Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-bp
June 14, 2000 - July 31, 2000
trying to keep dry
JoeC
Zion, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: rain, rain go away |
| From: | Chris A Tracy <catdesigns(at)juno.com> |
Rain! Rain! I wish we had some or even just a cloud. Try 105 degree's
out side and 100 degrees in the "Garage Aeroplane factory " and that was
at 6 pm. To say the least I gave the under paid employee the night off.
I just have to draw the line some where and that would be right where the
air conditioner stops. Wish I was in Provo with Steve. I would make him
take me flying in the empty front seat.
IF any one is looking to buy spruce for there Piet I can tell you that
western aircraft sells a top quality spruce kit. I got mine a couple of
week ago and I had no idea that the pieces were cut almost to length and
marked as to where it goes. Saves a lot of time trying to figure out how
to cut the wood and have enough. Even the T cross section for the tail
was cut. Very good quality workmanship. Took 3 weeks to get to me from
the day I ordered it. Shipping by Airfreight cost only 35 bucks. The
only thing is to check with the local customs agent on how to get it
through customs. I had to make an appointment to have the paperwork
signed off by an agent. Took all of 5 min but 4 trips to the airport
before I found out i needed to have it cleared. Not a problem if I had
known before hand. Check with the carrier that Western aircraft sends it
through, they may be able to get it cleared through customs for you.
14 ribs done, fuselage jig almost laid out on my work bench. But I now
have lots of wood so watch out the sawdust is going to start flying. Only
5 more years and I will be at Brodhead..
Chris
Sacramento, CA
> talk about frog stranglers and gully washers, this rain lately is
> getting
> out of hand. went over to 49C (camp lake airport) today for some
> hanger
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Summer Morning Flight.... |
Wish I could say the same, but alas it will be at least two years. I have
taken the first step and sent a 100 h.p. engine to the shop for a total
rebuild. I will substitute it for thew Covair for now. I plan to design and
build a re-drive for the corvair , then switch. The 100 h.p. is destined for
the planned new Buttercup ( Wittman's that is).
Nice story Steve, you really make a person jeallous.
Regards,
Domenico
P.S. The Pietenpol flyin at Brussels was a great success. 3.5 Piets and 25
other aircraft present. Also 4 Brazilian visitors and 5 Americans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com> |
Chris A Tracy - catdesigns(at)juno.com
Your statements about the "long fuselage" while using a lighter engine are
correct. The fact of the matter is that the longer the fuselage happens to
be, it certainly does get heavier toward the rear. There is more wood,
fabric, cables, etc. back there. The weight of a tailwheel alone, way back
there, is multiplied by the long arm. "A pound is a pound the world
around." If the Piet had a wing that was fixed into position (ala most
airplanes) you would thus have to either make the engine heavier (for
example, a metal prop) or move the engine forward to compensate for its
lighter weight. Forget for the moment that the Piet wing, due to its
installation atop four cabane struts can be moved fore and aft. If the
wing were nailed to the fuselage, regardless of the length of the fuselage,
you have to balance the weight of the airplane about the estimated CG.
This means that regardless of the "length" of the fuselage you happen to
have, the CG has to fall somewhere about 20% of the distance behind the
leading edge of the wing. If you have a Cub, for example, you cannot move
the wing about. You have to ensure that the CG limits fall into the proper
limits by other means.
In the Piet, as with any other airplane, once you have decided on the wing
location (and on the Piet it ought to be with the cabanes at vertical), you
have to jockey the weights about to fit into the anticipated CG
limits. You can add lead weights at the tail (I have seen this done with
Piper Vagabonds which have had a larger (heavier) engine installed. You
can add lead bars to the top of the engine (I have seen this done where a
lighter than anticipated engine was installed on the same mount). But
hauling lead weights around simply covers up an engineering mistake. So
does slanting the cabane struts on a Piet.
Much better to go to Tony Bingelis' classic book "The Sportplane Builder"
and look at pages 296-301, where you will even see a sketch of a Piet-type
airplane having its CG determined.
Once you have determined the location of the wing on your Piet (and it
should ideally have the cabane struts and the wing struts in a vertical
position), treat it like any other airplane with a fixed position for the
wing. Balance the airplane with weights and arms that make sense. There
is no mystery to this. Once this is done, there is no need to cover up
mistakes by moving the wing around.
For one thing, the moving of the wing aft on a Piet denies easier access to
the rear cockpit. The prototype Great Lakes biplane had an almost
impossible access to the front cockpit because of the low position of the
top wing. So the top wing center section was moved forward a considerable
amount. To compensate for the center of lift being changed, the top wing
was then swept back a rackish amount. In addition to solving the cockpit
entry/CG problem, the airplane had a sudden spurt in sales due to the
snappy appearance of the sweptback top wing!
Anytime you move the top wing fore and aft on the Piet, you may be
correcting a weight/balance problem, but you are also moving the actual
center of lift and center of drag, which can change flight
characteristics. The old saw that "the lengthened Piet will not recover
from a slip as easily" depends on a number of things. The first one is,
compared to what? Two Piets will not fly alike. The tail control on the
Piet is compromised by the fact that the pilot's shoulders and head
severely disrupt the airflow over the tail, expecially at slower
speeds. If better rudder control is desired, a much larger and higher fin
and rudder should be used. As it is, accept the facts as they are, and fly
for fun.
The slip recovery thing is a tempest in a teapot. With a high drag machine
like the Piet, you will seldom need a slip to loose altitude. Just pull
the power back. There is a saying among Piet drivers that if you carry a
half-brick (not a whole brick, remember to keep it light), if you loose
engine power, throw the half-brick overboard. Where the brick lands is
where you are going to land! If you do want to slip, as in any machine,
recover in plenty of time not anywhere near the ground.
So compute where you need the weight to balance with the cabanes
vertical. If you use a Corvair engine, do not use a metal
prop. Experience shows that with as many engines, the wood prop will allow
engine harmonics to dissipate more easily.
In the case of a lighter engine (sustituting the Corvair for the Ford, for
example), of course you have to move the engine forward! Any designer
would. Just how much depends on your calculations.
As for the argument that lengthening the engine compartment will sully the
traditional lines of the Piet, you have to admit that a square-rigger like
the Piet will suffer very little from a slightly lengthened nose
cowling. Bernie offset this by lengthening the fuselage for this very
reason! Cabanes laid back to proclaim to the world that you screwed up on
the weight and balance calculations are much more noticeable.
So go with your correct instincts, Chris. Accept the fuselage that you
have. It' a good one. No need to start major surgery there. Lots of
airplanes over the years have changed engines and the Piet has had as many
different engines as any other - perhaps more. Look at the airplanes that
removed the round P&Ws and installed the PT-6 turboprops. Shucks, they
look like anteaters. But they fly great.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Meadows" <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Don Mosher's Long Fuse posting |
Don,
That was a very good posting about the wing placement on the Piet. It has
always bothered me about angling the cabane struts to move the wing around a
lot. I like the idea of lift forces being transferred from the wing thru
straight cabanes struts into the fuselage, it seems to me that there are
less side forces on the cabanes and you'll get full advantage of their
strength.
Saying that, I fully expect to use the ability to move the wing to fine
tune my wing placement. Heck, I'm still an amateur builder, and I expect to
make some errors, but I hope that the struts will be more or less vertical.
I also don't think I've heard of any Piets going down due to structural
failure in this area, so I don't know that it's a big safety issue, angle or
not. I also have the feeling that this is one of those quirky Piet things
where it's okay NOT to conform to traditional design standards!
I've kinda wondered for awhile that the statement about the Piet not
coming out of a slip is more a problem with the one-piece wing being
straight with no positive dihedral combined with the smallish vertical
tail-surface area. I plan to build the 3 piece wing with a little positive
dihedral to insure stability and it looks a little better.
I had thought about slightly enlarging the vertical tail surfaces, but I
figure there are a lot of Piets out there with the smaller one, plus, it
would add more weight to the tail which for me is a no-no, So I built the
traditional size vertical stab/rudder.
Don, I'm sure your posting will generate a good bit of spirited discussion
on the list here, and that's a good thing, stuff like this gets the rest of
us off our duff, and excited again, (along with Stevee's morning-flight
posting - nice one Steve, wish I could have been there. Gordon Baxter would
have been proud...). I think I'll go out this weekend and work on my
horizontal stab/elevators some!
Thanks!
Gary Meadows
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Don Mosher's Long Fuse posting |
Gary, I plan on making my struts adjustable with a threaded tie rod end just
so I can play around with dihedral. I think this should add to the
stability and recover from a slip. I had the same problem on a Kold
Firestar I built. After I added dihedral the plane would fly true and level
and recover from slips with hands off controls. Before I had to fight it
back to level flight. I always thought on the Firestar that it was
partially due to having no sides to the fuselage adding to the vertical
stab. It seemed that wing dihedral made plenty of difference. I originally
was putting it in for better hands free flying so I could take pictures.
I'm going to try to add as little dihedral as possible.
I hope my cabane struts won't have to much slope to them, their not being
vertical worried me too. I talked to a friend who is a aero engineer and he
said that they are so over sized it won't make a bit of difference. He said
that he would be more worried about the attach points because they are
designed in tention and not so much in cross loads. He is supposed to be
back for the fourth of July and take a look at mine.
Greg
Gary wrote:
> I've kinda wondered for awhile that the statement about the Piet not
>coming out of a slip is more a problem with the one-piece wing being
>straight with no positive dihedral combined with the smallish vertical
>tail-surface area. I plan to build the 3 piece wing with a little positive
>dihedral to insure stability and it looks a little better.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
I am starting the covering on my wings and would appreciate advice from those
who have covered Piet ( or similar) wings on how they handled the
undercamber. I know that stitching will pull the fabic up to the capstrip but
am concerned that the 3-1/2" spacing outboard of the propwash might make it a
bit unsightly. Is it standard practise to glue to the undercambered area
prior to shrinking and rib stitching
(yes, I will stitch regardless of whether I do or do not glue !! )
Perhaps this is a moot point and an uneven surface does not even occur...but
if so, would like to hear that also. Many thanks, Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering |
I glued my fabric to the wings and stitched it too.
Craig Lawler
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conoly" <bconoly(at)surfsouth.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long Fuselage |
Well put , Doc!
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Mosher" <docshop(at)famvid.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Long Fuselage
>
> Chris A Tracy - catdesigns(at)juno.com
>
> Your statements about the "long fuselage" while using a lighter engine are
> correct. The fact of the matter is that the longer the fuselage happens
to
> be, it certainly does get heavier toward the rear. There is more wood,
> fabric, cables, etc. back there. The weight of a tailwheel alone, way
back
> there, is multiplied by the long arm. "A pound is a pound the world
> around." If the Piet had a wing that was fixed into position (ala most
> airplanes) you would thus have to either make the engine heavier (for
> example, a metal prop) or move the engine forward to compensate for its
> lighter weight. Forget for the moment that the Piet wing, due to its
> installation atop four cabane struts can be moved fore and aft. If the
> wing were nailed to the fuselage, regardless of the length of the
fuselage,
> you have to balance the weight of the airplane about the estimated CG.
>
> This means that regardless of the "length" of the fuselage you happen to
> have, the CG has to fall somewhere about 20% of the distance behind the
> leading edge of the wing. If you have a Cub, for example, you cannot move
> the wing about. You have to ensure that the CG limits fall into the proper
> limits by other means.
>
> In the Piet, as with any other airplane, once you have decided on the wing
> location (and on the Piet it ought to be with the cabanes at vertical),
you
> have to jockey the weights about to fit into the anticipated CG
> limits. You can add lead weights at the tail (I have seen this done with
> Piper Vagabonds which have had a larger (heavier) engine installed. You
> can add lead bars to the top of the engine (I have seen this done where a
> lighter than anticipated engine was installed on the same mount). But
> hauling lead weights around simply covers up an engineering mistake. So
> does slanting the cabane struts on a Piet.
>
> Much better to go to Tony Bingelis' classic book "The Sportplane Builder"
> and look at pages 296-301, where you will even see a sketch of a Piet-type
> airplane having its CG determined.
>
> Once you have determined the location of the wing on your Piet (and it
> should ideally have the cabane struts and the wing struts in a vertical
> position), treat it like any other airplane with a fixed position for the
> wing. Balance the airplane with weights and arms that make sense. There
> is no mystery to this. Once this is done, there is no need to cover up
> mistakes by moving the wing around.
>
> For one thing, the moving of the wing aft on a Piet denies easier access
to
> the rear cockpit. The prototype Great Lakes biplane had an almost
> impossible access to the front cockpit because of the low position of the
> top wing. So the top wing center section was moved forward a considerable
> amount. To compensate for the center of lift being changed, the top wing
> was then swept back a rackish amount. In addition to solving the cockpit
> entry/CG problem, the airplane had a sudden spurt in sales due to the
> snappy appearance of the sweptback top wing!
>
> Anytime you move the top wing fore and aft on the Piet, you may be
> correcting a weight/balance problem, but you are also moving the actual
> center of lift and center of drag, which can change flight
> characteristics. The old saw that "the lengthened Piet will not recover
> from a slip as easily" depends on a number of things. The first one is,
> compared to what? Two Piets will not fly alike. The tail control on the
> Piet is compromised by the fact that the pilot's shoulders and head
> severely disrupt the airflow over the tail, expecially at slower
> speeds. If better rudder control is desired, a much larger and higher
fin
> and rudder should be used. As it is, accept the facts as they are, and
fly
> for fun.
>
> The slip recovery thing is a tempest in a teapot. With a high drag
machine
> like the Piet, you will seldom need a slip to loose altitude. Just pull
> the power back. There is a saying among Piet drivers that if you carry a
> half-brick (not a whole brick, remember to keep it light), if you loose
> engine power, throw the half-brick overboard. Where the brick lands is
> where you are going to land! If you do want to slip, as in any machine,
> recover in plenty of time not anywhere near the ground.
