Randall Reihing
> "" Many thanks... Van Brendle Hickory NC 828 466-3748
Randall Reihing
University of Toledo
College of Engineering
MIME Department
419-530-8244
FAX: 419-530-8206
E-Mail: rreihing(at)eng.utoledo.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Carb. |
Only plane I've ever seen that did this had the fuel float arm bent. It
would hardly hold enough fuel in the bowl for quick changes to open
throttle. It would also sputter when taking off on rough ground. The
pilot who owned the plane said something like the guy you talked to. My
buddy and me told this guy we would never fly something that even hinted
at sputtering. (I have dead sticked it in before and it aint no fun!)
We offered to help him diagnose his problem. An hour and a half latter
the problem was fixed. The guy thought is was much better to roll down
a rough grass strip with an engine that purred. Also he tried a aborted
landing and when he throttled up it didn't choke.... Isn't that handy.
GY
-----Original Message-----
From: Van Brendle <vbrendle(at)twave.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:04 PM
Subject: Zenith Carb.
I have found a pietenpol for sale, in my area. It has a Model A
engine, and a Zenith Carb. The owner says it is normal for the engine
to spit and sputter on takeoff, until in the air. He further states
this is due to the the uneven grassy surface, and the fuel in the zenith
carb. moving around. It has an aluminum head and turns 2150 static. Is
this alittle high? I believe he said it had a 72" x 44" propeller.
Does anyone have any comments or answers? Many thanks...
Van Brendle
Hickory NC
828 466-3748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <William.Sayre(at)PSS.Boeing.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Zenith Carb. |
This is why the original intake manifold is modified (to angle the carb
properly) on the engine modification prints. Check to see if it has the original
manifold (or a log style), if original, check for welding/brazing just above
the carb (or some other method of tilting the carb).
At least that's where I'd start.
Bill Sayre
> From: Van Brendle < vbrendle(at)twave.net>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion < piet(at)byu.edu>
> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 2:04 PM
> Subject: Zenith Carb.
>
>
> I have found a pietenpol for sale, in my area. It has a Model A engine,
and a Zenith Carb. The owner says it is normal for the engine to spit and
sputter on takeoff, until in the air. He further states this is due to the the
uneven grassy surface, and the fuel in the zenith carb. moving around. It
has an aluminum head and turns 2150 static. Is this alittle high? I believe
he said it had a 72" x 44" propeller. Does anyone have any comments or answers?
Many thanks...
>
> Van Brendle
> Hickory NC
> 828 466-3748
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
Loud & Clear Randy
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
Piet screen saver?
Where can a Scout builder find such a gem??
DG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Carb. |
I've seen Ford A engines literally go through hell without sputtering (used
to race them). The fellow probably has an electrical problem that he hasn't
been able to find, sounds like an intermittant ground. Was he the original
builder? Contact Ron Kelley in Royce City TX 972 771-1911 for suggestions.
DG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: cable rub wear |
I also see things on aircraft I have studied before and find a lot of
interesting solutions to problem areas. De Havilland Tiger Moths DH 82a's
use a sleeve positioned on the cables at the rub points and the sleeve
slides through an eye mounted on the front edge of the stab. The sleeve
protects the cable from abrasion and doesn't have misalignment problems a
pulley might present. Neat huh?
I also was involved in a discussion at Brodhead in '96 about the
elevator cables going slack as the deflection nears each end of the travel.
I had noticed that some Piets didn't have this problem and others did. The
solution is careful geometry of the elevator horns and the bell crank. The
idea being to keep the bell crank horns and hinge points acting as a
parallelogram. The same builder also recommended raising the bell crank
pivot so the cables would not touch the stab. His didn't. No increase in
complexity or weight either.
John Mc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
| Subject: | Re: Zenith Carb. |
My understanding of the Ford carbs is that they can cause a stumbling
engine as the fuel sloshes around. I haven't flown my Ford yet but my
"driver" a '28 AA truck does that on really bumpy roads but is much
smoother with the Model B carb. The float bowl is hinged to the side
parallel to the engine in the B carb and 90 degrees to that in the A.
Maybe the 2150 means that it is a strong engine :-)
-----Original Message-----
From: Van Brendle <vbrendle(at)twave.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 1:26 PM
Subject: Zenith Carb.
I have found a pietenpol for sale, in my area. It has a Model A
engine, and a Zenith Carb. The owner says it is normal for the engine
to spit and sputter on takeoff, until in the air. He further states
this is due to the the uneven grassy surface, and the fuel in the zenith
carb. moving around. It has an aluminum head and turns 2150 static. Is
this alittle high? I believe he said it had a 72" x 44" propeller.
Does anyone have any comments or answers? Many thanks...
Van Brendle
Hickory NC
828 466-3748
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower(at)informador.com.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering Systems |
>Ditto to what Michael said...about the Randolph process and about the 1.7 oz
>fabric. Or at least use the Randolph process thru the silver. After the
>silver, there are three good options I know of.
>
>1) My dad's best results have been with Butyrate dope...using as few or as
>many coats as it takes to get the desired finish. This he has used both on
>his Robin and on his F-17D staggerwing - picture attached.
Thanks for the great photo, I converted it to .bmp copyed to the windows
file and use it as a wallpaper for my computer.
The plane of my dreams! congratualations to your Dad for a great job.
Hope this photo is not copywrited :-)
I also have the sound of a radial engine starting as my computers start up
sound.
(airplane crazy?)
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
>This is a quick note -->
>
>Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).
>
>The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying
an experimental,
>however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:
>
>
>and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.
>
>But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.
Actually, an instructor may charge for instruction given in a homebuilt, as
long as the instructor is not the owner/operator of the aircraft.
As long as it isn't his airplane, he is allowed to charge for the
service(flight instruction) that he is providing. The CFI isn't being paid
to fly the airplane, he's being paid to teach(My CFI examiner told me that
the sign of a good instructor is how little stick time the CFI gets).The FAA
doesn't automatically assume that the CFI is the owner/operator of an
aircraft he is flying in. Being the owner/operator is not the same thing as
being Pilot-in-Command. For example, a pilot that works at an FBO can be
PIC of an aircraft he is flying, but he is not the owner/operator.
________________________________________________________________________________
Walt,
Thanks for the response, checked with a boatbuilder friend who dropped over
to "review" my bending techniques. Steaming time & process was OK (live
steam, one hour/inch of thickness) but I was a little to casual moving the
wood from the steamer to the bend jig. He felt that with the temperature in
my shop (air conditioned, like to keep it cool & dry) whatever the steam
softens was hardening before the strip was fastened in the jig.
Live & learn!
Denis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Don't say that!!! |
In a message dated 9/2/99 9:23:16 AM Central Daylight Time, mbell(at)sctcorp.com
writes:
<< Did you consider lightening the last 25% of the spar on either
side? The outboard ends carry about 75% less load this far out.
I'm working up a box spar out of plywood sides and spruce or
poplar center. According to "Stress Without Tears", the spars
can be lightened a great deal as you proceed from root to tip. A
built up spar will allow progressively lighter construction
towards the ends. A routed spar could also have more and more
wood removed as you progress from root to tip. When I finish
laying it out, I'm going to go over it with a civil engineer who
works in my office to verify my calculations. I'll be glad to
put it on line at that time for further comments.
Mike Bell >>
Mike, lightening the spars at the tips has been a thought of mine, but
violating the spars gives me the heebie jeebies !! I've never heard it done
before, but I would be very interested in any info ya find on it.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | oil can <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
That pict of the Big Beech D-17 reminds me of my youth some years ago. I was
working for Lake Osoyoose State Park on the US/ Canada border in north
central washington.
A white Beech staggerwing flew over and landed at the local airport. Since
that is the "Port of Entry" from Canada,and I knew he would be there a
while, I got permission from my boss and took a drive out there and take a
look at it.
The fellow was standing all alone waiting for the border guard to arrive. He
told me that he had just come south from Alaska, where he had recovered the
plane as a crash in the Alaska bush.
This fellow hiked in to the crash site, tore the planes wings off, then
hired a helicopter to fly in and pull it out from the crash area.
He worked to get it re-built up there, and flew it south to his home in
Colville, WA. Thats the last I ever heard of him or the aircraft.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
what does a guy do to get an answer. I want to get
started on my piet. and I need to know if I should be
building a short fuse or a long one. they are both
layed out in my plans. I am planning on using a
corvair.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Del,
I haven't ordered the plans yet, but from what I understand, I think the
long fuse is for the Corvair engine. I believe the Corvair is lighter than
the Ford "A" engine, and needs the additional leverage forward of the wing
to keep your cg where you need it. At least that seems to make sense to me.
I'm also planning on using the Corvair engine. Where did you get yours? I
saw a place in NY that listed a 110HP engine for $350.00, if that's right it
sure beats the A65 Continental I was planning on using before I switched to
the Corvair. If you haven't built ribs yet, you could always do some of
those while waiting for an answer!
Heck , if nothing else, if I'm wrong, I bet it spurs some folks on to
correct me, then we'll both know!
You know, could be that lots of folks are out of pocket right now due to
the holiday weekend. Maybe someone who's done it will check in soon. Just
wanted to let you know that someone was still out here!
Good Luck,
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dick Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
>When this talk started I did wonder how you would get your BFR. You would
have to pay him. Or is a BFR not considered instruction?
Sometimes; :)
If a pilot has all his paperwork in order, is rated in the category and
class of aircraft and current in the category and class(ie, single-engine
land) of the aircraft the BFR is given in, then the BFR might not be
considered dual instruction. Otherwise, if your medical is outdated, or you
are not current in the category/class of the BFR aircraft, it is dual
instruction.
If you're doing the BFR in a tailwheel equipped aircraft, you must be
current in a tailwheel aircraft of the same category and class.
Here's an example: you fly a Beech 18(multi-engine tailwheel aircraft) for a
living. The last time you flew a Cub was a year ago. If you took your BFR in
a Cub tomorrow, it would be considered dual instruction.
Summary:
1: Rated in category and class(this is NOT the same as make and model)
2: Current in category and class
3: Tailwheel endorsement , if needed(not needed if you have tailwheel PIC
time before the mid-80's;check the regs).
4: Current paperwork(medical certificate, etc.)
If you meet these criteria, you can log a BFR as PIC.
You can also log it as dual(that's right; you can log it as both).
>Another hypo. question.....There would be no way for a guy to build an
experimental,before he learned to fly, and get his flight training and
licence in his own plane?
Someone else would have to fly off the restrictions before more than 2
people could fly in the airplane(I think the rules say only the minimum
flight crew is allowed to fly the aircraft before restrictions are flown
off; a Piet only requires one(1) person.
>And another.....If you had your PPL but no taildragger signoff, you
couldn't fly your own plane till you got endorsement in another taildragger?
This is correct; You would have to find an instructor and a tailwheel a/c to
get the checkout(This may or may not be difficult; you might have to search
a while, or you might not).
I hope this helps a little bit.
Dick Dery
1903918CFI
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
Dick ,
Thanks for the information.
walt
Dick ,
Thanks for the
information.
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Del,
My understanding from the beginning, was that originally there was only an
"A" powered Piet, which Bernard designed. Then they wanted to try more
popular engines of the 50's, which were Continentals and Lycomings. These
engines are much lighter ( 170# vs. 250#). So they designed the long fuse
so you could hang the engine farther fwd of the wing, and stretch out
everything else to keep the original appearance.
Just like on a see-saw, if a fat kid gets off the other side and a light kid
gets on , he has to slide further away from you/ the pivot point ( CG ).
In this discussion you will hear of builders who built the short fuse with
a Cont. and had to lengthen the engine mount 4" Plus move the wing back.
I'm building a long fuse with Cont. 65 and lengthened the mount [ only
because I'm 225#])
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 10:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: long fuse?
>what does a guy do to get an answer. I want to get
>started on my piet. and I need to know if I should be
>building a short fuse or a long one. they are both
>layed out in my plans. I am planning on using a
>corvair.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Conkling <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee Workshop"
was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats out of the
steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being bent
into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 - 60
sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
As always, know where to steal good ideas!
Mike Conkling
Pretty Prairie, KS
P.S. I'm looking forward to connecting some names & faces at Benton next
weekend! See ya there!