>
> So compute where you need the weight to balance with the cabanes
> vertical. If you use a Corvair engine, do not use a metal
> prop. Experience shows that with as many engines, the wood prop will
allow
> engine harmonics to dissipate more easily.
>
> In the case of a lighter engine (sustituting the Corvair for the Ford, for
> example), of course you have to move the engine forward! Any designer
> would. Just how much depends on your calculations.
>
> As for the argument that lengthening the engine compartment will sully the
> traditional lines of the Piet, you have to admit that a square-rigger
like
> the Piet will suffer very little from a slightly lengthened nose
> cowling. Bernie offset this by lengthening the fuselage for this very
> reason! Cabanes laid back to proclaim to the world that you screwed up on
> the weight and balance calculations are much more noticeable.
>
> So go with your correct instincts, Chris. Accept the fuselage that you
> have. It' a good one. No need to start major surgery there. Lots of
> airplanes over the years have changed engines and the Piet has had as many
> different engines as any other - perhaps more. Look at the airplanes that
> removed the round P&Ws and installed the PT-6 turboprops. Shucks, they
> look like anteaters. But they fly great.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing covering |
I think I would reconsider glueing the fabric to wing ribs prior to
shrinking. There is no way in h__l the fabric is going to tighten evenly
if you do that. The rib stitching will pull it down.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pietenpol/Grega variant problems |
| From: | "Sherri Morton" <smorton3(at)bellsouth.net> |
Mnay thanks to Doc Mosher for his enlightenment on the Piet wing/weight and balance
issues. His and many other postings here have saved my bacon in my project
and now I have a few other issues in my scenario for which I humbly ask advice.
Scenario: I purchased a very incomplete project in February. I received a Pietenpol
short fuselage with the primary wood work complete and a 3 piece Grega wing.
I have not yet decided what engine that I intend to use but will probably
be a Continental 0200. As I am in a wheelchair, I would prefer not to have my
fuel tank in the center section, where I would not be able to access. I intend
to use the Pietenpol cabane attach fittings as my centersection is built to meld
the Grega wing with the movable cabane setup. My tentative fuel location plan
is to weld a 9" extension from the front of the fuselage firewall to another
firewall immediately behind the engine mount and place a fuel tank between
the two firewalls.
I would appreciate any and all feedback and advice or insights on the above issues.
I am a first time builder and would like to benefit from others mistakes
and successes.
Possible problem #2: My fuselage is all wood. In order to transfer from my wheelchair
to the cockpit, I would like to install a triangular shape door on the
right side of the rear cockpit. I am not aware of doors being installed on any
wood fuselage Piets. One again, I am seeking advice and insights.
Thanks
Paul Morton
Paul Morton
678-482-1661 (H)
770-399-6256 x 5710 (W)
paul.morton(at)ceridian.com
smorton13(at)bellsouth.net
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)pliantsystems.com> |
wcb
| Subject: | [Fwd: Message to Pietenpol-List Contained MIME...] |
The Poly-Fiber covering manual, which I HIGHLY recommend (wouldn't
consider
doing fabric work without it) has an appendix which specifically
addresses concave-bottom wings. The recommendation is to glue fabric
to the bottom (only) of the ribs, do an "intermediate" shrink at 250
degrees,
rib-lace, then do final shrink. I think this manual addresses all the
questions I've ever had regarding fabric covering.
Hope this helps.....
-Bill
>
> Gene Rambo wrote:
>
>
> I think I would reconsider glueing the fabric to wing ribs prior to
> shrinking. There is no way in h__l the fabric is going to tighten evenly
> if you do that. The rib stitching will pull it down.
William C. Beerman, Principal Engineer
Pliant Systems Inc.
4024 Stirrup Creek Drive, Durham, NC, 27703
919-405-4862 fax: 919-544-5356
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)pliantsystems.com> |
| Subject: | Covering concave-bottom wings |
The Poly-Fiber covering manual, which I HIGHLY recommend (wouldn't
consider doing fabric work without it) has an appendix which
specifically addresses concave-bottom wings. The recommendation is
to glue fabric to the bottom (only) of the ribs, do an "intermediate"
shrink at 250 degrees, rib-lace, then do final shrink. I think this
manual addresses all the questions I've ever had regarding fabric
covering.
Hope this helps.....
-Bill
>
> Gene Rambo wrote:
>
>
> I think I would reconsider glueing the fabric to wing ribs prior to
> shrinking. There is no way in h__l the fabric is going to tighten evenly
> if you do that. The rib stitching will pull it down.
William C. Beerman, Principal Engineer
Pliant Systems Inc.
4024 Stirrup Creek Drive, Durham, NC, 27703
919-405-4862 fax: 919-544-5356
List administrator: Please remove last post from me. Sorry...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol/Grega variant problems |
Paul; I am about 3/4 ways into completing my Piet. I also have the short fuselage
and patterned my fuel tank location after Mike Cuy and several others by
mounting it behind the fuselage as it stands. I was able to get an approx. 16
gal tank there with no obstruction to the front pit passenger. like others I
am using the A65 engine with extended motor mount to acheive proper W&B.
more important Paul, being wheelchair bound, have you considered the ease of entrance
into the rear pit ? even with a Grega type door it's not a shoe in for
a non wheel chair person. and again the foot controls, have you considered access
to them ?
beleive me I am not trying to shoot down your dream, in fact I applaude you for
undertaking this project. I only mention this because I have a wheel chair bound
brother in law and I see the difficulties involved in just getting into his
car . operating it is no problem as it has all hand controls...If these issues
are of no concern than have at it because you are in for a very enjoyable building
and learning experience as your bird gets closer to the day it's wheels
lift off.
Brodhead is rapidly approaching and if at all possible, get there and experience
them first hand. you wont be sorry. short of getting there, a couple of videos
have been available, (Mike Cuys included) that get into the building and flying
of Piets.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
NX529PJ
>
> Mnay thanks to Doc Mosher for his enlightenment on the Piet wing/weight and balance
issues. His and many other postings here have saved my bacon in my project
and now I have a few other issues in my scenario for which I humbly ask advice.
>
> Scenario: I purchased a very incomplete project in February. I received a Pietenpol
short fuselage with the primary wood work complete and a 3 piece Grega
wing. I have not yet decided what engine that I intend to use but will probably
be a Continental 0200. As I am in a wheelchair, I would prefer not to have my
fuel tank in the center section, where I would not be able to access. I intend
to use the Pietenpol cabane attach fittings as my centersection is built to
meld the Grega wing with the movable cabane setup. My tentative fuel location
plan is to weld a 9" extension from the front of the fuselage firewall to another
firewall immediately behind the engine mount and place a fuel tank between
the two firewalls.
>
> I would appreciate any and all feedback and advice or insights on the above issues.
I am a first time builder and would like to benefit from others mistakes
and successes.
>
> Possible problem #2: My fuselage is all wood. In order to transfer from my wheelchair
to the cockpit, I would like to install a triangular shape door on the
right side of the rear cockpit. I am not aware of doors being installed on any
wood fuselage Piets. One again, I am seeking advice and insights.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Morton
>
> Paul Morton
> 678-482-1661 (H)
> 770-399-6256 x 5710 (W)
> paul.morton(at)ceridian.com
> smorton13(at)bellsouth.net
>
> Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
> Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
> http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
Hi I live in South africa and own and fly 2 totally diferent AirCampers.
One is a Geager with a C90 Wood construction and the other is a metal tube
Aircamper
with an O200- I didnt build the planes and have no details on them or any
plans.
The O200 Piet. has a nasty habit of dropping its tailwheel on before the
main wheels,
this starts up a bounce from the tail wheel to the mains that just gets
worse untill I have to
take power and go around-I usually have to wheel land this one-The Greager
Piet 3 points
very well.I measured the angle of the elavator in the full up position and
found that
the metal tube Piets elavator moves up about 14 deg. more than the other
one.
Can anyone offer any advise on the problem and what should the elavator
travel be ?
Any help apreciated
Regards Doug Reeve
Johannesburg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Duprey <j-m-duprey(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol/Grega variant problems |
Paul: Gary Price of Yesterdays Wings in North Hampton N.H. sells plans
for a cockpit door, nice design, not shure if it would be large enough
for your purpose but you might want to check it out.
John Duprey
Sherri Morton wrote:
>
>
> Mnay thanks to Doc Mosher for his enlightenment on the Piet wing/weight and balance
issues. His and many other postings here have saved my bacon in my project
and now I have a few other issues in my scenario for which I humbly ask advice.
>
>
>
> I would appreciate any and all feedback and advice or insights on the above issues.
I am a first time builder and would like to benefit from others mistakes
and successes.
>
> Possible problem #2: My fuselage is all wood. In order to transfer from my wheelchair
to the cockpit, I would like to install a triangular shape door on the
right side of the rear cockpit. I am not aware of doors being installed on any
wood fuselage Piets. One again, I am seeking advice and insights.
>
> Thanks
>
> Paul Morton
>
> Paul Morton
> 678-482-1661 (H)
> 770-399-6256 x 5710 (W)
> paul.morton(at)ceridian.com
> smorton13(at)bellsouth.net
>
> Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
> Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
> http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: [Fwd: Message to Pietenpol-List Contained MIME...] |
In a message dated 06/19/2000 9:13:22 AM Central Daylight Time,
wcb(at)pliantsystems.com writes:
<< . The recommendation is to glue fabric
to the bottom (only) of the ribs, do an "intermediate" shrink at 250
degrees,
rib-lace, then do final shrink. I think this manual addresses all the
questions I've ever had regarding fabric covering. >>
Thanks Bill, I do have the Poly Fiber manual (and tape) but didn't notice
the appendix. Will check it out in the A.M. I have the poly fiber flat rib
stitch tape that I plan to use. I was wondering how this will hold up under
the second heat shrink. Guess I'll do atest panel and find out ! Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conrad, Bart D" <Bart.Conrad(at)na.boeing.com> |
| Subject: | TAIL WHEEL SPRING |
Does anyone know the wire diameter, number of coils, and compression height,
of the tail wheel spring? I mainly need the wire diameter and material
also. If not does anyone know Garry Price's e-mail address? Thanks, Bart
Bart Conrad
Boeing Field Service Rep - Hobby Field
Douglas Products Division & 737 Hvy Maint
Phone: 713-640-5882
Fax: 713-640-5891
E-mail: bart.conrad(at)na.boeing.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conrad, Bart D" <Bart.Conrad(at)na.boeing.com> |
| Subject: | SPOKED WHEEL RIMS |
I recently acquired two matching steel motorcycle rims from a salvage yard.
They weigh approximately 13 lbs each and cost $20.00 each. They are
identified as follows:
1) T19X250-TLA DOT
CMR-4-82
43001-79
2) T19X250-TLA DOT
CMR-10-79
43001-79
I plan to sandblast off the rust and flaking chrome, prime and paint black.
Questions: Does anyone see any problems with the rims I picked out?
Too heavy, too wide? Can anyone tell me if these are
front rims or
back rims and what motorcycle they are off of? Supposedly
they
are off a Harley.
Bart Conrad
Boeing Field Service Rep - Hobby Field
Douglas Products Division & 737 Hvy Maint
Phone: 713-640-5882
Fax: 713-640-5891
E-mail: bart.conrad(at)na.boeing.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Tail Springs |
Bart,
The spring that Bernie Pietenpol called out is:
6 7/8" long in the open position,
1 7/16" dia.,
and fully compressed at 190 lbs.
Gary Price calls out a spring:
7" long relaxed,
1.38" O.D.,
190 lbs compressed solid.
Both are pretty darn close to each other. I have no idea of the wire dia.
for the spring, 3/16" is a good guess, but the material is spring steel.
(Sorry, I couldn't help that last one.)
At the time I got in touch with Gary Price he didn't have an e-mail
address, but that was about 3 years ago now. However his address
(Pony Express) is:
Yesterday's Wings Aeroplane Works, Inc.
Hampton Airfield, Route 1 Lafayette Rd.
North Hampton, NH 03862
Best wishes,
Rodger Childs
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
Bart,
Sounds like they are 19" rims for 2.5" wide tyres, and sounds
like a good plan is forming, Now, as long as they are not
"clincher" rims all should be great.
Once had an old chevy, 1925, which had clincher rims. Tyres
were no problem to come by, BUT mounting them was an
eye opener for this kid. Dad laughed and laughed but didn't help.
Bless the guy who invented drop center rims!
Go for it.
Rodger Childs
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | More Piet Baseball Cap info |
To those of you that expressed interest, I will be getting the hats back
from the embroidery shop in about a week. I've done a red, blue, and green
version this time (sorry no black) This is a lot of 48, and if I have any
left I'll bring them to Brodhead 2000. $20 each, plus $3 shipping. Free
Shipping if you order more than one. please specify color. You will be
pleased!
check or money order to:
Steve Eldredge
1005 E. 620 N.
Provo, UT 84606
Check here for all the details...
http://www.aircamper.org/users/Stevee/pietenpol_baseball_cap_order_pag.htm
See you at B-head!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mac Zirges" <macz(at)netbridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol/Grega variant problems |
Hello. I can't remember exactly when or where I read the article, but many
years ago there was a tricked up Piet (lots of extra wood things such as
struts etc to look even more old-fashioned) that had a door on a wood
fuselage.
This builder had reinforced one side of the fuselage with thicker plywood,
and then had a hinged door cut into the plywood. I don't remember just how
far the extra plywood extended, but I assume it was from firewal to back of
seating area for continuity.
Hope this helps.
Mac in Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri Morton <smorton3(at)bellsouth.net>
Date: Monday, June 19, 2000 6:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol/Grega variant problems
>
>Mnay thanks to Doc Mosher for his enlightenment on the Piet wing/weight and
balance issues. His and many other postings here have saved my bacon in my
project and now I have a few other issues in my scenario for which I humbly
ask advice.
>
>Scenario: I purchased a very incomplete project in February. I received a
Pietenpol short fuselage with the primary wood work complete and a 3 piece
Grega wing. I have not yet decided what engine that I intend to use but will
probably be a Continental 0200. As I am in a wheelchair, I would prefer not
to have my fuel tank in the center section, where I would not be able to
access. I intend to use the Pietenpol cabane attach fittings as my
centersection is built to meld the Grega wing with the movable cabane setup.
My tentative fuel location plan is to weld a 9" extension from the front of
the fuselage firewall to another firewall immediately behind the engine
mount and place a fuel tank between the two firewalls.
>
>I would appreciate any and all feedback and advice or insights on the above
issues. I am a first time builder and would like to benefit from others
mistakes and successes.
>
>
>Possible problem #2: My fuselage is all wood. In order to transfer from my
wheelchair to the cockpit, I would like to install a triangular shape door
on the right side of the rear cockpit. I am not aware of doors being
installed on any wood fuselage Piets. One again, I am seeking advice and
insights.
>
>Thanks
>
>Paul Morton
>
> Paul Morton
>678-482-1661 (H)
>770-399-6256 x 5710 (W)
>paul.morton(at)ceridian.com
>smorton13(at)bellsouth.net
>
>
>Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
>Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
>http://webmail.bellsouth.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
Does anybody know of a subaru discussion group? A
friend of mine is doing a kitfox and wants to put a
turbo'd soob on it.
del
piet builder
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
Hi again- I need to replace the prop on my o200 Powered Aircamper.
I am curently using a McCauly 70x48 as the CG is a bit far forward I would
like to replace it with
a wooden prop-Any help regarding Size and where I could purchase one from
apriciated
as info and supliers are rare in South Africa.
Regards Doug Reeve
Johannesburg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
Del,
Send an empty email to AIRSOOB-subscribe(at)lists.kz and you'll be signed up.
Joe
>From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: piet aircamper
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: soob
>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 11:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>Does anybody know of a subaru discussion group? A
>friend of mine is doing a kitfox and wants to put a
>turbo'd soob on it.
>
>del
>piet builder
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | when is Brodhead? |
When are the dates for Brodhead?
thanks,
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: when is Brodhead? |
Brodhead dates are July 28, 29 30
JoeC
Zion, IL
walter evans wrote:
>
> When are the dates for Brodhead?
> thanks,
> walt
> -----------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
The Gary Price plans are for a front cockpit door. They are very good
and call for considerable beefing up (added weight), which falls on the
c/g. If tried on the rear pit all of this weight falls behind the c/g
adding to the on going tail heaviness Piets are prone to. I've just
built the door in my right fus. side. It was easy, but time consuming.
Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mboynton(at)excite.com |
for" ;
| Subject: | Re: cockpit door |
Leon and others:
How is the strength/integrity of the fuselage maintained with the Gary Price
front door modification? After the modification, you no longer have a
one-piece, continuous top longeron on the side where the door is installed,
do you? How is the strength built back into the structure?
Mark Boynton
Gilbert, AZ
wrote:
Stefan)
>
> The Gary Price plans are for a front cockpit door. They are very good
> and call for considerable beefing up (added weight), which falls on the
> c/g. If tried on the rear pit all of this weight falls behind the c/g
> adding to the on going tail heaviness Piets are prone to. I've just
> built the door in my right fus. side. It was easy, but time consuming.
> Leon S.
>
>
>
>
>
Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
The door is 10 inches deep, On the inside of the fus. there is a 1x6x
about 13 or 14 inches making the lower doorway framing. Then you add a
1x6 planks to the lower doorway plank. The front plank angles down to
the fwd. landing gear area. The rear plank angles down to the cluster
where the pilots seat (butt) is. All is held together with 1/8 gussets.
If I read the post from the fellow i the wheel chair, he was needing a
door in the rear cockpit for easier entry. I suppose it could be done,
but you would need to extend the ply siding past the rear cockpit. Also
you are getting into the area where the fus. sides are tapering toward
the tail post. It would be hard, maybe impossible to bend the 1x6
planks. Hope my description made sense. I If anyone has questions, be
patient. I'm having rouble with my isp. It has taken me as much as 2 hrs
to get on line. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Remember when you decided to build a Piet? Remember when you received your
plans from Don? Remember when you started searching for info about materials,
how much and how long? Did you feel like you were on a small island in the
ocean?
WELL, you know how I feel at this writing. Steve has been helpful and some of
you straightened me out on this matronics business.
I need to know the basics. Any suggestions will be appreciated.
Isablcorky(at)aol.com (Corky)
________________________________________________________________________________
Corky,
As for suggestions on building a Piet:
Read, read, read;
Ask Questions, questions, questions;
Check out the Piet websites, websites, websites.
Join the EAA and tap into their wealth of knowledge
in people and books.
Read the drawings;
Order the wood;
Measure three times;
Cut once;
Build to the drawings.
Draw out the metal fittings on stiff construction paper;
Keep in mind what they must do;
Keep in mind what they must work in unison with;
Think, think, think.
Re-draw the metal fittings on stiff construction paper as necessary;
Keep in mind what they must work in unison with;
Order the metal;
Cut, cut, cut;
Drill, drill, drill;
Grind, grind, grind;
Deburr, deburr,
deburr.
Measure tubes three times;
Cut tubes once;
Grind to shape, file to fit;
Weld as required.
For covering apply the same methods again;
Read, read, read;
Ask, ask, ask;
Measure three times;
Cut once.
And at any stage try your hand at a practice piece. Get knowledgeable
people to lend a hand on the more difficult processes. And when a plane
flyes over head pause to listen to the motor as it goes on its way and let
the siren call once again stir you. And when the eighteen month project
drags on into several or many years, keep the faith, soon you too will be
up there in your very own Piet too.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Amen Roger,,,,, and don't forget to go thru the archives ( lot of good
stuff )
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Rodger &
Betty Childs
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Getting Started
<childsway@indian-creek.net>
Corky,
As for suggestions on building a Piet:
Read, read, read;
Ask Questions, questions, questions;
Check out the Piet websites, websites, websites.
Join the EAA and tap into their wealth of knowledge
in people and books.
Read the drawings;
Order the wood;
Measure three times;
Cut once;
Build to the drawings.
Draw out the metal fittings on stiff construction paper;
Keep in mind what they must do;
Keep in mind what they must work in unison with;
Think, think, think.
Re-draw the metal fittings on stiff construction paper as necessary;
Keep in mind what they must work in unison with;
Order the metal;
Cut, cut, cut;
Drill, drill, drill;
Grind, grind, grind;
Deburr, deburr,
deburr.
Measure tubes three times;
Cut tubes once;
Grind to shape, file to fit;
Weld as required.
For covering apply the same methods again;
Read, read, read;
Ask, ask, ask;
Measure three times;
Cut once.
And at any stage try your hand at a practice piece. Get knowledgeable
people to lend a hand on the more difficult processes. And when a plane
flyes over head pause to listen to the motor as it goes on its way and let
the siren call once again stir you. And when the eighteen month project
drags on into several or many years, keep the faith, soon you too will be
up there in your very own Piet too.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Meadows" <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting started |
Corky,
I started by building ribs first. I laid out the rib pattern on a piece of
3/4" plywood, and then remeasured to make sure that the rib pattern was
correct. It's a fairly good go-by but you need to make the measurments
anyway to get the spars spaced right. My plans had them spaced a little too
far apart. Once you get all that done, put on you guide blocks, order up a
bunch of capstrip and some gussett ply material then get to work! You'll
think that you'll be cutting the pieces for the ribs for the rest of your
life, but go ahead and cut them all out first. What I did was to cut out
enough for one complete rib, then made a prototype rib, it was a little off
so I adjusted my jig blocks a little then went into production!
My friend and almost neighbor Joe Krzes (also on this list) has started
his Piet by working on the tail section first, whatever makes you feel most
comfortable! The KEY THING is don't get "paralysis by analysis"! Find some
part of the project to do that you think you can complete fairly quickly and
think on it some, then get to it! Once you finish a piece that you recognize
as a Piet-piece you'll be amazed how satisfied you'll feel! But try to do
something every day. Also, this isn't one big project but a large collection
of little projects, complete one at a time, but think about the next one so
you'll be ready to go when you get to it. I try to think that today I'm not
building a Piet, I'm building a rib or a fin or rudder. Remember how you eat
an elephant, - one bite at a time!
Another thing, sleep with your plans! Take any chance at lunch before bed
any spare time you have to just wander over the plans, and try to visualize
each piece and how you might go about building it, I've gained a lot of
insight doing this, and also a generated lot of questions, I'm always
discovering stuff on the plans I hadn't seen before! Find a local Piet
builder, EAA chapter, anyone to help you, and motivate you. Try to arrange
to see a finsihed Piet, maybe even sit in one, better yet fly in one!!!
Seeing one up close was an eye-opener for me! Now I know I need to enlarge
the cockpit to fit my frame!
Last thing and I'll shut up - DO NOT BE AFRAID TO MAKE MISTAKES!! You'll
make plenty, I've heard it said that by the time you're finished, you'll
have done the work to have built two airplanes! You gotta wonder how many
goof-ups Burt Rutan has made in his time - probably more than he's had
successes!
Now, I'll yield the floor to some of the other Piet-builders who have a
lot more experience than me, heck I've only got my ribs and vertical tail
sections done, I've been on a building break for a few months now, (that
happens too...)
Good luck on one of your greatest adventures,
Gary Meadows
Spring, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
Amen Roger....
There is a wealth of information out there. I was amazed at how many people
were building or have built Piets with in a 100 mile radius of me. And I
live in Nowhere Kansas which is about as far from what is 'happening' as you
can get. I found out that people love to fly no matter where you live. And
people who build airplanes love to help and tell you about what they did to
solve problems.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "mboynton(at)excite.com |
for" ;
| Subject: | Re: Gary Price door |
Thanks, Leon.
Mark
wrote:
Stefan)
>
> The door is 10 inches deep, On the inside of the fus. there is a 1x6x
> about 13 or 14 inches making the lower doorway framing. Then you add a
> 1x6 planks to the lower doorway plank. The front plank angles down to
> the fwd. landing gear area. The rear plank angles down to the cluster
> where the pilots seat (butt) is. All is held together with 1/8 gussets.
> If I read the post from the fellow i the wheel chair, he was needing a
> door in the rear cockpit for easier entry. I suppose it could be done,
> but you would need to extend the ply siding past the rear cockpit. Also
> you are getting into the area where the fus. sides are tapering toward
> the tail post. It would be hard, maybe impossible to bend the 1x6
> planks. Hope my description made sense. I If anyone has questions, be
> patient. I'm having rouble with my isp. It has taken me as much as 2 hrs
> to get on line. Leon S.
>
>
>
>
>
Visit http://freelane.excite.com/freeisp
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jared wilkinson <jared_wilkinson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
Greg Yotz, where exactly is nowhere KS, I'm in nowhere
Missouri, and maybe we're close enough that I could
come take a look sometime. I'm compiling info. right
now, and as soon as I can sneak it by the wife, I'm
going to start buying parts.
Jared Wilkinson
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
To Jared and Greg, Speaking of nowhere, I'm in nowhere Louisiana. Don't have
to hide anything from the wife, my problem is WHERE is the best source to buy
my spruce and stuff?
Corky (Still trying to get started)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
I'm south of Burlington KS 10 miles which is south of Topeka Ks 50 miles.
Where is Mo are you Jared??
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
>From what other listers have said there is a gentlemen in Alaska(I think)
that knows about how to cut wood for Piets and several guys have bought wood
from him as parts and whole kits. It seemed very reasonably priced and had
little scrap. I already had most of what I needed and then I bought a
partial project so I haven't bought from him but I'm sure you can find
references in the archive.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
My wife once told me:
You can have those planes and all that flying stuff or
you can have me!
Needless to say I'm single now building my piet in the living room
:
)
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of jared
wilkinson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Getting Started
Greg Yotz, where exactly is nowhere KS, I'm in nowhere
Missouri, and maybe we're close enough that I could
come take a look sometime. I'm compiling info. right
now, and as soon as I can sneak it by the wife, I'm
going to start buying parts.
Jared Wilkinson
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jared wilkinson <jared_wilkinson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
I'm in Carthage, 10 miles east of Joplin. (In the
southwest corner of the state). We're not that far
away from each other. I'm also thinking about trying
to market my skills as a Designer, Drafter, Machinist,
Engineer by producing some machined parts for the
Piet.
If there is an interest, let me know.
Jared Wilkinson
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jared wilkinson <jared_wilkinson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
The wife's actually pretty understanding. However, if
I would have had the money when I was single, I would
have knocked out the living room wall to build the one
piece wing. She made it clear that she gets new
curtains before I get my Piet. It's all about
compromise, boys. ;)
Jared
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
You may want to check out www.replicraftaviation.com before you do. I think
most of the steel part are already available.
Steve (cut my own) e.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of jared
wilkinson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Getting Started
I'm in Carthage, 10 miles east of Joplin. (In the
southwest corner of the state). We're not that far
away from each other. I'm also thinking about trying
to market my skills as a Designer, Drafter, Machinist,
Engineer by producing some machined parts for the
Piet.
If there is an interest, let me know.
Jared Wilkinson
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
I thought you said she was understanding.:)
--- jared wilkinson wrote:
> wilkinson
>
> The wife's actually pretty understanding. However,
> if
> I would have had the money when I was single, I
> would
> have knocked out the living room wall to build the
> one
> piece wing. She made it clear that she gets new
> curtains before I get my Piet. It's all about
> compromise, boys. ;)
>
> Jared
>
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from
> anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Corky: The thing yo will find most frustrating is that the plans which
look very good, are NOT. They lack detail and are very vague in places.