> From: GREA738(at)aol.com
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Rib springback
> Date: Friday, September 03, 1999 10:44 PM
>
> Walt,
> Thanks for the response, checked with a boatbuilder friend who dropped
over
> to "review" my bending techniques. Steaming time & process was OK (live
> steam, one hour/inch of thickness) but I was a little to casual moving
the
> wood from the steamer to the bend jig. He felt that with the temperature
in
> my shop (air conditioned, like to keep it cool & dry) whatever the steam
> softens was hardening before the strip was fastened in the jig.
> Live & learn!
> Denis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Estrada <jetflyer(at)mhtc.net> |
| Subject: | remote control piet on e-bay plans |
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=157761785 ...check
it out..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Guys,
I have a dumb question about ribs. On drawing #5 of the Pietenpol plans it
shows a 1" spruce wedge on top of the front spar. On the supplemental
drawing it appears that the gussets in that area go over the spar. Is this
correct? Do the gussets ride on top of the spar and replace the wedge?
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
Gary...sorry you're not getting response...some of us may not have answers
while others just assume those who would know will reply. I'm using the "A",
but it has been my understanding that the long fuselage was designed by Mr
Pietenpol specifically for his first (and only???) Corvair powered plane.
Most of the guys using Continentals use the long fuselage for the same reason
it was good for the Corvair...CG considerations. Hope that helps, but also
hope you can get a more meaningful reply from one of the Corvair Peit guys !!
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Copinfo <Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com> |
We're not ignoring you Del. Do the long fuselage.
-----Original Message-----
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 9:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: long fuse?
>what does a guy do to get an answer. I want to get
>started on my piet. and I need to know if I should be
>building a short fuse or a long one. they are both
>layed out in my plans. I am planning on using a
>corvair.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jmcnarry(at)techplus.com (John McNarry) |
just be patient and ask again. I am building a grega with many mods and an
old Cirrus air cooled inline four -It is fairly heavy about the same as a
Model A with cooling system. The long Fuse alows more front cockpit leg room
and to my understanding works better with the Continental series of engines.
Ask again and maybe some of the flying guys will comment.
John Mc
----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
>what does a guy do to get an answer. I want to get
>started on my piet. and I need to know if I should be
>building a short fuse or a long one. they are both
>layed out in my plans. I am planning on using a
>corvair.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
Del: Bernard designed the Long Fuse for the Corvair Engine, So if you
plan on using the corvair I would use the long fuselage.
Happy Flying (Building)
John
del magsam wrote:
>
> what does a guy do to get an answer. I want to get
> started on my piet. and I need to know if I should be
> building a short fuse or a long one. they are both
> layed out in my plans. I am planning on using a
> corvair.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Tom,
Thats the way I took it. They improved the procedure. Think they still call
out wedge on the rear. Right now I'm storing the fuse in the back room to
make way for the wings.
All ribs done, spars routed, just have to move the table into the wing mode.
Pretty soon I'll be a " wing expert".
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com <TomTravis(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 5:04 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Guys,
>
>I have a dumb question about ribs. On drawing #5 of the Pietenpol plans it
>shows a 1" spruce wedge on top of the front spar. On the supplemental
>drawing it appears that the gussets in that area go over the spar. Is this
>correct? Do the gussets ride on top of the spar and replace the wedge?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Walt,
Thanks for the info. I'll start gluing the first rib tonight.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Thinking back on the rib building, I look back on things that seemed
confusing, but once you get through them it clears up.....He calls out
an end rib for the last rib on both ends of the one piece wing. This
rib has extra "sticks' in it to support the rib caps, and is to stop the
fabric from distorting the rib when the fabric is tightened ,pulling
down over the edge.
In building the 3 piece wing, I put an end rib on each end of each wing,
plus on each end of the center section. Then the inboard rib on each
wing and the outsides of the center section get 1/16x2" ply to stop
lateral distortion.
Is this what everyone else did?
walt
Thinking back on the rib building, I
look back
on things that seemed confusing, but once you get through them it clears
up.....He calls out an end rib for the last rib on both ends of the one
piece
wing. This rib has extra sticks' in it to support the rib
caps, and
is to stop the fabric from distorting the rib when the fabric is
tightened
,pulling down over the edge.
In building the 3 piece wing, I put
an end rib
on each end of each wing, plus on each end of the center section.
Then the
inboard rib on each wing and the outsides of the center section get
1/16x2
ply to stop lateral distortion.
Is this what everyone else
did?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Tom,
One more thought( well two)
When cutting gussets be aware of the grain in the ply.......and
When applying the gusset that you first spoke about ( going over the top
of the front spar). What I did last week, I'm just ready to lay out the
wing, is to make the area that will sit on top of the spar, a little low so
you have to file/sand out the height to get a nice fit to the top of the
spar. I used a "dummy" spar to lay in each spot, and draw a line to the top
, and file it out. Didn't take long, and made for a nicer job. Ribs won't
be flopping on the spars.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com <TomTravis(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 6:28 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Walt,
>
>Thanks for the info. I'll start gluing the first rib tonight.
>
>
> Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Good tip, Walt. Thanks.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Walter Evans wrote that he use end ribs (extra sticks) at wing root and
center section. I am doing the same thing. I was wondering if it would
be wise to cover the outside of these end ribs with 1/16 ply for ease of
fabric attachment. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LanhamOS(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Power and Beech D 17 |
Anyone for Corvair Power? Ran across this ad in an aviation periodical
today:
Adapted for aircraft, but not running. Planetary gear reduction..
$500 or obo.
sell all or parts. 503 648 1203.
Who ever put the Beech 17 mail up, can you do it again? Mine got
erased befor I read it!
Dr. L in Bellevue
Keep em Flying
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Stefan <leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 7:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: End ribs.
Walter Evans wrote that he use end ribs (extra sticks) at wing root and
center section. I am doing the same thing. I was wondering if it would
be wise to cover the outside of these end ribs with 1/16 ply for ease of
fabric attachment. Leon S.
Yes
Mike B Piet N697MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
Walter;
This is exactly what I did on my Scout (1 piece) wing....PLUS....those
end ribs with the extra vertical sticks.....at the tip...... need extra
lateral protection as well. I did that with several (3 top, 3 bottom)
1/4 x 1/4 "sticks" glued under the capstrips and PARALLEL to the spars &
accrossed 3 ribs (2 rib bays). I am glad I did that as even with that,
the tip end rib has a slight bow or wavyness to it and transmitted
that to the two other ribs to a lessor degree.....also it was needed on
the first full rib of the aileron cutout be it the sticks or the 2"
piece of plywood.......you can't believe what pressure the fabric can
induce SIDEWAYS at these areas!
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 6:39 PM
Subject: end ribs
Thinking back on the rib building, I look back on things that seemed
confusing, but once you get through them it clears up.....He calls out
an end rib for the last rib on both ends of the one piece wing. This
rib has extra "sticks' in it to support the rib caps, and is to stop the
fabric from distorting the rib when the fabric is tightened ,pulling
down over the edge.
In building the 3 piece wing, I put an end rib on each end of each
wing, plus on each end of the center section. Then the inboard rib on
each wing and the outsides of the center section get 1/16x2" ply to stop
lateral distortion.
Is this what everyone else did?
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi del: Build the long one. I am, and so are most folks. I expect to use a
corvair also. Have you picked out a tree yet?
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Gary M:
How are you doing on your piet? And engine? Ryder
________________________________________________________________________________
yes, it wouldn't hurt, however, I glued mine on the underside of the
capstrip so they wouldn't be seen. I have a one piece wing so I terminated
the fabric down inside the wing cavity for the gastank.....some guys cut a
1/32 or 1/64" plywood cover to cover the root rib as a "cap". This cover is
how the fabric gets "terminated" so to speak.........
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 9:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: End ribs.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Leon Stefan <leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Saturday, September 04, 1999 7:19 PM
>Subject: End ribs.
>
>
>Walter Evans wrote that he use end ribs (extra sticks) at wing root and
>center section. I am doing the same thing. I was wondering if it would
>be wise to cover the outside of these end ribs with 1/16 ply for ease of
>fabric attachment. Leon S.
>
>Yes
>
>Mike B Piet N697MB ( Mr Sam )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello Ryder,
I honestly haven't even gotten started yet on the Pietenpol. I have been
doing my research for awhile now, and lurking around the list seeing what
folks are doing trying to decide how I want to do this. I think I'm going to
go with the Corvair engine, it seems like a nice lightweight alternative to
the "A", with good power, durability and parts support, and I'm a little
big, so the lighter weight helps out.
I'd wanted to use a Continental, but I think the Corvair is a viable,
economic alternative, although I do like magneto ignitions.
I would love to be working on mine right now, but we're in the middle of
buying a house, with the improvements that it will need, and I'm trying to
do a little cosmetic work and speed mods on my Cardinal, and I'm working on
my CFI. And I still try to work 40 a week too! Oh well, a little cheese with
that whine would be perfect! But it is fun!
Are you in the construction process on your Piet? If so, any words of
wisdom to share? What engine/prop are you going to use?
If you're flying it already, what do you think of its flight
characteristics? It looks like a pretty straightforward design - Bernie did
good!
I look forward to hearing from you!
Good luck,
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
For what it's worth, my Continental-powered Pietenpol fuselage
is built according to the "Improved " plans drawn by Hoopman
with two changes:
1. Front bay is extended six inches to accomodate the lighter
Continental engine (Recommended by BHP himself). This
gives more leg room in the front cockpit and allows a front
fuselage fuel tank of a decent size to be installed.
2. Fuselage from firewall to rear cockpit is two inches wider than
the plans dimension. This is a worthwhile change when the
weather turns cool and more clothing is necessary.
I used an eight inch long Aeronca 7AC / 11AC engine mount
which adapted well to the wider fuselage without any modifying.
The wing is moved back about three inches for correct CG lo-
cation. I have used an A65, and currently have a C85 installed.
The fuselage could be lengthened at the cockpits to accomodate
taller people (perhaps this is addressed by the plans for the long
fuselage---which I have not examined). A friend says that a lot of
these old airplanes were designed "when midgets ruled the earth".
Having flown four different Pietenpols, all with Continentals and the
longer nose, I find them to be a bit unstable in yaw. Perhaps a longer
aft fuselage would correct this. The original Ford-powered version pos-
sibly is OK with its shorter nose (sheer speculation on my part). Has
anyone out there been able to compare the Ford and Continental air-
planes regarding directional stability?
Cheers,
Graham
For what it's worth, my
Continental-powered
Pietenpol fuselage
is built according to the
Improved
plans drawn by Hoopman
with two changes:
1. Front bay is extended six inches
to
accomodate the lighter
Continental
engine
(Recommended by BHP himself). This
gives more leg
room in the
front cockpit and allows a front
fuselage fuel
tank of a
decent size to be installed.
2. Fuselage from firewall to rear
cockpit is two
inches wider than
the plans dimension.
This is a
worthwhile change when the
weather turns cool and
more
clothing is necessary.
I used an eight inch long Aeronca
7AC / 11AC
engine mount
which adapted well to the wider
fuselage without
any modifying.
The wing is moved back about three
inches for
correct CG lo-
cation. I have used an A65, and
currently have a
C85 installed.
The fuselage could be lengthened at
the cockpits
to accomodate
taller people (perhaps this is
addressed by the
plans for the long
fuselage---which I have not
examined). A friend
says that a lot of
these old airplanes were designed
when
midgets ruled the earth.
Having flown four different
Pietenpols, all with
Continentals and the
longer nose, I find them to be a bit unstable in
yaw. Perhaps
a longer
aft fuselage would correct this. The original
Ford-powered
version pos-
sibly is OK with its shorter nose (sheer speculation
on my
part). Has
anyone out there been able to compare the Ford and
Continental
air-
planes regarding directional stability?
Cheers,
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
What a great Pietenpol day!!!!!
I went down this morning and laid out $139 at sears for a brand new table
saw. As soon as I got it out of the box and bolted down on my old oak shop
table...I sent the sawdust flying!!!! Finally I am started on the project I
wanted to start 10 years ago. Thanks to the discussion group and to Chuck
Gantzer for helping me get inspired again! I got most of my 1/4 inch
rip-cuts done on my capstrip material. Took me a little while to get the
technique down but am so far pleased with the results I am getting. Most of
my cuts only vary +/- 1/32nd". Some of my poorer ones vary by 1/16th". As I
worked along, I made some refinements to my saw horses and got better at
holding the 1/4" dimension. I am using red cedar which I bought in 2"X4"X12'
boards. Wow...what a great aroma that fresh-cut cedar makes. I should
finish my 1/4" cuts tomorrow. Then start in on the 1/2" ones. I hope to
start gluing up ribs this week in my jig.