That is why you need this sight. Ask lots of questions. The plans were
drawn up by a 15 year old kid who did an excellent job. Problem is,
after building several Piets. they should have cleaned up and clarified
the plans and didn't"t. Nothing major, just do what Rodger and Gary
said. I bought a wood kit from Western AC Sup. in Calgary Canada. Cost
was 1600 2 years ago. It will cost more than buying planks and sawing
your self, but if time is short, and you don't have a table saw,jointer,
wood plain, it is not that expensive. The pieces were milled to size,
needing only trimming to length. He also bundled all related pieces
together and identified them, just like a big model airplane. Well
worth the cost. Western AC has an ad in the Sport Av. classified
section. Tail pieces were rabbited to squired shape also. Leon S.---
Also from nowhere Kansas, Also single and building a piete in the
liveing room. (but not airplane related)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flite407(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
Hey Corky
Gary here Mandeville La. been working on my Piet for a while now. where are
you at in La
Gary
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
Thanks for the inquiry Gary. I'm waaaaay up here in Shreveport trying to get
started.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
| From: | Chris A Tracy <catdesigns(at)juno.com> |
Buy your spruce kits from Western Aircraft Supplies ph# (403)-250-1955.
They do not have a web site but give them a call and they will give you a
price on what ever spruce you need. You do not need to figure out what
to buy other then telling him what part of the plane you are building. I
love the wood I got from them and I am pickie about quality. They are in
canada so you have to deal with customs but is no big deal.
As for plywood I went with AC grade from Aircraft Spruce but I might
give Ritco hoop pine a look ( they advertise in Sport avation).
Chris
Sacramento, CA
>
> To Jared and Greg, Speaking of nowhere, I'm in nowhere Louisiana.
> Don't have
> to hide anything from the wife, my problem is WHERE is the best
> source to buy
> my spruce and stuff?
>
> Corky (Still trying to get started)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Getting Started |
Thanks Chris from Sacrmento. Western had been suggested earlier. I'll give
them a call. Have a daughter living in Calgary. Might just drive up for a
visit and bring the spruce back on top of the car. It's only a 4900 mile
round trip.
Coprky in La.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Western Aircraft Supply |
Jean Peters is really the spruce person when it comes aircraft.
But when I was getting my fuse wood from him, he told me that he is
retiring as of June 2001. So we got a year to get wood from him.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
Did any one give a reply to Doug Reeve of Johannesburg So.Africa
on his question about why his "O200 Piet. has a nasty habit of dropping
its tailwheel on before the main wheels,"? And therefor has to"take power
and go around-I usually have to wheel land this one." Whereas his other
piet, a "Geager (sic) with a C90 Wood construction..." would make
three point landings.
He said the O200 Piet has 14 deg more up elevator than the "Geager",
which makes three pointers. Maybe the horizontal stabilizer on the
O200 Piet is stalling due to greater elevator movement.
I may have missed the discussion but could the weight and balance be
a little far back, maybe at the aft end of safe range.
Or maybe the incidence of the horizontal stabilizer and elevator in
relation to the wing is not to the drawings, or visa-versa.
The wing has a call out of 2 deg incedence in relation to the upper
longerons. The horizontal stabilizer is not parallel to the upper longeron
but sits 1/16" higher over 13 1/2" giving 16 minutes of a deg. of
incedence.
This makes the wing to horizontal stabilizer incedence, on paper, to be
1 deg. 44 min.
Sounds like Doug should check basic wing incedence first and then if
that's ok, put some sort of elevator movement limiter on the O200 Piet
and check it out then.
But imagine, going out to the aerodrome and having to decide which
one to fly today, maybe both. Ok, then which one first. Naw, couldn't
be sour grapes on my part.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Elevators |
Thanx to all of you for the replies,
I dont know what you are talking about regarding wing positions.
I will check out the CG this weekeend and reply
Where should the CG be in relation to the wing leading edge ?
Yes it is wonderfull to be able to choose what Piet Im going to fly.
My wife has just completed her pilots licence on the Piet so
now I will have to share with her-But I also have a 300hp
Starduster that I play with .
As far as I know there are 5 Piets flying in South Africa
with a 6 th one about to do its maiden flight on Saterday
Also I know of about 4 others under construction in SA
but very few peaple here fly them mutch.My wife and I intend flying our two
to Namibia in about 2 months time- about 600 miles over the Namib desert
should be fun.
If any one wants pix of some of the South african Piets I have Digital pix
of
4 SA planes
Regards Doug
Johannesburg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
| Subject: | C:\WINDOWS\Favorites\sa aircraft\Home Page of the Krugersdorp |
Flying Club.url
http://www.fakr.co.za/
name="Home Page of the Krugersdorp Flying Club.url"
filename="Home Page of the Krugersdorp Flying Club.url"
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://www.fakr.co.za/
Modified=6064B5935FD1BF01FC
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Motorcycle Rims |
Hey Bart,
I do not know if you remember but I talked with you a couple of years ago. I
also
work at Boeing.
I am not sure I would go with steel rims when you can find aluminum rims. I
would
try to keep them as light as possible. You should check into this a little
more.
I am also trying to get my Piet on gear:-) I am going to try to find some
aluminum
motorcycle rims.
Ron Lebfrom Boeing Douglas Products division
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conrad, Bart D" <Bart.Conrad(at)na.boeing.com> |
Got any pictures you can e-mail? I' already committed to the steel rims. I
looked for Al rims but all were cracked and beat up pretty bad. Last week I
sandblasted them and they look like new. Oh well, that should keep my Piet
from being tail heavy!! They weigh 13 lbs each. Would be interesting to
know the weight of Al rims.
Bart Conrad
Boeing Field Service Rep - Hobby Field
Douglas Products Division & 737 Hvy Maint
Phone: 713-640-5882
Fax: 713-640-5891
E-mail: bart.conrad(at)na.boeing.com
> ----------
> From: PTNPOL(at)aol.com[SMTP:PTNPOL(at)aol.com]
> Reply To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 1:01 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Motorcycle Rims
>
>
> Hey Bart,
>
> I do not know if you remember but I talked with you a couple of years ago.
> I
> also
> work at Boeing.
>
> I am not sure I would go with steel rims when you can find aluminum rims.
> I
> would
> try to keep them as light as possible. You should check into this a
> little
> more.
> I am also trying to get my Piet on gear:-) I am going to try to find some
>
> aluminum
> motorcycle rims.
>
> Ron Lebfrom Boeing Douglas Products division
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Motorcycle Rims |
Check
http://www.buchananspokes.com
They are a great resource and are familiar with "antique aircraft" applications.
Cheers,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ED GRENTZER" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
I'm planning to build a one piece wing with laminated spars for
lightweight and simplicity . I have heard several respected
people in the Pietenpol community say that they feel piets look and fly
better with 1 1/2" to 2" of dihedral and yet most of the Piets that I
see pictures of appear to have staight wings. It would be very easy to
laminate dihedral into the spars. My questions are: Is it worth the
trouble? Is there anyone out there who has flown both setups who can
give me a comparison? Do the staight wing piets have any bad habits?
I would just like some input--to dihedral or not to dihedral that is the
question. Not that I'm up to my wings yet just planning ahead.
Thanks
Ed G.
Palm Harbor Fl.
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Yust one idea:
Have you done the Weight & Balance?
Maybe is tail heavy and the builder "compensate" with
the tail geometry.
This can be a very dangerous condition in a take off
in the chance of a lost of power...
Just my thoughts
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Redeye wrote:
>
>
> Hi I live in South africa and own and fly 2 totally
> diferent AirCampers.
> One is a Geager with a C90 Wood construction and the
> other is a metal tube
> Aircamper
> with an O200- I didnt build the planes and have no
> details on them or any
> plans.
> The O200 Piet. has a nasty habit of dropping its
> tailwheel on before the
> main wheels,
> this starts up a bounce from the tail wheel to the
> mains that just gets
> worse untill I have to
> take power and go around-I usually have to wheel
> land this one-The Greager
> Piet 3 points
> very well.I measured the angle of the elavator in
> the full up position and
> found that
> the metal tube Piets elavator moves up about 14 deg.
> more than the other
> one.
> Can anyone offer any advise on the problem and what
> should the elavator
> travel be ?
> Any help apreciated
> Regards Doug Reeve
> Johannesburg
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
I came across this tip on a woodworking list and thought it might come in
handy for glue brushes:
(I haven't tried it yet)
==================================
Paint brushes from clotheslines?
Yep! Just cut ordinary cotton clothesline into short lengths and use them
for staining and similar jobs. Then, just throw them away when you're done!
===================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
As the new kid on the block I need someone who is building or has finished a
piet to advise me as to the Plywood requirements. Would like to use 3/32 on
the front fuse sides.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
that's what I used, hoop pine from ritco 3/32 on sides, 1/4 hoop pine on bottom,
mahogany on the seats where it shows...
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
>
>
> Would like to use 3/32 on
> the front fuse sides.
> Corky
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
good news--I'm sure that a lot of you have received or are about to
receive a letter notifying us of the upcoming Brodhead Pietenpol Flyin
and the news of the rebirth of the BPA newsletter.
for those not getting the news about the newsletter, it will be
published quarterly by a Brodhead newspaper. costs (dues) are $10/year.
pictures and articles are to be sent to : BPA
c/o Independent Register
P.O. Box 255
Brodhead, WI 53520-0255
hope this is helpful for all of you getting started in this most
enjoyable venture.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
2 1/2 years into building NX529PJ, A65 powered short fuse, split axle..
plan to be flying in 2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
| From: | "Mike Bell" <mbell(at)sctcorp.com> |
05:56:19 PM
What about buying archives????? Will they have those for sale?
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
What I need is a list of how much to order by sizes for the entire airplane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pietenpol Fly-In |
I just thought I'd toss in a little reminder about the Y2K Pietenpol Fly-In,
on Saturday, September 9, at Benton Airpark. It's about 10 miles NE of
Wichita KS. For more infomation, e-mail me at rcaprd(at)aol.com, or call me at
316-262-3392. I hope to see y'all there !!
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
Thanx all of you for responding ,I have redone the weight and balance for
both planes
(What a mission scales and all )and have found that the O200 Piet (The one
thats drops its tail)
has a forward C of G ,)O200 starter ,generator and batery causing it Im
sure. The plane weighs
462 kg total empty.The Greager Piets C of G is fine.I couldnt measure the
incidence angles
as I m not to sure how to go about it or what equipment is needed so I am
still in the dark as to why it drops
the tail on 3 point landings.Does anyone know what the elavator travel
should be ?
One other thing the O 200 Piets wing is about six feet longer than the
Greager and another
Piet at our flying club but I dont thnk this would cause the tail to drop
My conclusion is that it must be the elavator travel and will fit some sort
of stop when I have
found out where to fit it.
Regards Doug Reeve
Johannesburg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
Hi ,
I own and fly A Piet with dihedral and one with out I cant tell mutch
between them-
Both have adverse alereron yaw at low speeds-As far as looks go I think it
is a
personel choice-Both my Piets are GOOD LOOKING.
Regards Doug Reeve
Johannesburg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Bell" <mbell(at)sctcorp.com> |
10:49:40 AM
I can imagine that with an additional six feet on the wing, that the
tail may be stalling while the wing still has sufficient lift to do
its job. Also, I have forgotten whether ground effect is related to
the width or the span of the wing. If it's span, then you have even
more boost to the wing lift while the tail is running out of air to
keep things balanced. Is only the wing span increased or are there
other modifications from the basic design?
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
From what I can find out the original builder first buit a one piece wing
and found the
climb performance poor so he cut it in half and built a new centre section
for a 3 piece
wing and added the two halves of the one piece wing-so the span only has
been increased by
a centre section length.Your comments make a lot of sense 1st positve thing
that come out of this
trouble is how do I check and whats the cure?
Thanx for the input
Doug Reeve
PS Our airfield is at 5500 feet AGL on on a hot day in Africa the QNH can
reach 8000 feet equiv.
The long wing Piet climbs far better than the Greager
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bell <mbell(at)sctcorp.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 5:04 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elavators
>
>
>I can imagine that with an additional six feet on the wing, that the
>tail may be stalling while the wing still has sufficient lift to do
>its job. Also, I have forgotten whether ground effect is related to
>the width or the span of the wing. If it's span, then you have even
>more boost to the wing lift while the tail is running out of air to
>keep things balanced. Is only the wing span increased or are there
>other modifications from the basic design?
>
>Mike Bell
>Columbia, SC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Doug,
You can measure the wing incedence easy, here's how; Since the incedence
of the wing is relative to the upper longeron, hold a straight edge piece of
wood up to the bottom of the wing. (Here in Texas I would use a 1"x4"
board about 6 feet long. There I guess, use something yea X yea and 2
meters long.) Any how, whilst you are holding the board up to the bottom
of the wing, have someone measure the distance from the upper longeron to
the board at each of the board. Then work the right angle calculation to
get
the angle of incedence.
In this case, using a 2 meter board as one side of the triangle, then the 2
deg.
of incedence should equal: 69.8mm. So, the forward end of the 2 meter
board should be 69.8mm taller than the aft end of the board.
Our Piet is not flying yet, but I'm going out to the field and will measure
the
throw of the elevator just to give a rough idea of what we have, at least.
Wow, one Piet with a 6ft longer wing, that should help you get off the
ground
a bit quicker.
While you are at it, check the elevator belcrank in the aft fuselage. The
cables going to the elevator at the belcrank should be 7 3/4" or 19.685
centimeters apart. If it's longer it would increase the throw of the
elevators.
One way to reduce the throw would be to reduce the 19.685cm dimension.
Good luck,
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Landing gear Wood vs Metal |
May I have some opinions on the Subject: Landing Gear, Wood vs Metal; Full or
split axle AND what sort of shock absorbing method for wood gear.