This afternoon I spent with Chuck Gantzer. He achieved a big milestone
today. We both did the final inspection on his wing and "approved" it ready
for cover. We got the whole bottom wing sheet of fabric glued on tonight.
The whole time we were working...Chuck kept throwing VCR tapes in. We
watched Grant McLaren's video featuring Howard Henderson's Piet. And also
Mike Cuy's wonderful tape.
By the way...Mike. I really enjoyed your tape and commend you for an
excellent job! Do you have any more copies of that tape? I would Love to
buy one from you. Your Pietenpol is really configured closely to the way I
am hoping to have mine turn out. Every time a flying segment would come
on...I would tell Chuck..."C'mon..let's hurry and get this thing done!!".
We had a great time and got a lot done today... Looking forward to seeing
everyone at Benton next weekend.
TerryB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
<< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats out
of the
steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being bent
into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 - 60
sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
>>
This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in moisture
content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested glued
wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content which I
think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant remember
what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood glue.
Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet wood.
TerryB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Graham Hansen wrote:
snip>anyone out there been able to compare the Ford and Continental air-
planes regarding directional stability?<<
I fly with a 0-200. Had a Ford engine for two years before the
continental. Put some time on Ed Snyder's Ford. I found no difference
in directional stability.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Terry,
The spec. on T-88 says it works just as well on wet wood as dry.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:44 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
>hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
>
><< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
>Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats out
>of the
> steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
> little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being bent
> into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 -
60
> sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
> >>
>
>This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
>potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in moisture
>content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested glued
>wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
>that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content which
I
>think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant
remember
>what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood glue.
>Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet wood.
>
>TerryB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | glue wet wood/spring back |
I boiled my capstrip ends for only 10 minuets. Not long enough to
saturate wood. I think the heat does as much good as the steam. After
taking them from water,I dried them with a towel and had them in my
bending jig in less than a minuet. (3 at a time) After 24 hours the bend
took and they were ready for the rib jig. I think it's important for the
ribs to be dry and "set" when you build them to eliminate spring back.
As opposed to placing them in rib jig directly out of steamer. Then you
either wait until they dry, or build your rib while wood is still wet.
I'm sure if you tested your bent (and dry) capstrips moisture content
would be slightly elevated, but they glued up fine with Aeropoxy Leon
Stefan..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Weikel <jandd(at)maverickbbs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
I used T-88 on wet wood laminations and it worked fine.
John W
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 8:55 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Terry,
>The spec. on T-88 says it works just as well on wet wood as dry.
>walt
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:44 AM
>Subject: Re: Rib springback
>
>
>>In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
>>
>><< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
>>Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats
out
>>of the
>> steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
>> little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being
bent
>> into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 -
>60
>> sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
>> >>
>>
>>This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
>>potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in moisture
>>content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested glued
>>wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
>>that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content which
>I
>>think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant
>remember
>>what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood
glue.
>>Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet
wood.
>>
>>TerryB
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Without any Six Sigma/Iso9001 testing being done, I would say the wet
capstrip getting glued is NOT a good practice........to me it wouldn't make
good sense as the drying/shrinking/expanding is going on. I can't say WHY it
wouldn't be good except if that was a better way, it would have been written
up and we'd be reading about it long before now. Let me sleep at night by
you saying you will do them DRY, OK?
Earl Myers, 11 wing panels under the belt (dry)
-----Original Message-----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
>hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
>
><< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
>Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats out
>of the
> steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
> little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being bent
> into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 -
60
> sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
> >>
>
>This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
>potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in moisture
>content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested glued
>wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
>that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content which
I
>think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant
remember
>what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood glue.
>Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet wood.
>
>TerryB
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Earl...I am leaning toward the dry method.
Leon...I am considering using a preliminary shaping jig as you mentioned. I
remember seeing a pattern for one in the BPA news a long time ago.
I am also considering not soaking or steaming. I have been playing with
these cedar sticks and they are a lot more flexible than spruce or douglas
fir. Perhaps they'd glue up just fine without soaking or steaming.
Terry B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Terry;
THANK YOU! Stick with a known standard & you will do OK. What kind of Cedar
was this again?
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 12:34 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Earl...I am leaning toward the dry method.
>
>Leon...I am considering using a preliminary shaping jig as you mentioned.
I
>remember seeing a pattern for one in the BPA news a long time ago.
>
>I am also considering not soaking or steaming. I have been playing with
>these cedar sticks and they are a lot more flexible than spruce or douglas
>fir. Perhaps they'd glue up just fine without soaking or steaming.
>
>Terry B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
EARL,
I disagree. The reason it wasn't written up by Bernard , is that it wasn't
invented for another 40 years or so. But it is written up in the T-88 specs
. Doesn't seem right but it works great. On my first project , Fisher 404,
it's really the only way that the leading edge ply can be fitted.(Very thin
ply with a radical bend) not only does soaking the wood make it flexible,
you can grip it better.
Try making some test pieces of wet and dry joints,,,,you'll be surprised.
One of the reasons I used T-88 is that I build in a damp basement.
Nothing has blown off the 404 yet.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Myers
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 12:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Without any Six Sigma/Iso9001 testing being done, I would say the wet
>capstrip getting glued is NOT a good practice........to me it wouldn't make
>good sense as the drying/shrinking/expanding is going on. I can't say WHY
it
>wouldn't be good except if that was a better way, it would have been
written
>up and we'd be reading about it long before now. Let me sleep at night by
>you saying you will do them DRY, OK?
>Earl Myers, 11 wing panels under the belt (dry)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:45 AM
>Subject: Re: Rib springback
>
>
>>In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
>>
>><< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
>>Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats
out
>>of the
>> steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
>> little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being
bent
>> into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 -
>60
>> sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
>> >>
>>
>>This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
>>potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in moisture
>>content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested glued
>>wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
>>that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content which
>I
>>think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant
>remember
>>what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood
glue.
>>Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet
wood.
>>
>>TerryB
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
thanks gary and others who responded. sorry for my
frustration. I've started on the ribs and some of the
hardware. I've been shopping for a corvair and have
ordered the instructions from william wynn. it makes
sense to me to have a fresh corvair for the same
price as a runout continental. which i understand
that parts are hard to get. mr wynn thinks that the
corvair is the better engine anyway. prices for "as
is" corvairs seems to be 200 to 300 dollars.
---Gary Meadows wrote:
>
> Del,
> I haven't ordered the plans yet, but from what I
understand, I think the
> long fuse is for the Corvair engine. I believe the
Corvair is lighter than
> the Ford "A" engine, and needs the additional
leverage forward of the wing
> to keep your cg where you need it. At least that
seems to make sense to me.
> I'm also planning on using the Corvair engine.
Where did you get yours? I
> saw a place in NY that listed a 110HP engine for
$350.00, if that's right it
> sure beats the A65 Continental I was planning on
using before I switched to
> the Corvair. If you haven't built ribs yet, you
could always do some of
> those while waiting for an answer!
>
> Heck , if nothing else, if I'm wrong, I bet it
spurs some folks on to
> correct me, then we'll both know!
>
> You know, could be that lots of folks are out of
pocket right now due to
> the holiday weekend. Maybe someone who's done it
will check in soon. Just
> wanted to let you know that someone was still out
here!
>
> Good Luck,
> Gary Meadows
>
>
> Get Your Private, Free Email at
http://www.hotmail.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
I have set up my rib fixture with toggle clamps on
each gusset. I can glue up one rib or maybe even two
stacked, clamp it and come back 24 hours later, take
it out and clamp one or two more. this would save all
of the nailing. the purpose of the nails is just to
clamp it until the glue dries anyway. I can be doing
this while i'm working on the fuse. just looking for
any comments regarding that.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Walter;
OK, I will give it a try! I use T-88 exclusively but WASN'T aware of the
wet use issue.......Next time I will read the directions..........
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>EARL,
>I disagree. The reason it wasn't written up by Bernard , is that it wasn't
>invented for another 40 years or so. But it is written up in the T-88
specs
>. Doesn't seem right but it works great. On my first project , Fisher
404,
>it's really the only way that the leading edge ply can be fitted.(Very thin
>ply with a radical bend) not only does soaking the wood make it flexible,
>you can grip it better.
>Try making some test pieces of wet and dry joints,,,,you'll be surprised.
>One of the reasons I used T-88 is that I build in a damp basement.
>Nothing has blown off the 404 yet.
>walt
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Earl Myers
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 12:22 PM
>Subject: Re: Rib springback
>
>
>>Without any Six Sigma/Iso9001 testing being done, I would say the wet
>>capstrip getting glued is NOT a good practice........to me it wouldn't
make
>>good sense as the drying/shrinking/expanding is going on. I can't say WHY
>it
>>wouldn't be good except if that was a better way, it would have been
>written
>>up and we'd be reading about it long before now. Let me sleep at night by
>>you saying you will do them DRY, OK?
>>Earl Myers, 11 wing panels under the belt (dry)
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
>>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>>Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 2:45 AM
>>Subject: Re: Rib springback
>>
>>
>>>In a message dated 9/4/99 11:37:23 AM Central Daylight Time,
>>>hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
>>>
>>><< This has "jogged" my memory! A couple months ago Norm on "Yankee
>>>Workshop" was making a bent oak coat rack -- when they pulled the slats
>out
>>>of the
>>> steamer, they had ONLY 45 sec to get them in the jig. We might have a
>>> little extra time due to the nature of our bends -- the oak was being
>bent
>>> into a "figure 8" -- but I'd sure try to get rib strip in posistion 30 -
>>60
>>> sec. after it came out of the "cooker"
>>> >>
>>>
>>>This brings up another question I have been pondering. What are the
>>>potential adverse effects of gluing while the capstrip is high in
moisture
>>>content after steaming or soaking? I remember in college, we tested
glued
>>>wood joints and recorded their adhesion properties and tried to correlate
>>>that to the moisture content. There was an optimum moisture content
which
>>I
>>>think was around 12 to 14%. But that was a long time ago and I cant
>>remember
>>>what the glue was. Seems like it was something like Carpenter's wood
>glue.
>>>Anyway....I've been wondering if anyone has comments about gluing wet
>wood.
>>>
>>>TerryB
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | corvair/continental |
Del wrote:
snip>
That just aint so. No way.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Del wrote:
snipmr wynn thinks that thecorvair is
the
better engine anyway.
That just aint so. No way.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Brousseau <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long Fuselage |
Mike,
Do you have a long fuselage?
Ted
-----Original Message-----
I fly with a 0-200. Had a Ford engine for two years before the
continental. Put some time on Ed Snyder's Ford. I found no difference
in directional stability.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Walt,
I bought the supplemental rib drawing and traced it to build my rib jig.
After the first (only, so far) rib came out I realized the rear spar - 1"X 4
3/4" - won't fit. Back to square one with a new jig. Anyone else have this
problem?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
a tree? do you mean wood species? I plan to pick my
sitka spruce at oshkosh home lumber co.(my son goes
to avionics school there) they also seem to be more
reasonable.
---ToySat(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hi del: Build the long one. I am, and so are most
folks. I expect to use a
> corvair also. Have you picked out a tree yet?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Del
The first few ribs I made, only used weights on gussets. Some joints
weren't pulled together like they should, so I starting nailing.
I f you can get a good joint without nails , thats better. After the glue
dries, the nails don't do anything but add weight and rust in time.
Any place that you can't clamp, like the fuse sides and the seats, if you
lay out the nails spaced nice and prick the location with a very sharp awl,
when it's time to glue, just put nail in the hole and drive home. That keep
the nails that you will see looking good.