Corky, Just getting started
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear Wood vs Metal |
Hi Corky,
A lot of folks like the "antique" look of the full axle assembly. If you
will always be landing and taxi on smooth clear surfaces, great. However,
historically, the change to split gear was made to prevent being nosed over by
hitting some hidden stake or protrusion. With the split gear, an off-field
landing could still catch something, and you are more likely to have a ground
loop experience than to flip over on your back. This info courtesy of the "old
buzzards" at FlaBob.
Cheers,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mike(at)hardaway.com |
In any stable, conventionally configured, airplane (not a canard), there will
be a download on the tail in flight. This means that if the tail stalls, it
will rise and the nose will drop.
To be stable, the CG is forward of a neutral point. If the tail drops when it
stalls, the CG is aft of the neutral point and the airplane is longitudinally
unstable. If the tail were going to drop when it stalls, the pilot would have
to be moving the stick forward as the airplane slows.
The problem described with Redeye's very heavy Piet (462 kg means over 1000
lb... empty! ) sounds like the tailwheel is quite a bit lower than the mains on
touchdown and is probably making hard contact while the mains are still fairly
high.
Putting a stop on elevator travel is a very good idea but excessive travel and
elevator stall isn't causing the tail to drop unless the CG is too far aft,
which Redeye's Weight and Balance test says isn't the case.
Mike Hardaway
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ED GRENTZER" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
>From: "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:07:26 +0200
>
>
>Hi ,
>I own and fly A Piet with dihedral and one with out I cant tell mutch
>between them-
>Both have adverse alereron yaw at low speeds-As far as looks go I think it
>is a
>personel choice-Both my Piets are GOOD LOOKING.
>Regards Doug Reeve
>Johannesburg
>
Thanks for your reply Doug. You cant ask for better first hand
information than that, someone who owns and flies one of each regularly.
after some of the really great input I've had I've decided to go with a
three piece wing and add a little dihedral. Thanks again and good luck with
your tail stalling problem.
Ed G.
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Paging Robert Bush.... |
Robert, if your out there can you drop me a line?
Steve E.
Steve(at)byu.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron differential |
| From: | "Mike Bell" <mbell(at)sctcorp.com> |
04:24:28 PM
That reminds me that I have seen several times about the negative yaw
from the ailerons. Differential ailerons are pretty simple if you
know how much you want. Has anyone ever done anything with this?
Mike Bell
Columbia, SC
"ED GRENTZER" (at)matronics.com on 06/28/2000
03:41:41 PM
Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>From: "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:07:26 +0200
>
>
>Hi ,
>I own and fly A Piet with dihedral and one with out I cant tell
mutch
>between them-
>Both have adverse alereron yaw at low speeds-As far as looks go I
think it
>is a
>personel choice-Both my Piets are GOOD LOOKING.
>Regards Doug Reeve
>Johannesburg
>
Thanks for your reply Doug. You cant ask for better first hand
information than that, someone who owns and flies one of each
regularly.
after some of the really great input I've had I've decided to go with
a
three piece wing and add a little dihedral. Thanks again and good luck
with
your tail stalling problem.
Ed G.
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
I Wonder if the main gear is not closer to the firewall on the piet
dropping it's tail. Could be the gear are too far ahead of the CG, causing
the tail to drop when the mains touch down.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
----------
> From: mike(at)hardaway.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elevators
> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:13 PM
>
>
> In any stable, conventionally configured, airplane (not a canard), there
will
> be a download on the tail in flight. This means that if the tail stalls,
it
> will rise and the nose will drop.
>
> To be stable, the CG is forward of a neutral point. If the tail drops
when it
> stalls, the CG is aft of the neutral point and the airplane is
longitudinally
> unstable. If the tail were going to drop when it stalls, the pilot would
have
> to be moving the stick forward as the airplane slows.
>
> The problem described with Redeye's very heavy Piet (462 kg means over
1000
> lb... empty! ) sounds like the tailwheel is quite a bit lower than the
mains on
> touchdown and is probably making hard contact while the mains are still
fairly
> high.
>
> Putting a stop on elevator travel is a very good idea but excessive
travel and
> elevator stall isn't causing the tail to drop unless the CG is too far
aft,
> which Redeye's Weight and Balance test says isn't the case.
>
> Mike Hardaway
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I beam spar
of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to use
two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints overlapped
by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more weight
and much less money than spruce.
Comments before I start building???
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Wing attachment fittings |
Thought I'd pass on how I built my wing attachment fittings going to the
cabane struts. Instead of the two overlapping U's (Where the upper U goes
over the spar and the lower upside down U goes over the cabane strut) I
just used a longer U with a piece of tubing welded in the bottom of the U
to put the wing bolts thru. The bottom of the U goes right into the
somewhat squared off upper end of the cabane struts. On the end of the
lower bolts that go thru the rear spar I intend on putting the aileron
cable pulleys. This puts the bottom of the pulley just about flush with
the bottom of the wing, which is a bit low but does not seem to interfere.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron differential |
The ailerons are differential due to the shape of the horns, aren't they?
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Bell <mbell(at)sctcorp.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 4:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Aileron differential
>
>
>That reminds me that I have seen several times about the negative yaw
>from the ailerons. Differential ailerons are pretty simple if you
>know how much you want. Has anyone ever done anything with this?
>
>Mike Bell
>Columbia, SC
>
>
>"ED GRENTZER" (at)matronics.com on 06/28/2000
>03:41:41 PM
>
>Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
>Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>
>
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>cc:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za>
>>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:07:26 +0200
>>
>
>>
>>Hi ,
>>I own and fly A Piet with dihedral and one with out I cant tell
>mutch
>>between them-
>>Both have adverse alereron yaw at low speeds-As far as looks go I
>think it
>>is a
>>personel choice-Both my Piets are GOOD LOOKING.
>>Regards Doug Reeve
>>Johannesburg
>>
> Thanks for your reply Doug. You cant ask for better first hand
>information than that, someone who owns and flies one of each
>regularly.
>after some of the really great input I've had I've decided to go with
>a
>three piece wing and add a little dihedral. Thanks again and good luck
>with
>your tail stalling problem.
>
> Ed G.
> Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
Wayne,
There are a couple books that might be helpful for figuring out your
spars -- "Analysis & Design of Airplane Structures - E.F. Bruhn (the earlier
the better - mine is copyright 1943) & "Stress without Tears" (articles from
Kitplane) -- both books have sections on wood spar design.
The best section for the spar may be a "C" or "Box" section with 3/32" or
1/8" ply webs -- the "fun" part is figuring the size of the caps & the
reinforcements. You may also need more than a routed slot to glue your web
into the cap -- surface area of the glue joint can be a big factor in the
design.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Sippola <sippola(at)escape.ca>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spars
>
> OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I
beam spar
> of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
> chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to
use
> two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints
overlapped
> by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
> give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
> stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
> plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
> wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
> of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
> spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
> sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more
weight
> and much less money than spruce.
> Comments before I start building???
> Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)techplus.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Wayne Sippola <sippola(at)escape.ca>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spars
>
> OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I
beam spar
> of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
> chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to
use
> two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints
overlapped
> by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
> give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
> stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
> plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
> wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
> of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
> spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
> sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more
weight
> and much less money than spruce.
> Comments before I start building???
> Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
>
Wayne
You might want to check into the "Cubby" it uses an I beam wood spar.
I remember something about a fatal Cubby accident in Saskatchewan. The spar
caps were
routed with groove parallel to the grain or perhaps I have it wrong and the
slot was across the grain.
The crash investigation determined that the spar caps split and then the
drag allowed the wing to buckle.
Transport or RAA might be able to shed some light on this.
Be sure as well to allow some glue space. The West System is terrific. I
used it on a Stitts Flutterbug.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Built up Plywood Spars |
Wayne,
Sounds good to me. Only one question, is the plywood to
to be used the 45 deg. lay up or the 90 deg. lay up? And
would it matter which one is used?
Well, two questions anyway.
The type spar you describe should be straight forward to
make. We use T-88 for our glue and I would guess it's a
personal preference what type you choose as they are all
expensive to buy. Speaking only of the West and the T-88,
that is.
Also, not being familiar with the West, does it have a broad
usable temperature range? Just thinking of your latitude.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Mike,
You got me to remembering my copies of "Stress without Tears"
and in it the author mentions the book by Bruhn to be almost
as rare as hen's teeth nowadays.
The "C" spar might be good, but a built up "I" beam would be
better still. Only instead of routing the slot, glue spar caps to
each side of the web, top and bottom.
To help visualize my description, if the spar web is 5" tall (and
1/2" wide), it would have spar caps of, say, 3/4" wide by 1" tall
glued each side, top and bottom. This would give greater glue
area for strength. Basically this is what Bernie achieved by routing
the 1" wide solid wood spars.
The "Stress without Tears" articles ran in the May 1986 thru
November 1989 issues of Kitplanes and is very well written
so that you can follow without falling asleep. The designer's
job is more complicated than I thought.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron differential |
In a message dated 6/28/00 9:05:28 PM Central Daylight Time,
wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net writes:
<< The ailerons are differential due to the shape of the horns, aren't they?
walt >>
I thought the same thing, Walt, but I measured the travel, and it is equal up
and down.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Paint Overspray on Lexan |
Does anyone know how to get paint overspray off of Lexan without ruining the
Lexan finish? (As in windshield)
In trouble in Ft. Myers
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ED GRENTZER" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Control horn construction |
Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction is used
for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like the horn
construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without burning it up
seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The attachment
flanges seem awful thin.
I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they wouldn't have
enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if someone could
let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd appreciate it.
Thanx
Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
I made mine out of .032 per the plans. Edges were TIG welded by a friend.
Oxy acetylene is used by a lot of people but takes more skill than I have for thin
sheet.
Flanges for the elevator and rudder horns were handled differently
than the plans. I bent a piece of .032 sheet into a square "U"
shape to wrap around the main beam. This was then welded into an appropriately
sized notch in the horn.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "ED GRENTZER" 06/29 7:36 AM >>>
Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction is used
for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like the horn
construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without burning it up
seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The attachment
flanges seem awful thin.
I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they wouldn't have
enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if someone could
let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd appreciate it.
Thanx
Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
Ed, don't underestimate the strength of these horns, they are strong and
light. edge welding is easier then you may thing, just practice on scrap first.
you'll surprise yourself. a couple of years ago, there was a fellow from
brodhead, I think his name is Lee Stenson, who was selling laser cut componants
for all the horns. I bought a set a couple of years ago and just had to do the
welding. saved me a ton of work and being laser cut, they were perfect. I
highly recommend looking Lee up to see if he still has them.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
ED GRENTZER wrote:
>
> Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction is used
> for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like the horn
> construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without burning it up
> seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The attachment
> flanges seem awful thin.
> I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they wouldn't have
> enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if someone could
> let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd appreciate it.
> Thanx
> Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
> Piet in progress
>
> _-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)pliantsystems.com> |
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2000 10:21:00 -0400
From: "William C. Beerman" <wcb(at)pliantsystems.com>
Ed,
I was skeptical of the suggested construction method shown in the plans
also
until I actually built a few prototypes. Admittedly, I used 20 ga.
instead
of the recommended 22 ga., but the resulting horns proved to be quite
strong.
I tried several welding methods, including MIG and gas welding, and
found the
best results were obtained gas welding using a #00 tip (I'd use smaller
if I
had it) set at 4 psi / 4 psi, and using no filler rod. Just make sure
your
blanks are clean before welding so they will flow together.
I don't have a TIG rig, but did try edge welding some 20 ga. at the
local
community college in the same fashion, with even better results.
I've seen the other construction methods, including heavier flat stock
with an
angle formed in the back (like the Aeronca Champ), but really like the
looks
of the streamlined horns.
Forming the shape in the horns is actually easier than it appears. I'd
recommend rough cutting a few blanks and giving it the old college try;
I
think you'll be pleasantly surprised.....
Best of luck
-Bill
> >
> > ED GRENTZER wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction is used
> > > for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like the horn
> > > construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without burning it up
> > > seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The attachment
> > > flanges seem awful thin.
> > > I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they wouldn't have
> > > enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if someone could
> > > let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd appreciate it.
> > > Thanx
> > > Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
> > > Piet in progress
> > >
> >
> > --
> > ______________________________________________
> > William C. Beerman, Principal Engineer
> > Pliant Systems Inc.
> > 4024 Stirrup Creek Drive, Durham, NC, 27703
> > 919-405-4862 fax: 919-544-5356
> >
> >
> >-------------------
>
>
4024 Stirrup Creek Drive, Durham, NC, 27703 919-405-4862 fax:
919-544-5356
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
The tail wheel drops onto the ground before the mains touch
Redeye
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sippola <sippola(at)escape.ca>
Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elevators
>
> I Wonder if the main gear is not closer to the firewall on the piet
>dropping it's tail. Could be the gear are too far ahead of the CG, causing
>the tail to drop when the mains touch down.
> Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
>
>----------
>> From: mike(at)hardaway.com
>> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elevators
>> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:13 PM
>>
>>
>> In any stable, conventionally configured, airplane (not a canard), there
>will
>> be a download on the tail in flight. This means that if the tail stalls,
>it
>> will rise and the nose will drop.
>>
>> To be stable, the CG is forward of a neutral point. If the tail drops
>when it
>> stalls, the CG is aft of the neutral point and the airplane is
>longitudinally
>> unstable. If the tail were going to drop when it stalls, the pilot would
>have
>> to be moving the stick forward as the airplane slows.
>>
>> The problem described with Redeye's very heavy Piet (462 kg means over
>1000
>> lb... empty! ) sounds like the tailwheel is quite a bit lower than the
>mains on
>> touchdown and is probably making hard contact while the mains are still
>fairly
>> high.
>>
>> Putting a stop on elevator travel is a very good idea but excessive
>travel and
>> elevator stall isn't causing the tail to drop unless the CG is too far
>aft,
>> which Redeye's Weight and Balance test says isn't the case.
>>
>> Mike Hardaway
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
I used .065 on my GN-1 and it seems plenty stout.