-----Original Message-----
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 4:10 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gluing ribs
>I have set up my rib fixture with toggle clamps on
>each gusset. I can glue up one rib or maybe even two
>stacked, clamp it and come back 24 hours later, take
>it out and clamp one or two more. this would save all
>of the nailing. the purpose of the nails is just to
>clamp it until the glue dries anyway. I can be doing
>this while i'm working on the fuse. just looking for
>any comments regarding that.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
SEEMS TO ME A PRELIMINARY SHAPING JIG IS THE WAY TO GO. yOU CAN DO SIX OR
MORE AT THE SAME TIME AND LET THEM DRY. i HAVE DONE THAT FOR YEARS AND HAVE
NEVER EXPERIENCED ANY SPRINGBACK AT ALL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Tom,
As a matter of fact, I ran into that TODAY. I chose to notch out the rib
cap ( and not to bevel the spar) .
Laid out one full wing with ribs on spars.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com <TomTravis(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 6:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Walt,
>
>I bought the supplemental rib drawing and traced it to build my rib jig.
>After the first (only, so far) rib came out I realized the rear spar - 1"X
4
>3/4" - won't fit. Back to square one with a new jig. Anyone else have this
>problem?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Walt,
Thanks for the info. I'm just about done with #2 rib jig and I think the
problem is that the bottom of the rib needs to be a bit lower. That measures
correctly with the original plans. I made a spar section to be sure
everything fits on this one.
________________________________________________________________________________
Del...what glue did you use....?
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 7:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: gluing ribs
>Del
>The first few ribs I made, only used weights on gussets. Some joints
>weren't pulled together like they should, so I starting nailing.
>I f you can get a good joint without nails , thats better. After the glue
>dries, the nails don't do anything but add weight and rust in time.
>Any place that you can't clamp, like the fuse sides and the seats, if you
>lay out the nails spaced nice and prick the location with a very sharp awl,
>when it's time to glue, just put nail in the hole and drive home. That
keep
>the nails that you will see looking good.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 4:10 PM
>Subject: gluing ribs
>
>
>>I have set up my rib fixture with toggle clamps on
>>each gusset. I can glue up one rib or maybe even two
>>stacked, clamp it and come back 24 hours later, take
>>it out and clamp one or two more. this would save all
>>of the nailing. the purpose of the nails is just to
>>clamp it until the glue dries anyway. I can be doing
>>this while i'm working on the fuse. just looking for
>>any comments regarding that.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long Fuselage |
---
Mike,
From: Ted Brousseau <To: Pietenpol Discussion
Do you have a long fuselage?
Ted
I fly with a 0-200. Had a Ford engine for two years before the
continental. Put some time on Ed Snyder's Ford. I found no difference
in directional stability.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Yes
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
Speaking of ribs. I am going to start early tomorrow morning and make ribs.
Talk about spring back. Everybody is going to spring back for more. Have a
happy holiday. I will. jas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
excellent set of ribs?
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that
Charlie Rubeck
sells an excellent set of ribs?
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bert & Nancy Conoly |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Tom, Was the spar opening too wide or too small? 1/16 inch ply shims could
be in order if your spar openings are a bit big..... more than one way to
skin a cat!
If the rib's spar openings are too small, maybe just "refine" your jig to
open up the spar opening a little?
Oh well! This building thing is full of challenges,. Nice Labor Day All..
wish I had mine flyin.
Bert bwm(at)planttel.net
-----Original Message-----
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com <TomTravis(at)aol.com>
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 6:20 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Rib springback
>Walt,
>
>I bought the supplemental rib drawing and traced it to build my rib jig.
>After the first (only, so far) rib came out I realized the rear spar - 1"X
4
>3/4" - won't fit. Back to square one with a new jig. Anyone else have this
>problem?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bert & Nancy Conoly |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 9:09 PM
Subject: Ribs
Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
excellent set of ribs?
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Mike:
You're right!. I've seen them at Sun N Fun several times. Charlies
a real nice guy and does good work. Believe me If I had done a Piet
instead of the GN-1 (theres a difference) AND had it to do over again, I
would use his ribs. I had many many hours in my ribs and could have
saved a lot of effort for just a few $$$ s.
Bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Bert,
The spar opening was too small - about 1/8" too small. Since I had only made
one rib and wasn't too satisfied with it I decided to make another jib and
start over. By making a spar cross section I can check for fit this time.
Another learning experience.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
Tom,
A suggestion, incorporate two dummy spar forms into your rib jig.
DG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
DG,
Thanks, I've done that with the second jig. Now you tell me!
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
I used these on my Scout and Iron Mike Cuy used these on his Piet
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 9:10 PM
Subject: Ribs
Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
excellent set of ribs?
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Gang,
I bought two of the $15 Slick 4220 magnetos and was wondering
if anyone out there has figured out how to adapt them to the Con-
tinental engines.
Ken Beanlands mentioned that his engine rebuilder had adapted
them to fit his engine. Upon examining my 4220 magnetos and
comparing them to Slicks that fit the Continental engines, I con-
cluded that adapting them could be difficult. This is only a prelimi-
nary conclusion, however, and someone may have already solved
the problem. If so, I sure would like to know how they did it.
Cheers,
Graham
Hi Gang,
I bought two of the $15 Slick 4220
magnetos and
was wondering
if anyone out there has figured out
how to adapt
them to the Con-
tinental engines.
Ken Beanlands mentioned that his
engine
rebuilder had adapted
them to fit his engine. Upon
examining my 4220
magnetos and
comparing them to Slicks that fit
the
Continental engines, I con-
cluded that adapting them could be
difficult.
This is only a prelimi-
nary conclusion, however, and
someone may have
already solved
the problem. If so, I sure would
like to know
how they did it.
Cheers,
Graham
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Del,
Glad to see your making headway, no problem on the frustration, that's
just pent-up airplane-building energy!
I have to think that the Corvair would be smoother running than the
Continental with the six cylinders chugging away! I agree on the price thing
too, a freshly overhauled Corvair is going to be about the same as the
Continental runout. I must admit, that I had the leanings at first toward
the A65/C85, but economy is important as is safety of course, but I think
the Corvair can fill both bills.
Del, do you ( or anyone else out there), know if there is a magneto
conversion for the Corvair out there anywhere? I don't want the dual
ignition necessarily, and I know the battery ignition is safe, but I'd also
like the reduced complexity,(and weight), of a mag instead of the
battery-type ignition of the Corvair.
Thanks,
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Oshbridge(at)aol.com |
Oshkosh Home Building Center? The stock of sitka spruce that they carry has
been sitting there on their racks for about 15 years, ever since Paul
Poberezny returned it to them, deeming it unsuitable for aircraft use because
of its grain. You'd better take a real close look at what you buy.
Jim T
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair/continental |
Mike,
I bet Mr. Wynn probably really does think that the Corvair is better than
the Continental - He's in the Corvair business ;-)
Seriously though, I think I know what Del means, for the money, the
Corvair is probably pretty good. Would I rather be sitting behind and O-200?
You bet! I had a 150 for several years, one stuck exhaust valve in about 400
hours of operation, a little Marvel and a wooden mallet and I was back in
business! I got another 150 hours before I sold the thing - no more
problems.
But as a low-budget play aircraft, I am leaning strongly toward the
Corvair. I like the price, pretty good power/weight, and I like that Bernie
tried it! I don't like the ignition too much, or the bass-ackwards direction
of prop rotation, or the sound, but it'll be fun! I may opt out for a
A65/C85-90 in the end - who knows.
Boy, I bet an O-200 in the Piet is a hoot! Did you keep the electricals,
or pare it down to the basics and hand prop? I like the idea of no
electricals - I want to keep it CHEAP! Living near Houston Class B, I don't
want all the transponder stuff and all. Just a hand-held. I bet that Piet of
yours is impressive!
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
All this talk about ribs has made me HUNGRY!!! Think I'll mosey on down to
the river in the morning for some genuine Memphis BBQ.
Have a fine, safe, CAVU holiday everybody
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
| Subject: | Newcomer first step |
Hi all.
I'm new to the list, living in South France.
Once upon a time I walked in front of a Piet (Alan James' G-BUCO).
I just stopped few seconds to wonder how such an ugly thing could fly.
Second step was to buy the plans from Don.
Third step was to take pictures of the Piets in Oshkosh last month and
listening for one hour to an old swedish man who tried to convince me and
my kid that we were in front of the eighth wonder of the world.
Present step is : how can I download the archives of this list ?
(You bet next step will be to bother you with stupid questions).
Claude
Jodel + Jodel + Jodel + Zenair CH701
________________________________________________________________________________
Say Bert:
Is there a difference in the rib and wing; piet vs gn-1?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Found someones glasses! |
Unsubscribe, please. Thank you
Jim Z
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Copinfo <Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair/continental |
Del, he lied to you about the Corvair being a better engine than the
Continental. In order to get a Continental to develope 65 horse power
you have to turn the engine at a higher RPM which means a smaller prop
and more wear. There is more weight and you need lots of special parts
to get everything to work. I'll take an aircraft engine any time. As
far as parts, I can't think of a single item that can't be found for the
Continental. The cost will be less in the long run too.
Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.Com
Tim Cunningham
Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
Del wrote:
mr wynn thinks that the
corvair is the better engine anyway. >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Copinfo <Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Covair vs Continental |
Del, Sorry I wrote Continental when I meant you have to get a smaller prop
for the Corvair and run it at a higher rpm to get equivelant horse power.
Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.Com
Tim Cunningham
Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wood List for Fuselage? |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: How heavy is too heavy?? |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: front seat controls |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: clarification |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CONTROL COLUMN PULLEY P/N'S |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Baby picture |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weldwood glue. |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center Brace Wire Ftg. |
hello !
please delete me from the mailing list.
thank you
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: corvair/continental |
Just a comment on Corvairs.
I had a 1969 Monza convertible with a four speed box. Bought it in 1975 with
39,000 on the original engine. I didn't baby it. Sold it in 1988 with
110,000 on the clock. Had to replace the serpentine belt twice and the oil
pan gasket once. Around 80,000 I thought about pulling and rebuilding the
engine but couldn't justify it as it was running so well.
The Continental A-75-8 in my J-5 was balanced and zero timed in 1975. Even
with fine tuned "Eyebrows" (cooling ducts a la J-3) the right rear ran
chronically hot. Cross compression check at 1200 TSO required a replacement
right rear jug. Another 1200 and it needed a ring job. During periods of
high humidity the Cont. was hard starting (no impulse mag) and no stranger to
carb ice (just like my '65 VW).
The 'vair started easily every time and never iced up.
I would have absolutely no compunctions about using a Corvair engine in an
aircraft.
....On the other hand side ... as a bona fide bear for punishment - I am
currently rebuilding a 1929 Henderson - Heath engine, looking for an "A" for
the Sky Scout under construction and have a line on a three cylinder Anzani
and an Aeronca (Franklin?) E-113 (two cylinder) stored in a barn in New
England.
DG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Newcomer first step |
Claude;
There is no such thing as a stupid question ref Piets, welcome to the list!
Earl Myers-North Ohio,USA
-----Original Message-----
From: claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr>
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 4:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Newcomer first step
>Hi all.
>I'm new to the list, living in South France.
>
>Once upon a time I walked in front of a Piet (Alan James' G-BUCO).
>I just stopped few seconds to wonder how such an ugly thing could fly.
>
>Second step was to buy the plans from Don.
>
>Third step was to take pictures of the Piets in Oshkosh last month and
>listening for one hour to an old swedish man who tried to convince me and
>my kid that we were in front of the eighth wonder of the world.
>
>Present step is : how can I download the archives of this list ?
>(You bet next step will be to bother you with stupid questions).
>
>Claude
>Jodel + Jodel + Jodel + Zenair CH701
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: corvair/continental |
In a message dated 9/6/99 7:55:57 AM Central Daylight Time,
Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com writes:
<< In order to get a Continental to develope 65 horse power you have to turn
the engine at a higher RPM which means a smaller prop and more wear. >>
Tim....
Surely you meant to say Corvair instead of Continental, right?
TerryB
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 09/06/1999 10:32:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
C10K100(at)aol.com writes:
<< C10K100(at)aol.com >>
HEY! ONCE IS ENOUGH!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Chris Coates <coatez(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | change email address |
I enjoy the Piet Discussion but need to switch email address to
coatez(at)telusplanet.net and to unsubscribe coatez(at)hotmail.com
thanks
Chris Coates
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I have a question for you way advanced guys. On the wingtip the
centerline of the spar ends don't line up to the leading and trailing
edges. What did you guys do? Cut the shape out of wide 5/4", then shape
it?
thanks
walt
I have a question for you way
advanced
guys. On the wingtip the centerline of the spar ends don't line up
to the
leading and trailing edges. What did you guys do? Cut the shape
out of
wide 5/4, then shape it?
thanks
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
my rib drawing was off too. the spar spacing is 3/4
inch different than what the plans and rib drawing
specs out in writing. I dont know how to change it
and havnt got an answer from andrew yet.