Dick G.
Ft. Myers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mac Zirges" <macz(at)netbridge.net> |
Hello. The discussion is correct is recognizing the value of dihedral in
causing greater stability in a plane. However, Vi Kaplar, who for many
years led the Pietenpol forums at Oshkosh, said that Bernie put his wings
level at rest--because natural flexing of the wing system in flight created
about the right amount of dihedral for flight to be stable. He said that
the more dihedral you put in, the more lift you lose by spillage off the
ends of the wings--ie the plane will lose lift if you put in more dihedral
than you need.
Mac in Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: ED GRENTZER <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>
>
>>From: "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za>
>>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: DIHEDRAL?
>>Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000 16:07:26 +0200
>>
>>
>>Hi ,
>>I own and fly A Piet with dihedral and one with out I cant tell mutch
>>between them-
>>Both have adverse alereron yaw at low speeds-As far as looks go I think it
>>is a
>>personel choice-Both my Piets are GOOD LOOKING.
>>Regards Doug Reeve
>>Johannesburg
>>
> Thanks for your reply Doug. You cant ask for better first hand
>information than that, someone who owns and flies one of each regularly.
>after some of the really great input I've had I've decided to go with a
>three piece wing and add a little dihedral. Thanks again and good luck with
>your tail stalling problem.
>
> Ed G.
> Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Well,
If the W & B is OK, that gives me a peace of mind, is
very common the tail heavy spin accidents... Hope you
find the cause of your problem (please let us know).
Saludos
--- Redeye wrote:
>
>
> Thanx all of you for responding ,I have redone the
> weight and balance for
> both planes
> (What a mission scales and all )and have found that
> the O200 Piet (The one
> thats drops its tail)
> has a forward C of G ,)O200 starter ,generator and
> batery causing it Im
> sure. The plane weighs
> 462 kg total empty.The Greager Piets C of G is
> fine.I couldnt measure the
> incidence angles
> as I m not to sure how to go about it or what
> equipment is needed so I am
> still in the dark as to why it drops
> the tail on 3 point landings.Does anyone know what
> the elavator travel
> should be ?
> One other thing the O 200 Piets wing is about six
> feet longer than the
> Greager and another
> Piet at our flying club but I dont thnk this would
> cause the tail to drop
> My conclusion is that it must be the elavator travel
> and will fit some sort
> of stop when I have
> found out where to fit it.
> Regards Doug Reeve
> Johannesburg
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jared wilkinson <jared_wilkinson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Overspray on Lexan |
I think there are paint removers that are safe for
plastic items.... like "OOPS". You can get it from
Wal-Mart, and it's cheap, but make sure it won't cloud
your Lexan!!!! I know a sure-fire way of preventing
paint overspray on any surface you don't want
painted.... smear a thin layer of Vaseline on
anything that you want to preserve, the paint won't
stick, and you'll have crystal clear Lexan. Kind of a
pain to clean, but easier than paint.
Jared Wilkinson
>
> Does anyone know how to get paint overspray off of
> Lexan without ruining the
> Lexan finish? (As in windshield)
>
> In trouble in Ft. Myers
> Dick
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com> |
Wayne Sippola -
During 2000 Sun 'n' Fun, we had quite a discussion in the woodworking tent
about just such a setup as you describe - "Plywood spars." There seemed to
be agreement that the strength of the built-up spar would be adequate if
the work were done properly.
The plans shown in the 1932 "Flying and Glider Manual" show the wing spar
dimensions as 1 inch thick and 4 3/4 inches high. Certain sections are
routed out 1/4" deep on each side, leaving a 1/2" web.
Since spar material (1" x 4 3/4") totaling the entire wingspan of 33' 6"
was difficult to come by (and still is), Bernie took two planks, each about
18 feet long, and spliced them together, with the splice falling exactly in
the center of the wing between the cabane fittings.
BHP did not have FAA's AC43.13-1A as a guide, so the plans show that he
made a 5 to 1 scarf joint running from the top of the spar to the bottom of
the spar (edgewise!) right in the middle of the wing. This obviously did
not give very much glue joint area as compared to the normal flat to flat
minimum of 10 to 1 scarf, with a minimum of 12 to 1 recommended. As
43.13-1A says, "the strength of the joints depend upon maximum contact
between the surfaces being glued." In addition, BHP did not install
plywood reinforcement plates on the top and bottom of the spars where the
scarf joints emerged, nor on the faces of the spars
The BHP method of 5/1 splice gives a total glue surface of perhaps 25 to 30
sq. inches. The traditional flat to flat system gives a total glue surface
of some 57 sq. inches, and this does not include the mandatory splice plates.
The 1932 Manual plans show that this glued spar splice had three bolt holes
(sizes not stated) from top to bottom within the splice ("Bolts and
washers") plus three more bolt holes fore and aft through the spar joint in
a place that did not impinge on the three vertical bolt holes. These six
bolts (3 top to bottom and 3 fore and aft) did not attach to anything
else. It appears that they simply were there to strengthen the splice. AC
43.13-1A states "A spar may be spliced at any point except under wing
attachment fittings, landing gear fittings,engine-mount fittings, or
lift-and-interplane fittings. Do not permit these fittings to overlap any
part of the splice."
It is true that the cabane strut attachments did not impinge on the splice,
since the cabanes are about 24 inches apart (as wide as the
fuselage). This may have been the determining factor in BHP's 5 to 1 scarf
joint. The cabane strut fittings fall just outside the ends of BHP's
scarf joint. As the 1932 Manual describes the unrouted area of the spars
in the center area,"Full section for 30."
The later 3-3-34 O.C.Hoopman plans show the same basic dimensions for the
spars (1" x 4 3/4" plank) with a 4 to 1 scarf joint, with the note "Nail,
bolt and glue wing splice." These plans show two "1/4" bolts" top to
bottom of the spar, each located about 2 3/8" either side of the
centerline of the splice. The 1934 plans show no bolts for and aft in
the spar splice. The plans do show that two "8 penney nails" are driven
into the spar near the scarf ends. So the spar splice is truly "nailed,
bolted, and glued."
These are the plans that are still being sold by Don Pietenpol.
The "1933 Flying Manual" (actually the "1933 Flying and Glider Manual")
shows the Sky Scout as using the same style and sizes of wing spars, with
no splice at all. The total wingspan on the Sky Scout is some 27' 3"
compared to 28' 2" for the Air Camper. A pair of Sky Scout one-piece spars
each over 27 feet long must be pretty expensive. But this confirms what
you always hear about the Piet plans - you have to improvise as you build,
because they do have missing information.
I would not fear the use of your proposed glued-up plywood web with the fir
caps.
I cite all this not because you must be a stickler for "FAA compliance,"
but because when we build an airplane today, we should use the accumulated
experience available to us. I doubt that you would find an EAA Tech
Counselor who would be happy with the BHP splice system today. In the USA,
the FAA inspector's primary inspection task for an "Experimental" airplane
is to identify the aircraft (not to certify the airworthiness). An FAA
inspector might give you a very strong recommendation against the BHP spar
splice method, but could not withhold issuing "Experimental"
certification. I don't know how the Canadian inspector would react. But
when you get all through, regardless of the regulations, this is a flying
machine and you will be in it. So it still boils down to CYA. And maybe
the A of a loved one.
All in all, it would appear that the three-piece wing is a lot easier to
build (who has a 30 foot shop?) and a whole lot easier to disassemble and
store. And you can install some dihedral if you want. The Spirit of St.
Louis has a one piece wing, supposedly to save weight, but it still is a
terribly heavy rig. I don't know if dihedral would have helped, but the
replica is a beast to fly.
Have at it, Wayne.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conoly" <bconoly(at)surfsouth.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Plywood spars |
Good post Doc.
We should use the "accumulated experience available to us"....
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well Put!
I was able to participate in some of those conversations.
I agree and several of us actually exchanged a few E-Mails last month about
whether strict adherance toAC43 was worthwhile. My take is exactly what you
said... techniques and standards today are often a result of years of data,
new computer modeling techniques, and empirical data more readily available.
It's perfectly fine to say "well we've always done it this way, so why
change it" or "if it aint broke don't fix it". Those are probably valid
guidelines in many aspects of our daily lives. BUT! You can bet I
personally am really interested in new techniques for construction and
materials and will at least consider some new ideas along with the old.
I also mentioned that there are some very knowledgeable experts around that
are glad to help out. I even mentioned that Victor Boyce told me
specifically that he would be happy to answer questions about laminated
spars, wood construction, and spar splices if any of us desired assistance.
All anyone needs to do is e-mail or call him. However the few people I
discussed this with were skeptical of "experts" and "changing a proven
design". Oh Well...
Anyway you're right on the money. If we didn't consider new methods and
techniques, we'd all still be riding mule-drawn wagons, now wouldnt we.
Wish I could make it up to Broadhead but can't do it this year.
Have a good holiday, everybody.
Take care,
Bert Conoly
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Mosher" <docshop(at)famvid.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plywood spars
>
> Wayne Sippola -
>
> During 2000 Sun 'n' Fun, we had quite a discussion in the woodworking tent
> about just such a setup as you describe - "Plywood spars." There seemed
to
> be agreement that the strength of the built-up spar would be adequate if
> the work were done properly.
>
> The plans shown in the 1932 "Flying and Glider Manual" show the wing spar
> dimensions as 1 inch thick and 4 3/4 inches high. Certain sections are
> routed out 1/4" deep on each side, leaving a 1/2" web.
>
> Since spar material (1" x 4 3/4") totaling the entire wingspan of 33' 6"
> was difficult to come by (and still is), Bernie took two planks, each
about
> 18 feet long, and spliced them together, with the splice falling exactly
in
> the center of the wing between the cabane fittings.
>
> BHP did not have FAA's AC43.13-1A as a guide, so the plans show that he
> made a 5 to 1 scarf joint running from the top of the spar to the bottom
of
> the spar (edgewise!) right in the middle of the wing. This obviously did
> not give very much glue joint area as compared to the normal flat to flat
> minimum of 10 to 1 scarf, with a minimum of 12 to 1 recommended. As
> 43.13-1A says, "the strength of the joints depend upon maximum contact
> between the surfaces being glued." In addition, BHP did not install
> plywood reinforcement plates on the top and bottom of the spars where the
> scarf joints emerged, nor on the faces of the spars
>
> The BHP method of 5/1 splice gives a total glue surface of perhaps 25 to
30
> sq. inches. The traditional flat to flat system gives a total glue
surface
> of some 57 sq. inches, and this does not include the mandatory splice
plates.
>
> The 1932 Manual plans show that this glued spar splice had three bolt
holes
> (sizes not stated) from top to bottom within the splice ("Bolts and
> washers") plus three more bolt holes fore and aft through the spar joint
in
> a place that did not impinge on the three vertical bolt holes. These six
> bolts (3 top to bottom and 3 fore and aft) did not attach to anything
> else. It appears that they simply were there to strengthen the splice.
AC
> 43.13-1A states "A spar may be spliced at any point except under wing
> attachment fittings, landing gear fittings,engine-mount fittings, or
> lift-and-interplane fittings. Do not permit these fittings to overlap any
> part of the splice."
>
> It is true that the cabane strut attachments did not impinge on the
splice,
> since the cabanes are about 24 inches apart (as wide as the
> fuselage). This may have been the determining factor in BHP's 5 to 1
scarf
> joint. The cabane strut fittings fall just outside the ends of BHP's
> scarf joint. As the 1932 Manual describes the unrouted area of the spars
> in the center area,"Full section for 30."
>
> The later 3-3-34 O.C.Hoopman plans show the same basic dimensions for the
> spars (1" x 4 3/4" plank) with a 4 to 1 scarf joint, with the note "Nail,
> bolt and glue wing splice." These plans show two "1/4" bolts" top to
> bottom of the spar, each located about 2 3/8" either side of the
> centerline of the splice. The 1934 plans show no bolts for and aft in
> the spar splice. The plans do show that two "8 penney nails" are driven
> into the spar near the scarf ends. So the spar splice is truly "nailed,
> bolted, and glued."
> These are the plans that are still being sold by Don Pietenpol.
>
> The "1933 Flying Manual" (actually the "1933 Flying and Glider Manual")
> shows the Sky Scout as using the same style and sizes of wing spars, with
> no splice at all. The total wingspan on the Sky Scout is some 27' 3"
> compared to 28' 2" for the Air Camper. A pair of Sky Scout one-piece
spars
> each over 27 feet long must be pretty expensive. But this confirms what
> you always hear about the Piet plans - you have to improvise as you build,
> because they do have missing information.
>
> I would not fear the use of your proposed glued-up plywood web with the
fir
> caps.
>
> I cite all this not because you must be a stickler for "FAA compliance,"
> but because when we build an airplane today, we should use the accumulated
> experience available to us. I doubt that you would find an EAA Tech
> Counselor who would be happy with the BHP splice system today. In the
USA,
> the FAA inspector's primary inspection task for an "Experimental" airplane
> is to identify the aircraft (not to certify the airworthiness). An FAA
> inspector might give you a very strong recommendation against the BHP spar
> splice method, but could not withhold issuing "Experimental"
> certification. I don't know how the Canadian inspector would react. But
> when you get all through, regardless of the regulations, this is a flying
> machine and you will be in it. So it still boils down to CYA. And maybe
> the A of a loved one.
>
> All in all, it would appear that the three-piece wing is a lot easier to
> build (who has a 30 foot shop?) and a whole lot easier to disassemble and
> store. And you can install some dihedral if you want. The Spirit of St.
> Louis has a one piece wing, supposedly to save weight, but it still is a
> terribly heavy rig. I don't know if dihedral would have helped, but the
> replica is a beast to fly.
>
> Have at it, Wayne.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
Ed, I welded mine up using gas and a #00 tip. Practiced a bit on
some scrap, and had no problem doing the weld. I welded up some
scrap and gave it the bend test, 360 degree, with no failurte.
Finally cracked about 3/4 inch from the weld. Weld =did not fail,
and looked good when cut and polished. Great video available from
the EAA, that walks you througfh what to watch for, and how to
control the puddle. Lots of practice and testing, then a piece of
cake!
----- Original Message -----
From: ED GRENTZER <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control horn construction
>
>
> Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction
is used
> for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like
the horn
> construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without
burning it up
> seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The
attachment
> flanges seem awful thin.
> I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they
wouldn't have
> enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if
someone could
> let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd
appreciate it.
> Thanx
> Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
> Piet in progress
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
I worried a long time before trying to build one and found out they go
together very easy. Turned out the hardest part was cutting them out. You
may want to wait until you are ready to rig elevator cables before building
the elevator horns or at least plan them with an angle in to match how the
cables will go. I also welded in a U shaped insert to beef up the flanges
and seal off the interior of the horns. The .032 gives a very strong horn.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
----------
> From: ED GRENTZER <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
> To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control horn construction
> Date: Thursday, June 29, 2000 8:36 AM
>
>
>
> Can someone tell me what the most common type of construction is used
> for Piet rudder, elevator and aileron horns. I can't say I like the horn
> construction in the plans. Edge welding .031" steel without burning it up
> seems almost impossible ( I haven't tried it yet ) and also The
attachment
> flanges seem awful thin.
> I've seen some cut out of flat stock but it seems they wouldn't have
> enough side to side strength, maybe I'm wrong there but if someone could
> let me know what is the most popular way of making them I'd appreciate
it.
> Thanx
> Ed G. Palm Harbor Fl.
> Piet in progress
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Built up Plywood Spars |
The plywood I'm using is 90 deg. I would think that 45 deg would be
better for this particular case as the strips are only a bit over 4" wide.
The angled veneers would be somewhat longer. You can use different
hardeners to increase the useable temp range of West System, but I just use
the one which is for something like 70 deg F and warmer as it also has a
longer pot life. Can only glue outdoors in the summer.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
----------
> From: Rodger & Betty Childs <childsway@indian-creek.net>
> To: Pietenpol List
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Built up Plywood Spars
> Date: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 9:59 PM
>
<childsway@indian-creek.net>
>
> Wayne,
>
> Sounds good to me. Only one question, is the plywood to
> to be used the 45 deg. lay up or the 90 deg. lay up? And
> would it matter which one is used?
>
> Well, two questions anyway.
>
> The type spar you describe should be straight forward to
> make. We use T-88 for our glue and I would guess it's a
> personal preference what type you choose as they are all
> expensive to buy. Speaking only of the West and the T-88,
> that is.
>
> Also, not being familiar with the West, does it have a broad
> usable temperature range? Just thinking of your latitude.
>
> Rodger
> Piet in progress
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dkowell(at)cstone.net (David Kowell) |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Overspray on Lexan |
try mirror glase plastic cleaner used for cleaning windshield d kowell
Richard Gillespie wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how to get paint overspray off of Lexan without ruining the
> Lexan finish? (As in windshield)
>
> In trouble in Ft. Myers
> Dick
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flite407(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
Ed
I've thought about this for awhile and would like to say that I've done
everything myself however I've come to the conclusion some things I just want
to buy and be done with it. Go to this web site they sell all kinds of parts
for Piets, they also have a catalog which I just got the other day very nice.
http://www.replicraftaviation.com/piet%201.htm
Gary
New Orleans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flite407(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Overspray on Lexan |
Dave
They have a Lexan Polish in a spray can, The can is Black and Blue in color
and I've seen it in Wal-Mart as well. It takes a lot of rubbing but it comes
out like new. Another method is tooth paste, acts like a fine compound works
great
Gary
New Orleans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
Wayne and others,
Back in 1961 Paul Best wrote an article in Sport Aviation comparing built up I-beam
spars versus solid spars.
I have scanned this article and can e-mail it to whoever wants it.
It is 6 jpeg images totalling approx. 7megs.
The article was published in April of 1961 with a correction printed in June of
'61.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Wayne Sippola" 06/28 7:17 PM >>>
OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I beam spar
of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to use
two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints overlapped
by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more weight
and much less money than spruce.
Comments before I start building???
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/29/00 |
In a message dated 06/30/2000 1:54:15 AM Central Daylight Time,
pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes:
<<
Does anyone know how to get paint overspray off of Lexan without ruining the
Lexan finish? (As in windshield)
In trouble in Ft. Myers
Dick >>
If there is an Auto Zone store near you, they have a plastic cleaner that is
designed to remove haze and overspray. I don't have the bottle handy (I keep
it at the strip), but it works great! will also remove quite a bit of haze
from the windows. I don't remember it being all that expensive, either. The
name Clear Cuts sticks in my mind [what's left of it], but I'm probably wrong
there. They can tell you.
Ed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "franks07(at)friendlynet.com |
(Vircom SMTPRS 4.2.181) with SMTP id for"
;
Fri,
30 Jun 2000 14:11:34.-0400(at)matronics.com
Hi, Greg
I am about to make a choice on spars for an Aircamper also.
and would like to have a copy of this article. My ribs are all built up and
most of the fuselage and feathers complete. I plan to make it a big wheel,
Model A powered with tail skid. (I'm an historic purist I guess!!}
Thanks Glenn Franks , findlay, Ohio
franks07(at)friendlynet.com
>
> Wayne and others,
> Back in 1961 Paul Best wrote an article in Sport Aviation comparing built
up I-beam spars versus solid spars.
> I have scanned this article and can e-mail it to whoever wants it.
> It is 6 jpeg images totalling approx. 7megs.
> The article was published in April of 1961 with a correction printed in
June of '61.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> "Wayne Sippola" 06/28 7:17 PM >>>
>
> OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I
beam spar
> of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
> chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to
use
> two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints
overlapped
> by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
> give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
> stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
> plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
> wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
> of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
> spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
> sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more
weight
> and much less money than spruce.
> Comments before I start building???
> Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
Ed,
I made the elevator and rudder horns per theplans already and plan to
make the aileron horns when the time comes -- later this summer. They
are not easy to make. The hardest part is bending the steel to fit. I
use a ball peen hammer and just bent against my shop vise at the back
side. I had made a couple of forms to hammer against, but neither worked
at all. Using the vise wasn't really too difficult and I was able to
pound them out in a couple work sessions. Welding wasn't difficult at
all, but I'm used to welding thin steel. The two elevator horns don't
have the same spread out width, but I don't think we'll have any
problems. Others who have seen them seem to feel they'll be OK.
One change we are going to make, and haven't yet, is we are going to
braze small bushings into the bolt holes to minimize wear on the bolt and
to prevent hole elongation. This will just give more surface area for
the cable attach bolt to ride on rather than the knife edge of the thin
steel. If I remember correctly, we used thinner steel too, like .025 or
something like that. It's been awhile. so I don't really remember what
thickness we used. At the time I did send a message to the BPN with the
sizes we used throughout the project and it was printed.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
Building the wing now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
In a message dated 06/30/2000 3:11:06 PM Central Daylight Time,
nle97(at)juno.com writes:
<< I had made a couple of forms to hammer against, but neither worked
at all. >>
Ed...Give it a try..it's not really that hard..got a chuckle out of John's
posting 'cause I did exactly the same. The hardwood forms didn't work worth a
hoot and I ended up pounding them out on the ball-like part of my 5-inch
bench vise (the part that the handle goes through) A welder friend had no
trouble edge welding the thin stuff. I just wish I had thought ofJohn's idea
about adding the bushing. They're covered now and I don't want to go back and
re-do them Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Paint Overspray on Lexan |
In a message dated 06/29/2000 10:15:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
dkowell(at)cstone.net writes:
<< Does anyone know how to get paint overspray off of Lexan without ruining
the
> Lexan finish? (As in windshield) >>
Dick...I also sprayed my lexan and removed it easily with some penetrating
stuff called PB Blaster (don't know if they sell it in all markets ) It is
similar to WD-40, in a spray can. I tried WD-40 first but it did not work
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
my two cents
I angled the blade on my table saw and cut a vee in a
hardwood piece about 2 feet long, and then cut a male
part of the vee in another 2 ft long piece. like a
punch and die. used an arbor press and pressed the
concave into the horn pieces. I cut off the 2 foot
pieces to match the size of the horns. turned out like
a factory made part. I only drilled the holes in one
side of the horns and then when they were welded
together. I drilled thru the other one. the welds were
not a problem and with a little belt sanding and
filing they looked really nice. be careful not to sand
all of the weld away.
del
Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | leonstefanhutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Someone commented cutting out the horn is hardest part. I used .025 and
found they cut fairly easy with a good tin snips. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Clay Spurgeon" <clay.spurgeon(at)baseballexpress.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Control horn construction |
John -
Good to see a message from you - how's the project? I'm making slow but
steady on the El Camino. Have a great 4th -
Clay
----- Original Message -----
From: <nle97(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Control horn construction
>
> Ed,
> I made the elevator and rudder horns per theplans already and plan
to
> make the aileron horns when the time comes -- later this summer. They
> are not easy to make. The hardest part is bending the steel to fit. I
> use a ball peen hammer and just bent against my shop vise at the back
> side. I had made a couple of forms to hammer against, but neither worked
> at all. Using the vise wasn't really too difficult and I was able to
> pound them out in a couple work sessions. Welding wasn't difficult at
> all, but I'm used to welding thin steel. The two elevator horns don't
> have the same spread out width, but I don't think we'll have any
> problems. Others who have seen them seem to feel they'll be OK.
> One change we are going to make, and haven't yet, is we are going
to
> braze small bushings into the bolt holes to minimize wear on the bolt and
> to prevent hole elongation. This will just give more surface area for
> the cable attach bolt to ride on rather than the knife edge of the thin
> steel. If I remember correctly, we used thinner steel too, like .025 or
> something like that. It's been awhile. so I don't really remember what
> thickness we used. At the time I did send a message to the BPN with the
> sizes we used throughout the project and it was printed.
>
>
> John Langston
> Pipe Creek, TX
> nle97(at)juno.com
> Building the wing now
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Folding Wings for Pietenpols |
Does anyone have any info on a folding wing for a three-piece wing on a
Piet?
Dick in Ft. Myers
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Folding Wings for Pietenpols |
| From: | Chris A Tracy <catdesigns(at)juno.com> |
Never been done successfully that I know of. It has been the subject of
a lot of E-mail to the list in the past. You may want to look at the
archives and E-mail some of the people who were working on this subject.
I for one would love to have folding wings but I think in reality it
would require redesigning the wing struts to something like the
Kitfox/avid flyer. I do know of a Piet that was modified to have struts
that come together at one attachment fitting at the fuselage and did away
with the wire bracing but it really changed the looks.
One of the reasons I am building the Piet is because I like the way it
looks old. It's just one of the many gives and takes in life. Take a
look at how many different airplanes there are. It seems like each
designer wanted to build "His/Her ideal plane" but as soon as it hits the
market some one changes it because they like this or that better. This
is the joy in home building, change it if you want or build it to the
plans. After all YOU are the factory. But then again YOU have to fly in
it too so be cautious with the changes because I hope to meet you all
some time as I am touring the country at 1000 ft in the plane I built in
my Garage Aeroplane Factory.
15 wing ribs done
Jig built and starting on fuselage sides as we speak,
Trying to ignore the fact that I will need to weld- Have no clue how to
do it.
Ain't this fun
Chris having a blast in
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
I know we are the low and slow crowd, but what is the max altitude
people on the list have flown their Piet?
Also, I've asked a few times but haven't ever heard if someone has
purposefully or accidently put a Piet into a spin. How did it enter
and exit?
Still building/rebuilding.
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | That Piet Ceiling |
Boy: Now we've got a real thinker on this channel. Keep it up.
CMC in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
----------
> From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spars
> Date: Friday, June 30, 2000 10:20 AM
>
>
> Wayne and others,
> Back in 1961 Paul Best wrote an article in Sport Aviation comparing built
up I-beam spars versus solid spars.
> I have scanned this article and can e-mail it to whoever wants it.
> It is 6 jpeg images totalling approx. 7megs.
> The article was published in April of 1961 with a correction printed in
June of '61.
>
> Greg Cardinal
Please email me a copy, I'd like to read it. I've seen almost nothing
on
the subject.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
sippola(at)escape.ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
I cheated and just bent the leading edges of the parts over a round bar.
The tips are only bent a bit and the potion near the flanges bent down a
bit over a 1/4". Get all the pieces bent ( took about 15 min per horn )
and then clamp the two halves together in a vice, one edge at a time to
weld. Given the cutouts, you can bend and weld all the horns in under a
day. The welding (gas) went much easier than expected and was probably
one of the easiest parts on the plane to weld.
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
----------
> From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> To: piet aircamper
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: horns
> Date: Friday, June 30, 2000 4:33 PM
>
>
> my two cents
> I angled the blade on my table saw and cut a vee in a
> hardwood piece about 2 feet long, and then cut a male
> part of the vee in another 2 ft long piece. like a
> punch and die. used an arbor press and pressed the
> concave into the horn pieces. I cut off the 2 foot
> pieces to match the size of the horns. turned out like
> a factory made part. I only drilled the holes in one
> side of the horns and then when they were welded
> together. I drilled thru the other one. the welds were
> not a problem and with a little belt sanding and
> filing they looked really nice. be careful not to sand
> all of the weld away.
> del
>
> Get Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Greg,,,I would appreciate a copy of that please.
My email is
skycarl(at)megsinet.net
Thanks
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg
Cardinal
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spars
Wayne and others,
Back in 1961 Paul Best wrote an article in Sport Aviation comparing built up
I-beam spars versus solid spars.
I have scanned this article and can e-mail it to whoever wants it.
It is 6 jpeg images totalling approx. 7megs.