---TomTravis(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Walt,
>
> I bought the supplemental rib drawing and traced it
to build my rib jig.
> After the first (only, so far) rib came out I
realized the rear spar - 1"X 4
> 3/4" - won't fit. Back to square one with a new
jig. Anyone else have this
> problem?
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
Walt;
On my Scout (same tips as the AC), the tip "bow" is a compound curve of
sorts as it comes outta the LE, turns and goes up kinda following the
curve of the top of the rib then down and back into the TE. Mine are
laminated of 3x 1/4" pieces blended into (spliced) the horiz curved
pieces out of plywood. There has to be a better way as they were hard to
make, but, the wing looks just like the drawing, pure Piet. They are
quite strong too. There are no straight lines on the tip
bowes............
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:40 PM
Subject: Piet wingtip
I have a question for you way advanced guys. On the wingtip the
centerline of the spar ends don't line up to the leading and trailing
edges. What did you guys do? Cut the shape out of wide 5/4", then shape
it?
thanks
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
has anybody else had experience with getting sitka
from oshkosh home center? I also have local source
where I can buy c and better sitka, and they will let
me pick thru it. where can I look to get the specs on
aircraft quality lumber. or would it be better to
just pay the extra bucks and be on the safe side?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
You can kinda see what Earl is talking about in this picture.
http://www.kans.com/gyachts/image4.jpg
I'll try to get a better picture.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
Earl,
Thanks. To look at the prints, I got the impression that it was a 1x1
maybe steamed and bent. But the closer I looked , the stranger it
looked. Guess I'll have to put on my thinking cap for this one.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Earl Myers
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wingtip
Walt;
On my Scout (same tips as the AC), the tip "bow" is a compound
curve of sorts as it comes outta the LE, turns and goes up kinda
following the curve of the top of the rib then down and back into the
TE. Mine are laminated of 3x 1/4" pieces blended into (spliced) the
horiz curved pieces out of plywood. There has to be a better way as they
were hard to make, but, the wing looks just like the drawing, pure Piet.
They are quite strong too. There are no straight lines on the tip
bowes............
Earl Myers
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 3:40 PM
Subject: Piet wingtip
I have a question for you way advanced guys. On the wingtip the
centerline of the spar ends don't line up to the leading and trailing
edges. What did you guys do? Cut the shape out of wide 5/4", then shape
it?
thanks
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Sitka Spruce (Was: long fuse?) |
I just bought material for my spars last weekend at McCormick Lumber in
Madison, Wisconsin. They have 1 inch and 5/4 in 20 foot lengths, 6,7,8, and
9 inches wide. Price is $9.95 a board foot, compared to about $26.00 at ASS
and Wicks. I found 4 good boards with very nice vertical grain. There were
some imperfections, but with the 7 inch width and length, I will get 4 spars
to spec, with enough good wood left to almost build another plane! Moisture
content is 12%, and they were very straight. They told me that they order
their wood to spar grade, but it is not stamped aircraft.
The lumber for the Spirit of St Louis replica came from McCormick. They
have a web site at www.mccormicklumber.com.
Al Swanson
>Oshkosh Home Building Center? The stock of sitka spruce that they carry has
>been sitting there on their racks for about 15 years, ever since Paul
>Poberezny returned it to them, deeming it unsuitable for aircraft use because
>of its grain. You'd better take a real close look at what you buy.
>
>Jim T
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kyle ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
yes there is a difference since I have both the Grega
and Piet plans I can tell you there is a slight difference
in the airfoil and lots of difference in the rib, John Grega
mentions the Pietenpol airfoil used in the Grega with
slight changes in the leading edge for softer stall. Also
the spar spacing is different and the Grega has more
cross bracing(twice) the center section is totally different.
Russell
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <ToySat(at)aol.com> |
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 5:19 AM
> Say Bert:
> Is there a difference in the rib and wing; piet vs gn-1?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kyle ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
I quote, Bernard Pietenpol if the wood you'll using
bends without being steamed then it's probably not
suitable for airplane construction.
Russell
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Sunday, September 05, 1999 11:31 AM
| Subject: | Re: Rib springback |
> Earl...I am leaning toward the dry method.
>
> Leon...I am considering using a preliminary shaping jig as you mentioned.
I
> remember seeing a pattern for one in the BPA news a long time ago.
>
> I am also considering not soaking or steaming. I have been playing with
> these cedar sticks and they are a lot more flexible than spruce or douglas
> fir. Perhaps they'd glue up just fine without soaking or steaming.
>
> Terry B
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Sitka Spruce (Was: long fuse?) |
This is where my spruce came from for the Piet Scout I built. The "boards"
that weren't OK for the spars got cut up into longerons, x braces and so
forth.........
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Swanson
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 8:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sitka Spruce (Was: long fuse?)
>
>I just bought material for my spars last weekend at McCormick Lumber in
>Madison, Wisconsin. They have 1 inch and 5/4 in 20 foot lengths, 6,7,8,
and
>9 inches wide. Price is $9.95 a board foot, compared to about $26.00 at
ASS
>and Wicks. I found 4 good boards with very nice vertical grain. There
were
>some imperfections, but with the 7 inch width and length, I will get 4
spars
>to spec, with enough good wood left to almost build another plane!
Moisture
>content is 12%, and they were very straight. They told me that they order
>their wood to spar grade, but it is not stamped aircraft.
>
>The lumber for the Spirit of St Louis replica came from McCormick. They
>have a web site at www.mccormicklumber.com.
>
>Al Swanson
>
>
>>Oshkosh Home Building Center? The stock of sitka spruce that they carry
has
>>been sitting there on their racks for about 15 years, ever since Paul
>>Poberezny returned it to them, deeming it unsuitable for aircraft use
because
>>of its grain. You'd better take a real close look at what you buy.
>>
>>Jim T
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
Walt;
I can't really remember how I built those bows exactly as it was early
in the game 6 years ago. They just flowed together.........
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wingtip
Earl,
Thanks. To look at the prints, I got the impression that it was a
1x1 maybe steamed and bent. But the closer I looked , the stranger it
looked. Guess I'll have to put on my thinking cap for this one.
walt
From: Earl Myers
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wingtip
Walt;
On my Scout (same tips as the AC), the tip "bow" is a compound
curve of sorts as it comes outta the LE, turns and goes up kinda
following the curve of the top of the rib then down and back into the
TE. Mine are laminated of 3x 1/4" pieces blended into (spliced) the
horiz curved pieces out of plywood. There has to be a better way as they
were hard to make, but, the wing looks just like the drawing, pure Piet.
They are quite strong too. There are no straight lines on the tip
bowes............
Earl Myers
the centerline of the spar ends don't line up to the leading and
trailing edges. What did you guys do? Cut the shape out of wide 5/4",
then shape it?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
Walt;
The picture here from Greg is EXACTLY what mine looks like ! Only
difference is I have a one piece wing....they made good handles!
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Monday, September 06, 1999 7:38 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wingtip
You can kinda see what Earl is talking about in this picture.
http://www.kans.com/gyachts/image4.jpg
I'll try to get a better picture.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "WTH Service and Restorations Inc." <WTHAuto(at)WTHRestorations.com> |
Suggestion: You can shop and look around and you will still pay the
price. Buy your wood from Wicks or a another aircraft company. Its more
expensive but- It's generally correct and carries a company warrenty for
quality, Order the size you need, your waste will stay on your
floor-mistakes too!, They will do the cutting and mill work, for the
basic size-That's worth a little extra.
For the money you are ahead of the game. When folks say wood is cheaper
at the lumber yard in comparison to a aircraft supply company apples and
oranges are being compared. Also- there is value in using aircraft grade
and certified materials. ALOT OF VALUE.
Tommy
del magsam wrote:
>
> has anybody else had experience with getting sitka
> from oshkosh home center? I also have local source
> where I can buy c and better sitka, and they will let
> me pick thru it. where can I look to get the specs on
> aircraft quality lumber. or would it be better to
> just pay the extra bucks and be on the safe side?
>
>
--
WTH Service and Restorations, Inc. <http://www.WTHrestorations.com/>
6561 Commerce Court, Warrenton, VA 20187
Tel: (540)349-3034, Fax: (540)349-9652, Email:
WTHauto(at)WTHrestorations.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kyle ray <rrobert(at)centuryinter.net> |
I bougtht boat building wood from a supplier
in Sidney B.C., Douglas Fir and I'll say the quality
is on par with anything. and here's the good part
$4.00 a board foot. completly clear, grain
run from one end of the 20' board to the other!
just go on the net do search on boat building
lumber (+lumber +boat +building) talk
to Jan the guy from Norway! GET YOU PLY THERE
TO!
RUSSELL
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | WTH Service and Restorations Inc. <WTHAuto(at)WTHRestorations.com> |
Sent: Monday, September 06, 1999 8:52 PM
> Suggestion: You can shop and look around and you will still pay the
> price. Buy your wood from Wicks or a another aircraft company. Its more
> expensive but- It's generally correct and carries a company warrenty for
> quality, Order the size you need, your waste will stay on your
> floor-mistakes too!, They will do the cutting and mill work, for the
> basic size-That's worth a little extra.
>
> For the money you are ahead of the game. When folks say wood is cheaper
> at the lumber yard in comparison to a aircraft supply company apples and
> oranges are being compared. Also- there is value in using aircraft grade
> and certified materials. ALOT OF VALUE.
>
> Tommy
>
> del magsam wrote:
> >
> > has anybody else had experience with getting sitka
> > from oshkosh home center? I also have local source
> > where I can buy c and better sitka, and they will let
> > me pick thru it. where can I look to get the specs on
> > aircraft quality lumber. or would it be better to
> > just pay the extra bucks and be on the safe side?
> >
> >
>
> --
> WTH Service and Restorations, Inc. <http://www.WTHrestorations.com/>
> 6561 Commerce Court, Warrenton, VA 20187
> Tel: (540)349-3034, Fax: (540)349-9652, Email:
> WTHauto(at)WTHrestorations.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Del,
I think it was you that asked about the specs for spruce. I found
something on the AS&S web page about that, here is what they list:
"For additional technical information refer to a complete reprint of spruce
specification MIL-S-6073 and plywood specification MIL-P-6070."
They show it as P/N 13-14900 it'll set you back $3.50
I hope this helps!
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | hixsonb <hixsonb(at)vitrex.net> |
PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM THE LIST
________________________________________________________________________________
Steve wrote: are these Piet ribs or maby GN-1/
Steve
writes:
> Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
> excellent set of ribs?
>
> Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Good Information |
This is some good reading for a multitude of answers to building
questions, from soup to nuts, (building, wiring, painting, and much
more) check it out I think you will be glad you did.
Gordon
http://www.exp-aircraft.com/library/library.html
This is some good reading for a
multitude of
answers to building questions, from soup to nuts, (building, wiring,
painting,
and much more) check it out I think you will be glad you did.
Gordon
href"http://www.exp-aircraft.com/library/library.html">http://www.exp-=
aircraft.com/library/library.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | LaurenMWilliams(at)webtv.net (Lauren Williams) |
Seems to me that the requirements for aircraft woods go like this:
A minimum of 8 growth rings per inch.
a maximum grain run out, in the direction of the growth rings, of 16 to
1 slope.
Radial runout (due to the tree twisting as it grows) is checked by
splitting a piece of wood with the split perpendicular to the growth
rings. This runout can also be checked by putting some ink on the
surface of the wood and seeing how it follows the grain. I think that
the allowable slope for this is also 16 to 1.
In addition there are standards for pitch pockets and knots in larger
timbers. I haven't seen any pitch pockets or knots in the wood that I
have gotten for the Pietenpol, so I haven't had to concern myself over
these.
Overall, I want the wood for my plane to exceed these standards by a
considerable margin. For instance, Capstrip that has growth rings
every 1/8 inch doesn't really impress me as adequate. 16 to 1 grain
slope is really pretty steep when you see it.
I am critical of every piece of wood that I put in the plane, regardless
of where I bought it. It is a natural product, after all, and the
sawyer can't spend nearly as much time inspecting it as I can. If I
can't use a particular piece for it's intended purpose, I simply order
another one and cut the first one down to use it somewhere else less
critical.
Lauren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
>> Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
>> excellent set of ribs?
>> >Steve wrote: are these Piet ribs or maby GN-1/
Piet ribs.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck
sells an
excellent set of ribs? Steve wrote: are
these Piet
ribs or maby GN-1/
Piet ribs.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam
)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
how does one contact charlie?
---Bert & Nancy Conoly wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Brusilow
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 9:09 PM
> Subject: Ribs
>
>
> Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that
Charlie Rubeck sells an excellent set of ribs?
>
> Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
>
> Mike:
> You're right!. I've seen them at Sun N Fun
several times. Charlies a real nice guy and does
good work. Believe me If I had done a Piet instead
of the GN-1 (theres a difference) AND had it to do
over again, I would use his ribs. I had many many
hours in my ribs and could have saved a lot of effort
for just a few $$$ s.
> Bert
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "David B. Schober" <dschober(at)mail.fscwv.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Instructor in a Piet (low and slow)... |
David,
I beg to differ. An instructor is free to charge fairly for his time. If he doesn't
own the
airplane, and is only providing instruction, the flight is not "carrying persons
for hire".
David Scott wrote:
> This is a quick note -->
>
> Expermental airplanes can not be used for comercial operations (hired).
>
> The instructor can not legally charge for flight instruction while flying an
experimental,
> however he can give instruction. Charging for instruction is deemed:
>
>
> and this is prohibited by 14CFR91.319.
>
> But yes, sharing of expenses is allowed also for experimentals.
>
> The instructor is taking a BIG risk to even imply a charge --> consequences could
be legally
> devastating.
>
> Below is a copy of the 01 Jan 99 regulation
>
> David Scott
> CFII
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
This page from the BPA newsletter may be of some interest to our
members.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
The results are in . . .
by
Jack Broomall
22200 Heatheridge Lane
Northville, MI 48167
and
Don Verdiani
103 Lockerbie Lane
West Chester, PA 19382
Those of you who were fortunate enough to attend Brodhead '94 may know
that we were able to measure weight and center of gravity information
for eight of the aircraft attending the event.
The reason for undertaking this exercise was to provide a bank of
information that Piet builders could refer to and use in configuring
their aircraft. Over the past several years we have noticed that there
are a variety of types of Air Campers flying with different engines, at
least two common fuselage lengths, different wing positions, and
different flying characteristics (if you doubt this take a close look at
the various aircraft taking off and landing at Brodhead!). Collecting
the weight and balance information on a number of flying aircraft seemed
like a good way to gain some insight in this area.
The data table (below) summarizes the most important information which
was accumulated.
We were fortunate to be able to inspect examples of each of the three
most common powerplants (Ford, Corvair, and Continental).
In the third column we categorize the fuselage as 'short' (the original
design) or long (the so-called 'improved' air camper).
In column 4 we show the aircraft's empty weight. In each case the
aircraft was presented for weighing with some amount of fuel on board.
We asked each owner to estimate how much fuel was in the aircraft, and
then corrected to an empty weight using that estimate and the standard
value of 6 lbs. per gallon for gasoline.
While there is some degree of 'estimating' in these numbers, we are
comfortable that they are reasonably accurate.
In the fifth column, we show the empty aircraft's center of gravity
location with respect to the wing leading edge. We chose the wing
leading edge as a datum because it was the best way to normalize the
data to a large variety of aircraft and also because that's what Mr.
Pietenpol used!
For comparative purposes there is a published weight and balance
summary, done in 1965, showing a Corvair powered Air Camper with an
empty C.G. 8.71 inches aft of datum. Very few of us fly airplanes empty,
with no passengers! Fortunatly, using the data we collected, we are able
to calculate center of gravity location for any loading condition.
In the sixth column, we show the calculated C.G. location when the
aircraft was loaded with an FAA standard 170 pound pilot in the back
seat, and 7 gallons of fuel in the 'main' fuel tank. This might
represent a 'typical' loading for pilot only. Since we weighed some
aircraft with both wing tanks and fueslage tanks we elected to
(mathematically) put the 7 gallons of fuel in whichever tank was bigger.
Again a comparison is available.
The previously mentioned weight and balance chart included a C.G.
calculation for that aircraft with 7 gallons of fuel and a 166 pound
pilot on board (Did BHP weigh 166 pounds?). His example aircraft has a
C.G. 9.51" aft of datum in that loading condition.
As a final set of calculations we've shown aircraft weight and C.G.
location when each aircraft is loaded with a 170 pilot, a 170 pound
passenger, and it's fuel tank(s) full. These weights are shown in column
G and the C.G. location is in column H. We found these weights
interesting in that some of the aircraft have surprisingly high gross
weights. Also, there are several aircraft which, in one loading
condition or another, seem to violate BHP's recommendation to never
exceed 20" aft of datum C.G. (also shown in the 1965 weight and balance
sheet).
Because of the conditions under which all of our information was
collected and because there was no chance to double check any
measurements there is some real chance that there may be errors in our
analysis. However, there is enough consistency in the data to feel
fairly confident about it's accuracy.
We would like to thank all the fine folks at Brodhead for helping us
with this project. And special thanks are due to the eight aircraft
owners who donated their aircraft as well as their time and help. We'd
like to think this activity has produced information of real value to
the community of Pietenpol builders and pilots! Anyone who has any
questions can feel free to contact either of us at the addresses above.
Pietenpol Weight & Balance
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
Charles Rubeck
RR 7
Box 520
Spencer, In 47460
812-829-2069
hope the above helps, I seen these ribs at Brodhead and they look great---I plan
on
getting a set myself.
regards
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
del magsam wrote:
> how does one contact charlie?
>
> ---Bert & Nancy Conoly wrote:
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael Brusilow
>
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Date: Sunday, September 05, 1999 9:09 PM
> > Subject: Ribs
> >
> >
> > Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that
> Charlie Rubeck sells an excellent set of ribs?
> >
> > Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
> >
> > Mike:
> > You're right!. I've seen them at Sun N Fun
> several times. Charlies a real nice guy and does
> good work. Believe me If I had done a Piet instead
> of the GN-1 (theres a difference) AND had it to do
> over again, I would use his ribs. I had many many
> hours in my ribs and could have saved a lot of effort
> for just a few $$$ s.
> > Bert
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: First Sawdust!! |
>By the way...Mike. I really enjoyed your tape and commend you for an
>excellent job! Do you have any more copies of that tape? I would Love to
>buy one from you. Your Pietenpol is really configured closely to the way I
>am hoping to have mine turn out. Every time a flying segment would come
>on...I would tell Chuck..."C'mon..let's hurry and get this thing done!!".
>
Terry ! Good to hear you are making sawdust and thanks for the comments
on the video. Yes, I make duplicate tapes as orders come in. I have an
ad running currently in the back of Sport Av. under books, videos, etc.
Mike C.
By the way...Mike. I really enjoyed your tape and commend you
for an
excellent job! Do you have any more copies of that tape?
I would Love to
buy one from you. Your Pietenpol is really configured closely
to the way I
am hoping to have mine turn out. Every time a flying segment
would come
on...I would tell Chuck...C'mon..let's hurry and get this thing
done!!.
Terry ! Good to hear you are making sawdust and thanks for
the comments
on the video. Yes, I make duplicate tapes as orders come in. I have
an
ad running currently in the back of Sport Av. under books, videos,
etc.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
I was hoping that they would be smoked beef "ribs" with a tangy pepper
barbecue sauce....;->
GY
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:55 AM
Subject: Ribs
>> Speaking of ribs, is everyone aware that Charlie Rubeck sells an
>> excellent set of ribs?
>> >Steve wrote: are these Piet ribs or maby GN-1/
Piet ribs.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
To make my wingtip bow I took a long piece of plywood and laid out
a wing rib (already built) on it and traced it out...including the points
where the two spars and LE and TE centerlines are. I purchased cheap
pine lattice at the DIY store as I recall 1/4" x 1.5 or 2.0" wide and without
steam or water just bent them by hand to the 'centerline' and had a
helper draw a pencil line along one edge. Another line two thicknesses
of the wood I chose above and below gave me a guide to work from.
I drove 6 penny or so nails along the top curved line and bottom curved
line and just lathered up one lattice strip at a time an stuck it in my
nail lined 'jig'. I snipped off the nail heads with a pair of diagonals to
make
the pieces go in and out easier. Each of the four lattice pieces was T-88'ed
and slipped into place. It took a wood block and mallet to force the last one
into my 'jig'. Before any gluing took place I laid Saran wrap over the
jig, pressed
it down over the nails so I could use the jig twice.
Once dry I ran the 1" thick laminated wingtip bow thru my table router
using a
1/2" radius round over bit on the outside of the bow to make a nice rounded
edge.
The rest was planed down and sanded smooth. It took two trys, two different
jigs, to get these bows to line up with the LE, TE, and two spars, but the end
result was worth the effort. Strong as can be too.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Fw: Corvair Engines Available |
>Thats a good laminated wingtip Mike!
>I bet that sucker is strong and tuff!
>
>Greg Yotz
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:12 AM
>Subject: Re: Piet wingtip
>
>
>>To make my wingtip bow I took a long piece of plywood and laid out
>>a wing rib (already built) on it and traced it out...including the points
>>where the two spars and LE and TE centerlines are. I purchased cheap
>>pine lattice at the DIY store as I recall 1/4" x 1.5 or 2.0" wide and
>without
>>steam or water just bent them by hand to the 'centerline' and had a
>>helper draw a pencil line along one edge. Another line two thicknesses
>>of the wood I chose above and below gave me a guide to work from.
>>I drove 6 penny or so nails along the top curved line and bottom curved
>>line and just lathered up one lattice strip at a time an stuck it in my
>>nail lined 'jig'. I snipped off the nail heads with a pair of diagonals
to
>>make
>>the pieces go in and out easier. Each of the four lattice pieces was
>T-88'ed
>>and slipped into place. It took a wood block and mallet to force the last
>one
>>into my 'jig'. Before any gluing took place I laid Saran wrap over the
>>jig, pressed
>>it down over the nails so I could use the jig twice.
>> Once dry I ran the 1" thick laminated wingtip bow thru my table router
>>using a
>>1/2" radius round over bit on the outside of the bow to make a nice
rounded
>>edge.
>>The rest was planed down and sanded smooth. It took two trys, two
>different
>>jigs, to get these bows to line up with the LE, TE, and two spars, but
the
>end
>>result was worth the effort. Strong as can be too.
>>
>>Mike C.
>>
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Island Hopping in a Piet |
Over the Labor Day Weekend I took NX48MC and we messed around
the Lake Erie Islands by Cedar Point and the Sandusky Bay area.
How pretty the marinas and boats looked from the air.
I always kept within gliding distance of the shore though until I just
had to land on South Bass Island which is the least amount of
water you have to cross to get to any of the islands. 2.3 miles from
shore to shore. I didn't like it but before I knew it I had to throttle
back to land. I know they charge an expensive landing fee so when
I read the sign that said " Attention: All pilots report to the airport office
after parking. " I simply kept taxiing and never parked. I had accomplished
my goal and just taxied back down and took off again !! Ha ! One
circle over Perry's Monument to gain altitude and smoked a cirlce around
for the people on the open air observation deck to see and I was mainland
bound. Ahhh, terra firma.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Island Hopping in a Piet |
Mike---wasen't too long ago they used to use a Ford Tri Motor to shuttle
passengers back and forth from Port Clinton and Bass Island both summer and winter
(ice fishermen during hard water months)
haden't heard of it recently so I'm guessing it's been retired.
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
Michael D Cuy wrote:
> Over the Labor Day Weekend I took NX48MC and we messed around
> the Lake Erie Islands by Cedar Point and the Sandusky Bay area.
> How pretty the marinas and boats looked from the air.
> I always kept within gliding distance of the shore though until I just
> had to land on South Bass Island which is the least amount of
> water you have to cross to get to any of the islands. 2.3 miles from
> shore to shore. I didn't like it but before I knew it I had to throttle
> back to land. I know they charge an expensive landing fee so when
> I read the sign that said " Attention: All pilots report to the airport office
> after parking. " I simply kept taxiing and never parked. I had accomplished
> my goal and just taxied back down and took off again !! Ha ! One
> circle over Perry's Monument to gain altitude and smoked a cirlce around
> for the people on the open air observation deck to see and I was mainland
> bound. Ahhh, terra firma.
>
> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Island Hopping in a Piet |
The Tri-Motor had an "uh-oh" making a bad xwind landing on one of the
Islands a number of years ago............It was rebuilt and is either in a
museum or doing it's thing over the Grand Canyon or something like that.
Might be in the Kalamazoo Air Museum. Island flying done by Cessna 336's
now, the push-pulls.............
Earl Myers
-----Original Message-----
From: fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 1:09 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Island Hopping in a Piet
>Mike---wasen't too long ago they used to use a Ford Tri Motor to shuttle
>passengers back and forth from Port Clinton and Bass Island both summer and
winter
>(ice fishermen during hard water months)
>haden't heard of it recently so I'm guessing it's been retired.
>JoeC
>Zion, Illinois
>
>Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>> Over the Labor Day Weekend I took NX48MC and we messed around
>> the Lake Erie Islands by Cedar Point and the Sandusky Bay area.
>> How pretty the marinas and boats looked from the air.
>> I always kept within gliding distance of the shore though until I just
>> had to land on South Bass Island which is the least amount of
>> water you have to cross to get to any of the islands. 2.3 miles from
>> shore to shore. I didn't like it but before I knew it I had to throttle
>> back to land. I know they charge an expensive landing fee so when
>> I read the sign that said " Attention: All pilots report to the airport
office
>> after parking. " I simply kept taxiing and never parked. I had
accomplished
>> my goal and just taxied back down and took off again !! Ha ! One
>> circle over Perry's Monument to gain altitude and smoked a cirlce around
>> for the people on the open air observation deck to see and I was mainland
>> bound. Ahhh, terra firma.
>>
>> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet wingtip |
Dear Walt:
I can't answer your question. I'm new to this too.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Copinfo <Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair/continental |
-Terry- You're right. I did mean to say Corvair but my typing fingers
went wild. I might also add that Continental Engines add more value to the
final product. Everyone knows the safety record of the Piet & the
Continentals. The Corvair record just isn't there for me.
Copinfo(at)ix.Netcom.Com
Tim Cunningham
Des Moines, Iowa (515) 237-1510
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr> |
Hi all.
May I ask you the same question again :
Is it possible to download the archive of this list, and how ?
Thanks
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin(at)pop.wwa.com |
| Subject: | Interesting item on eBay web site item#157031779: Antique |
Aircraf
I saw this item for sale at eBay, the world's largest personal trading community,
and thought that you might be interested.
Title of item: Antique Aircraft Wheels
Seller: czadow(at)wt.net
Price: Lowest$25.00
To bid on the item, go to: http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=157031779
Antique Aircraft Wheels
These are Goodyear wheel for an airplane. Not used much anymore since more modern
wheels and brakes have replaced them, but these are in pretty good shape. Goodyear
P/N 9532115, Sub assy no. 9524201. 6.00x6 Type III.
Only one shown but have matching set.
Working when removed. These are good for parts or
may be able to work and replace yours if your still operating one.
No reserve. Send any questions to ryszard(at)csi.com.
Visit eBay, the world's largest Personal Trading Community at http://www.ebay.com
________________________________________________________________________________
I am trying to unsubscribe from the mailing list and cannot get thru to
whoever is in charge of it....my email keeps coming back undeliverable.
Anyone have a current address that I can contact the keeper of the list
at?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: claude <claude.plathey(at)wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 6:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Newcomer
>Hi all.
>
>May I ask you the same question again :
>Is it possible to download the archive of this list, and how ?
>Thanks
>Claude
Hi Claude:
I don't know who you are asking, mais pour moi, je'en sais rein.
Mike B Piet N687MB (Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | test (no message) |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Piet wingtip |
Perhaps a confirmation will help others with problems on their wingtip bows.
I read Mike Cuy's procedure with great interest because it was step for step
how I had made mine and, as with Mike's both bows came out beautifully, were
strong as can be and fit perfectly. I am confident that anyone following this
method will get a bow they will be happy with.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Walter Evans R U There? |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Walter Evans R U There? |
There, now that I've firmly convinced everyone how much of an idiot I am, I
can proceed! I sometimes get a little to spastic on the keyboard here, and
send stuff accidentally.
Walter - I was on the Aircamper website and was looking over all of your
pictures there and came up with a couple of questions about the Corvair
engine, I'm not personally familiar with the type but is that a PSRU that
you are installing on the front of the engine, if so what ratio is it? If
not, what is it and where did you get it? I saw one of your pictures where
a Corvair was mounted on a plane, it looked like it had a magneto on it, was
I seeing things or was that a conventional mag? Maybe the Corvair ignition
just look like that? If it was a mag, how did you adapt it?
I hate to bug you with so many questions, but I sure would like to know!
Lots of nice pictures there too, looks like a lot of fine work being done,
by everybody out there for that matter!
Thanks for the info, whatever it may be!
sincerely,
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE (Again, and again, and again) |
Have you tried going to http://www.aircamper.org/MailingList.cfm ? Simply
put in your email address, pull down the tab, click on unsubscribe and hit
go. There your out a here,
PS. It really works!
Steve Eldredge (Keeper of the List)
> -----Original Message-----
> Behalf Of R.
> Peritsky
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:31 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
> I am trying to unsubscribe from the mailing list and cannot
> get thru to
> whoever is in charge of it....my email keeps coming back
> undeliverable.
>
> Anyone have a current address that I can contact the keeper
> of the list
> at?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I have just uploaded (in process really) PIET.ZIP it is large, but it has
both files that make up the entire history of the list. Happy wading!
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
> -----Original Message-----
> claude
> Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:54 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Re: Newcomer
>
>
> Hi all.
>
> May I ask you the same question again :
> Is it possible to download the archive of this list, and how ?
> Thanks
> Claude
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE (Again, and again, and again) |
Everybody just likes to see Stevie Work.
Again and Again and Again. Just wonder if they have problems reading
airplane plans too.
Gordon
Don't hit me, just funning!!
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 7:15 AM
| Subject: | HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE (Again, and again, and again) |
> Have you tried going to http://www.aircamper.org/MailingList.cfm ? Simply
> put in your email address, pull down the tab, click on unsubscribe and hit
> go. There your out a here,
>
> PS. It really works!
>
> Steve Eldredge (Keeper of the List)
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > Behalf Of R.
> > Peritsky
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 8:31 PM
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: UNSUBSCRIBE
> >
> >
> > I am trying to unsubscribe from the mailing list and cannot
> > get thru to
> > whoever is in charge of it....my email keeps coming back
> > undeliverable.
> >
> > Anyone have a current address that I can contact the keeper
> > of the list
> > at?
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Archive Download instructions |
The piet archives are zipped into two files about 3 meg a piece. For now
they are located at http://www.aircamper.org/users/Stevee/
I have asked Richard to move them to a public area a little easier to find.
These files contain every email to the list since the beginning about 4
years ago. (including some emails that may have viruses, although I have
scanned them and they have come out clean) Happy hunting! In that
directory you will also find all my digital photos of my Brodhead trip.
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
> -----Original Message-----
> steve(at)byu.edu
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 8:36 AM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Piet Archive
>
>
> I have just uploaded (in process really) PIET.ZIP it is
> large, but it has
> both files that make up the entire history of the list.
> Happy wading!
>
> Steve Eldredge
> IT Services
> Brigham Young University
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > claude
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 4:54 PM
> > To: Pietenpol Discussion
> > Subject: Re: Newcomer
> >
> >
> > Hi all.
> >
> > May I ask you the same question again :
> > Is it possible to download the archive of this list, and how ?
> > Thanks
> > Claude
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Piet Archive Download instructions |
Oh yea, they are named
PIET1.ZIP
PIET2.ZIP
Please ignore the previous instruction about both combined in one called
piet.zip That one was to big to upload I guess and didn't work.
Steve E
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
hey group---I may have been dreaming (or wishing) several weeks/months
ago was there mention here on the list of someone who built a home-made
metal brake??
seems like it was made of 2x4s and angle iron and they offered sketches
to anyone interested......well I'm interested,,if it's available please
respond....
thanks in advance
JoeC
Zion, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Burroughs <glenn(at)sysweb.com> |
| Subject: | Need Advice on Wood |
My friend is just about to start the fuselage and tail, and I am making a
final check to see if what he is doing is okay.
He has located kiln-dried, clear Douglas fir at a local lumber yard. Is this
okay to use instead of spruce?
He also located kiln-dried poplar locally. Someone that built a Piet told
him that they would use poplar on the next plane. Anybody think this is a
good selection (it's cheaper)??
Thanks, Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | A ride with Robert H. |
Gang,
I had the opportunity to drive from Dallas to Uvalde,
Texas to visit with GN-1 owner Robert Hensarling.
The weather that day had crosswinds and low ceilings
hanging over the airport. Being a couple hundred
pounds each, Robert decided to keep the GN-1 in the
hanger.....so a flight in Robert's Rans was in order.
It was my first time in a Rans and was a hoot. I was
impressed with the performance of the Rotax 2 cycle
engine.....climbing out at 70 mph. As soon as we took
off, a King Air made a practice instrument approach, so
we circled around the nearby foothills of the Texas Hill
Country. It was a great Sunday morning ride that ended
a few minutes later with a perfect soft landing on the
Uvalde asphalt runway.
As far as the GN-1 is concerned, Robert wants
to replace his 6 x 6.00 aircraft tires with spoked
wheels. It is a good looking airplane and has
several hours under its belt. I understand he might
sell the plane and buy a "true Piet" complete with
Model A engine, spoked wheels, etc.
Anyway, Robert and I would like to contact present
GN-1 and PIET owners/pilots in Texas for a Texas fly-in
now that the weather is under 100 degrees. A fall get
together would be fun. Depending on the number of planes
and where they are located, we then can determine a
convenient central location.
Please contact us as soon as possible for a good old
Lone Star State fly in and barbque.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
(214) 905-9299
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
Anybody have any experience with a Lycoming O-145. This is apparently
an old 65 hp.
Greg Yotz
Anybody have any experience with a
Lycoming
O-145. This is apparently an old 65 hp.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
Joe,
I think that was me; see attached message. Was it you who offered the Slick
mag overhaul manuals earlier? I'm still interested if you have any
left!
Thanks,
-Bill Beerman
> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:35:46 -0500
> From: fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com>
> Subject: brake
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> MIME-version: 1.0
> Comments: Originally To: "Pietenpol Discussion"
> X-Listname:
>
> hey group---I may have been dreaming (or wishing) several weeks/months
> ago was there mention here on the list of someone who built a home-made
> metal brake??
> seems like it was made of 2x4s and angle iron and they offered sketches
> to anyone interested......well I'm interested,,if it's available please
> respond....
> thanks in advance
> JoeC
> Zion, Illinois
>
>
----- Begin Included Message -----
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 13:28:43 -0400 (EDT)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)bbt.com> |
| Subject: | Metal bending press |
Thanks to the graciousness of Mr. DeCosta, I have been able to post a few pics
of the metal bending press I built at "http://www.AirCamper.org/users/beerman".
Plese feel free to look at and criticize. It was cheap to build (my steel
came from a local scrapyard), and I'm able to put decent bends in 4 1/2"
wide x 0.90" 4130 (for my rudder / elevator hinge blanks). Everything was
MIG welded except for the bronze bushings, which I brazed. Maybe some
day I'll even sandblast and paint it so it ain't quite so ugly. Meanwhile,
on with the Pietenpol building!
----- End Included Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming 0-145 |
This is just hearsay, butI understand that the 0-145 doesn't have the same
power as an A-65. The A-65 does have 23 more cu in so it probably produces
it's power at a lower rpm than the 0-145. The 0-145 just doesn't perform
as well.
The bigger issue is the availability of parts. These were not popular
engines and finding things like jugs, cams, lifters, etc is quite
difficult.
In my opinion, if you have a line on a running 0-145 and the price is
good. Go for it. You can always switch to an A-65 or other Cont down the
road by just building a new mount. If the engine needs work, just walk
away and find an a-65 instead.
I know that this is vague, but there was a recent article (June or later?)
on a little yellow and grey biplane (the name Rose Parakeet comes to mind)
that was powered by this engine. There was a bit of a description on it in
the article. I think it was Sport aviation and it may have been on the
cover.
Ken
On Wed, 8 Sep 1999, Greg Yotz wrote:
> Anybody have any experience with a Lycoming O-145. This is apparently
> an old 65 hp.
>
>
> Greg Yotz
>
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
I do NOT wish to unsubscribe, but after all the trouble some are having
I tried to go to http://aircamper.orgMailingList.cfm in the event that
one day I may wish to unsubscribe. It came back"cannot locate". I
think we are here for ever and ever, like Charlie in the old Kingston
Trio song. Doomed to ride the Boston MTA train forever. L.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Weikel <jandd(at)maverickbbs.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A ride with Robert H. |
Mike,
I don't have a Piet yet but wish I did. I sure would like to attend a Piet
gathering if it is reasonably close to Kerrville, Tx.
John W
RW-6
KR-2S
Kerrville, Tx
jandd(at)maverickbbs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 11:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A ride with Robert H.
>Gang,
>
>I had the opportunity to drive from Dallas to Uvalde,
>Texas to visit with GN-1 owner Robert Hensarling.
>
>The weather that day had crosswinds and low ceilings
>hanging over the airport. Being a couple hundred
>pounds each, Robert decided to keep the GN-1 in the
>hanger.....so a flight in Robert's Rans was in order.
>
>It was my first time in a Rans and was a hoot. I was
>impressed with the performance of the Rotax 2 cycle
>engine.....climbing out at 70 mph. As soon as we took
>off, a King Air made a practice instrument approach, so
>we circled around the nearby foothills of the Texas Hill
>Country. It was a great Sunday morning ride that ended
>a few minutes later with a perfect soft landing on the
>Uvalde asphalt runway.
>
>As far as the GN-1 is concerned, Robert wants
>to replace his 6 x 6.00 aircraft tires with spoked
>wheels. It is a good looking airplane and has
>several hours under its belt. I understand he might
>sell the plane and buy a "true Piet" complete with
>Model A engine, spoked wheels, etc.
>
>Anyway, Robert and I would like to contact present
>GN-1 and PIET owners/pilots in Texas for a Texas fly-in
>now that the weather is under 100 degrees. A fall get
>together would be fun. Depending on the number of planes
>and where they are located, we then can determine a
>convenient central location.
>
>Please contact us as soon as possible for a good old
>Lone Star State fly in and barbque.
>
>Mike King
>GN-1
>77MK
>Dallas, Texas
>(214) 905-9299
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mbell1(at)columbiaenergygroup.com |
| Subject: | Re: Need Advice on Wood |
Douglas fir is fine. It needs to pass the grain and knot teststhe same as
other wood. It is a littlestronger than spruce and a little heavier.
Poplar - I recently downloaded a Forest Products lab PDF file that has lots of
wood info. The specs that they give for poplar are very close to those for
sitka spruce. Poplar is slightly heavier and is significantly stronger in
compression. It compares very well and is a whole lot easier to come by here
in the east. Like fir, it must pass muster for quality (straightness of grain
and knots the same as any other). The buyer remains responsible for grading.
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
Maiser(at)adena.byu.edu on 09/08/99 01:08:32 PM
Please respond to piet(at)byu.edu @ INTERNET
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Need Advice on Wood
My friend is just about to start the fuselage and tail, and I am making a
final check to see if what he is doing is okay.
He has located kiln-dried, clear Douglas fir at a local lumber yard. Is this
okay to use instead of spruce?
He also located kiln-dried poplar locally. Someone that built a Piet told
him that they would use poplar on the next plane. Anybody think this is a
good selection (it's cheaper)??
Thanks, Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Unsubscribe; |
Hello
I unsubscribe for the 2 weeks while I was gone to Brodhead and was able to
resubscribe once I got home.
Mike Madrid
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Stefan <leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 11:18 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Unsubscribe;
I do NOT wish to unsubscribe, but after all the trouble some are having
I tried to go to http://aircamper.orgMailingList.cfm in the event that
one day I may wish to unsubscribe. It came back"cannot locate". I
think we are here for ever and ever, like Charlie in the old Kingston
Trio song. Doomed to ride the Boston MTA train forever. L.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A ride with Robert H. |
Mike,
I'm not an owner/pilot of a Piet yet, but I hope to be in a few years, are
Piet wannabe's included? I'd like to see some of those nice planes that you
folks built - Maybe light the fire to start my own project, but I'd be
coming in my spam-can, as long as it didn't offend anyone ;-)! I'm based at
DWH just NW of Houston.
BTW, Is there still the fly-in at Kerrville anymore? I was there last
year about this time, and it looked like one was wrapping-up, we had landed
on the way to Alpine, and there looked to be about 12-15 homebuilts there.
Don't know much about picnic areas, but there's a place there that makes
funny-tailed airplanes, they sure are purty!
Anyway, I'd be interested! The Wings over Houston Airshow, and moving into
our new house are my constraints. Oct. 16,17 is WOH, and 9/15 is closing on
the house (hyperventilation...), then all the neverending honey-do's.
Anyway, it'd be neat to see how many Piets there are in this neck of the
woods!
TTFN,
Gary Meadows
(Gathering Piet-moss mode)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Gary M:..Charter a Lear Jet along with other Piet people in the South
Texas area, and fly to Benton Ks. Sat. Sept.11. Make sure the Lear is
Y2K compliant. Phase one of the y2k bug is due on 9-9-99.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet wannabee |
Leon,
Maybe we could find an old derelict 172 and strap on a jet engine like the
Waco Biplane in the EAA magazine this month! The Lear sounds like a pretty
good idea, maybe my next project, once I start/finish a Pietenpol, that is,
Hmmm...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Walter Evans R U There? |
Gary,
Thats not my corvair, I posted those pics for a friend of mine . He is an
AP and has two completed. He cast the housings for both the reduction end
and the magneto end , Not sure of the ratio, but he said the engine turns
somewhere around 3300/3500 rpm with the prop turning normal rpm. Aluminum
prop, not sure off of what. One he sold and is on a Piet, the other is on
his experimental.
I can find out more infro. or forward previous postings about this right to
you , or give you his phone #.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Meadows <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 9:30 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Walter Evans R U There?
>There, now that I've firmly convinced everyone how much of an idiot I am, I
>can proceed! I sometimes get a little to spastic on the keyboard here, and
>send stuff accidentally.
>
> Walter - I was on the Aircamper website and was looking over all of your
>pictures there and came up with a couple of questions about the Corvair
>engine, I'm not personally familiar with the type but is that a PSRU that
>you are installing on the front of the engine, if so what ratio is it? If
>not, what is it and where did you get it? I saw one of your pictures where
>a Corvair was mounted on a plane, it looked like it had a magneto on it,
was
>I seeing things or was that a conventional mag? Maybe the Corvair ignition
>just look like that? If it was a mag, how did you adapt it?
>
> I hate to bug you with so many questions, but I sure would like to know!
>Lots of nice pictures there too, looks like a lot of fine work being done,
>by everybody out there for that matter!
>
> Thanks for the info, whatever it may be!
>
>sincerely,
>Gary Meadows
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lycoming 0-145 |
Greg,
Have a friend that has one, and friends who have had them on Champs.
They say they are very reliable but....heavy..and underpowered. Seems
the hp that they are rated at is faster than you can spin a prop. so
when they run at normal speed, they are weaker than Cont 65.
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
To: Pietenpol Discussion
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 12:52 PM
Subject: Lycoming 0-145
Anybody have any experience with a Lycoming O-145. This is
apparently an old 65 hp.
Greg Yotz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | walter evans <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Unsubscribe; |
leon,
think you forgot a / after org
walt
-----Original Message-----
From: Leon Stefan <leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net>
Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 2:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Unsubscribe;
I do NOT wish to unsubscribe, but after all the trouble some are having
I tried to go to http://aircamper.orgMailingList.cfm in the event that
one day I may wish to unsubscribe. It came back"cannot locate". I
think we are here for ever and ever, like Charlie in the old Kingston
Trio song. Doomed to ride the Boston MTA train forever. L.S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Unsubscribe; |
Worked for me still, however the URL in your message is malformed (no /
(backslash) in the address before MailingList....
Steve Eldredge
IT Services
Brigham Young University
> -----Original Message-----
> Leon Stefan
> Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 12:16 PM
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> Subject: Unsubscribe;
>
>
> I do NOT wish to unsubscribe, but after all the trouble some
> are having
> I tried to go to http://aircamper.orgMailingList.cfm in the
> event that
> one day I may wish to unsubscribe. It came back"cannot locate". I
> think we are here for ever and ever, like Charlie in the old Kingston
> Trio song. Doomed to ride the Boston MTA train forever. L.S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A ride with Robert H. |
John,
I will put you down on our list of those to contact.
I drove through Kerrville Monday.......always a
beautiful part of the state.
Mike
>Mike,
>I don't have a Piet yet but wish I did. I sure would like to attend a Piet
>gathering if it is reasonably close to Kerrville, Tx.
>John W
>RW-6
>KR-2S
>Kerrville, Tx
>jandd(at)maverickbbs.com
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michael King <mikek(at)nstar.net>
>To: Pietenpol Discussion
>Date: Wednesday, September 08, 1999 11:45 AM
>Subject: A ride with Robert H.
>
>
>>Gang,
>>
>>I had the opportunity to drive from Dallas to Uvalde,
>>Texas to visit with GN-1 owner Robert Hensarling.
>>
>>The weather that day had crosswinds and low ceilings
>>hanging over the airport. Being a couple hundred
>>pounds each, Robert decided to keep the GN-1 in the
>>hanger.....so a flight in Robert's Rans was in order.
>>
>>It was my first time in a Rans and was a hoot. I was
>>impressed with the performance of the Rotax 2 cycle
>>engine.....climbing out at 70 mph. As soon as we took
>>off, a King Air made a practice instrument approach, so
>>we circled around the nearby foothills of the Texas Hill
>>Country. It was a great Sunday morning ride that ended
>>a few minutes later with a perfect soft landing on the
>>Uvalde asphalt runway.
>>
>>As far as the GN-1 is concerned, Robert wants
>>to replace his 6 x 6.00 aircraft tires with spoked
>>wheels. It is a good looking airplane and has
>>several hours under its belt. I understand he might
>>sell the plane and buy a "true Piet" complete with
>>Model A engine, spoked wheels, etc.
>>
>>Anyway, Robert and I would like to contact present
>>GN-1 and PIET owners/pilots in Texas for a Texas fly-in
>>now that the weather is under 100 degrees. A fall get
>>together would be fun. Depending on the number of planes
>>and where they are located, we then can determine a
>>convenient central location.
>>
>>Please contact us as soon as possible for a good old
>>Lone Star State fly in and barbque.
>>
>>Mike King
>>GN-1
>>77MK
>>Dallas, Texas
>>(214) 905-9299
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Walter-Steve Problem was a left out "/". Been breathing glue fumes and
sawdust too long. I'm going to take a few days off. I don't want to
unsubscribe until I at least know EVERYTHING there is to be known about
Pietenpole"s Thanks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
These plans are now available from Keri-Ann Price.
Her e-mail address is:
gprice(at)javanet.com
Greg
>>> John Duprey 09/02 11:50 AM >>>
Entry door plans are available From Gary Price in North Hampton N.H.
Sorry
I misplaced his phone #
John Duprey
>
>
> I'm interested in the entry door!! I'd like to see what
> others have done here.
>
> Mike Bell
> Columbia, SC
>
>
> "Davis, Marc" on 09/01/99 08:09:32 PM
>
> Please respond to Pietenpol Discussion
>
> To: Pietenpol Discussion
> cc:
> Subject:
>
>
> I have some questions I hope you guy can shed some light on.
>
> Does anyone know of a direct drive Subaru EA81 Peat? What kind
> of
> performance?
>
> Over and above the 1933 plans what are the other Peat addendum
> available and
> what are the sources? I've head of the following:
>
> Builders Manual
> Building video
> 1932 Flying and glider manual
> Long fuselage
> 3 piece wing
> Steel fuselage
> Corvair engine
> Entry Door
> Hinged wing section for easy entry
>
> Any others you guy know about?
August 31, 1999 - September 08, 1999
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-bd