The article was published in April of 1961 with a correction printed in June
of '61.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Wayne Sippola" 06/28 7:17 PM >>>
OK, once again about plywood spars. I intend on building an I beam
spar
of the same dimension as plans with plywood web and fir cap strips. I've
chatted with an engineer about it but not run the numbers. I intend to use
two layers of 1/4 Baltic birch 5 ply with 12:1 scarfs and joints overlapped
by the second layer. The attachment areas will have another two layers to
give the full 1" thickness (shaped like a horizontal butterfly to prevent
stress risers) . The caps will be 1x 3/4 fir with a routed slot for the
plywood web to be glued down the middle. West System for glue. 3 piece
wing. After I build two spars I'll put on something like 5 or 6 G's worth
of weight to confirm the strength, but as each member is stronger than
spruce, I doubt this will be a problem. Total for both wings will be 2
sheets of ply (5'x5') and 2 1x6x14' clear fir boards. Not much more weight
and much less money than spruce.
Comments before I start building???
Wayne Sippola, Winnipeg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Maragret & Debbie James" <MADjames(at)theknapp.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Hi Kirk - One Saturday morning a little while back I decided I would try a
climb and see if I could get to 10,000 feet in G-BUCO. It took 24 minutes in
all but I had a bit of a breather at 6,000 feet just to admire the view of
the English coastline 30 miles away. I can tell you that while you are
climbing to that height in your own home-built, you have time to think about
all the hundreds of parts you made over the years that have gone into your
machine, and hope they all stay together! I flew solo with 2/3 fuel, home
carved prop and no mixture control. Empty weight is 750lb. 90hp Continental.
The first 1000 feet took 70 seconds and the last 1000 feet four and a
quarter minutes. I know she'll go higher but the rule here is you need
oxygen to try it. As for spinning, I've never tried it in a Pietenpol and I
don't intend to.
Regards to you all - Alan James
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirk Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Date: 01 July 2000 03:07
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet ceiling?
<kirkh@unique-software.com>
>
>I know we are the low and slow crowd, but what is the max altitude
>people on the list have flown their Piet?
>
>Also, I've asked a few times but haven't ever heard if someone has
>purposefully or accidently put a Piet into a spin. How did it enter
>and exit?
>
>Still building/rebuilding.
>Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Hi Alan,
Great to hear from you. We have all admired the pictures of your plane, as
one beautiful example of
Bernard's handiwork. Can only envy you the ride over the English country side.
Cheers,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard L Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Wing rib question |
When I set up my rib pattern using the full size rib drawing I noticed a
slight discrepancy. There is a notation on the pattern that the distance
from the rear of the front spar to the front of the rear spar is
twenty-seven and three-quarter inches (27 3/4"). When I measured it however,
it was only twenty-seven and five-eighths inches (27 5/8"). I know its "only
one-eighth of an inch," but I'm undecided how to correct this. The two
choices are:
1. Leave it alone and build the rib according to the pattern. This is the
simplest solution (but is it the wisest?).
2. Reposition the upright to conform with the 27 3/4" measurement. I can do
this, but it means repositioning the rearmost diagonal.
Which is the best way to go?
Dick Dery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
Hey Dick,
Thanks a lot for that keen observation on that spar distance difference. I
went and measured mine. It too said 27 3/4 and would you believe, mine is 28
3/8. This paper must expand when it's sent down south. I too would like to
know what to do. I have not measured it out for a jig as yet, all I have is a
tracing of a full size rib sent with my plans from Mr Don Pietenpol.
Corky in La.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
Hey Dick,
Here's anotherone to make you scratch your head. After finding the 28 3/8
measurement on my full size tracing I further cheched my plans and here is
another quirk; On drawing # 5 " Measurements of Wing Rib Profile" the
following dimentions are given from the rear face of the front spar to the
front face of the rear spar:
1.125
1.50
1.50
3
3
3
5
5
4
This totals 27.125 The foor is after subtracting the width of the rear spar.
I'm certain there is some explanation for these differences.Can someone help?
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
Corky and Dick,
I found the same thing when I laid out my rib jig. Also the rib members
don't necessarily meet the top and bottom capstrips at what appears to be the
proper angles. I had to redo my jig a couple of times to ensure that the
airfoil shape was true to plans, the spar spacing was 27 3/4" and that the
rib members don't butt into each other rather than meet the top and bottom
capstrips. Takes a little time to get it right but no big deal.
Tom Travis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
Thanks Tom, guess I have beginners jitters.
C in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Alan,
Sounds like a great day of flying!!!
What are the dimensions of your carved prop and how difficult did
you find doing that yourself?
By the way - I never want to spin my Piet either when it is finished
- just curious about how it handles.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
Kirk
>
>
>Hi Kirk - One Saturday morning a little while back I decided I would try a
>climb and see if I could get to 10,000 feet in G-BUCO. It took 24 minutes in
>all but I had a bit of a breather at 6,000 feet just to admire the view of
>the English coastline 30 miles away. I can tell you that while you are
>climbing to that height in your own home-built, you have time to think about
>all the hundreds of parts you made over the years that have gone into your
>machine, and hope they all stay together! I flew solo with 2/3 fuel, home
>carved prop and no mixture control. Empty weight is 750lb. 90hp Continental.
>The first 1000 feet took 70 seconds and the last 1000 feet four and a
>quarter minutes. I know she'll go higher but the rule here is you need
>oxygen to try it. As for spinning, I've never tried it in a Pietenpol and I
>don't intend to.
>Regards to you all - Alan James
>-----Original Message-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard L Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
>I found the same thing when I laid out my rib jig. Also the rib members
>don't necessarily meet the top and bottom capstrips at what appears to be the
>proper angles. I had to redo my jig a couple of times to ensure that the
>airfoil shape was true to plans, the spar spacing was 27 3/4" and that the
>rib members don't butt into each other rather than meet the top and bottom
>capstrips. Takes a little time to get it right but no big deal.
>
>
> Tom Travis
>
At the risk of appearing to be REALLY dense, Let me make sure I understand:
It is 27 3/4". As I mentioned, at this stage that's a pretty easy fix.
None of the diagonal rib braces come in contact with each other, or in
contact with the vertical rib braces.
Are these statements correct?
And a new, related question:
Does the last diagonal butt against the rear spar? That is the impression
one gets from the full-size drawing.
Thank you very much for your reply.
Dick Dery
P.S. This is a great list. who needs R.A.H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard L Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
>
>Also, I've asked a few times but haven't ever heard if someone has
>purposefully or accidently put a Piet into a spin. How did it enter
>and exit?
In _Sport Aviation_ of February 1968, there was an article entitled
"Pietenpol N-8001R," written by Emil Reuther of Towaco, NJ. In this article
he talks a little bit about doing some aerobatics (loops and spins) in his
Piet.
"Stalls must be forced at ridiculously high angles, and spin entry and
spinning feels exactly like spins in a Citabria...Three-turn spins are steep
with nose well down, recovery is fast and normal."
If you can't find a copy of _Sport Aviation_ from February of 1968, the
article was reprinted in the EAA's Publication, _building the CUSTOM
AIRCRAFT with WOOD Volume 2_, on page 67. I don't know if this publication
is still available or not.
Hope this helps
Dick Dery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet landing gear |
Corky,
One minor thing about the difference between the solid axle
and the "V" axle is that the solid axle sits on skinny tires and
has a tread of about 54" and the "V" axle sits on fat tires and
has a tread of 56". This should give the impression of having
a narrower tread with the solid axle.
The shock absorbing action is taken up by elastic shock cord,
which resembles a giant rubber band, basicly the same stuff as
on a Piper Cub.
HOWEVER, the straight axle solves any alignment problems
right from the start AND it sure looks GREAT!!!
Or as Sonny and Sher sang, "And the beat goes on... and the
engine keeps on beatin' out it's rhythm to the brain...pocketa-
pocketa-pocketa." (I'm sure that's how it goes.)
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Wing Rib Question |
Use the 27 3/4" between spars dimension and use the dimensions
given on page 5 to layout the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil.
After you have marked all the upper and lower points on your rib
fixture board, then use a thin wood spline of about 3/16" thick and
about 6ft long to connect all the "dots". You will find a "flyer" or
two so go with the spline to fair the airfoil curve.
Some of the dimensional locations of the trusses of the rib are called
out but most are not. Locate them as generally shown.
Mylar is the medium of choice when it comes to a stable material to
draw aircraft parts on, paper is only accurate for a very short time
after drawing on and soon grows or shrinks with humidity. Mooney
Aircraft keeps all their aircraft drawings (mylar) in a temperature and
humidity controlled room, and I suspect the other manufacturers do
too. However, mylar has been surplanted by computers as the best
place to store aircraft manufacturing data for the big boys. Alas, for
us, we are left with the old fashion way, co-ordinate points, flexiable
spline and lead ducks, and a sharp pointed pencil.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
In a message dated 7/1/00 10:20:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
dickdery(at)teleport.com writes:
<< Let me make sure I understand:
It is 27 3/4". As I mentioned, at this stage that's a pretty easy fix.
None of the diagonal rib braces come in contact with each other, or in
contact with the vertical rib braces.
Are these statements correct?
And a new, related question:
Does the last diagonal butt against the rear spar? That is the impression
one gets from the full-size drawing.
Thank you very much for your reply.
Dick Dery
P.S. This is a great list. who needs R.A.H. >>
I used the spacing of 27 3/4", as called out in the plans. This dimension is
required to meet the spacings of the cabane struts, and lift struts, then the
wing can be adjusted for and aft, when the weight and ballance is done. This
wing adjustment is one of the unique, and ingenius things about the
Pietenpol. Come to think about it, we are not adjusting the wing above the
fuselage, but we are adjusting the fuselage beneith the wing...the wing is
the 'air plane' and everything else is used to control the wing. I used 4
3/4" X 3/4" spars, which required 1/8" shims at the front of the rear spar,
and the rear of the front spar. I also mitered the ends of each diagnal, to
butt right up to each other, and numbered each piece. It took several tries
for each one (on that first rib), but once I got one right, I would cut about
40 or 45 clones, then picked the best one, when I began the mass assembly.
If I were to do it over again, I would adjust the dimensions between the
uprights to eliminate the requirement of those 1/8" shims.
The ribs will now be referred to as 'L1'- Left 1st rib. 'R1' - Right
1st rib. There are 14 ribs on each side. The center rib will be referred
to as 'C'.
Build new rib jig, so that the gussets and the upright x next to the
spars, are spaced 28 1/16" to 28 1/8" apart. This should be the exact
dimention between the spars, with the exception of the 3 center ribs, and the
outboard ribs where the struts attach. These locations have 1/8" plywood
doublers on each side of the spar, and should be football shaped on the ends
of these doublers.
Leave the gussets off in 2 locations. On the lower forward side of the
front spar, and on the aft upper side of the aft spar. Install these
gussets after the ribs have been assembled to the spars. This will allow
the ribs to be slid on to the 3/4" spars, and ensure a nice tight fit.
Other gussets to be left off are on the ribs at the inboard aileron
station. On this rib, leave the outboard (trailing edge) gusset off, for
the later installation of the aileron blank plywood (1/16").
The center section of the wing, forward of the front spar, is designed so
as to allow the top of the radiator to be within the wing. Two 1/8" plywood
L.E. ribs, are spaced evenly between, and paralell to, R1 and L1. These
ribs will accept the 1/16" plywood L.E. (on top), and the 1/32" plywood
(within the radiator cavity).
The barn door hinges are numbered 1 thru 6, beginning on the left wing
tip.
Lots of places on the wing needed to be drilled using Granpap's hand
crank drill (chordless !!), because of clearance reasons.
Cable guide blocks were numbered 1 thru 8, starting at the top left.
Jury strut C/L is 37" outboard of C/L of cabane strut attachments. I
estimated the placement of the jury strut attachments by referring to the
picture of the Pietenpol on the 1999 I A M Union Calender.
The ribs were weighted, without varnish, and the heaviest ones were
installed inboard, progressively installing the lighter ones toward the
wingips. The two inboard ribs are the only ones that are made out of Spruce,
the rest of the ribs are made out of Western Cedar.
LEFT SIDE RIGHT SIDE
1.) 7.24 oz Spruce 1.) 7.4 oz Spruce
2.) 7.8 oz All other ribs are Cedar 2.) 7.96 oz All other ribs
are Cedar
3.) 7.91 oz 3.) 7.93 oz
4.) 7.5 oz 4.) 7.91 oz
5.) 6.58 oz 5.) 6.56 oz
6.) 7.94 oz 6.) 6.34 oz
7.) 6.4 oz 7.) 6.44 oz
8.) 7.93 oz 8.) 6.4 oz
9.) 6.44 oz 9.) 6.3 oz
10.) 6.34 oz 10.) 6.25 oz
11.) 6.29 oz 11.) 6.2 oz
12.) 6.22 oz 12.) 6.17 oz
13.) 6.15 oz 13.) 6.14 oz
14.) 6.1 oz 14.) 6.09 oz
Another discrepency I had, after the ribs were all in place on the spars, was
that in 4 locations, the drag / anti-drag cables fouled the diagnals. In
those locations, in order to keep the cables straight, I carved a notch in
the diagnal, and glued a re-inforcement to the opposite side of the fouling.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Thanks Dick, I'll check it out and see what I can find.
Kirk
>
>
>>
>>Also, I've asked a few times but haven't ever heard if someone has
>>purposefully or accidently put a Piet into a spin. How did it enter
>>and exit?
> In _Sport Aviation_ of February 1968, there was an article entitled
>"Pietenpol N-8001R," written by Emil Reuther of Towaco, NJ. In this article
>he talks a little bit about doing some aerobatics (loops and spins) in his
>Piet.
>"Stalls must be forced at ridiculously high angles, and spin entry and
>spinning feels exactly like spins in a Citabria...Three-turn spins are steep
>with nose well down, recovery is fast and normal."
>
> If you can't find a copy of _Sport Aviation_ from February of 1968, the
>article was reprinted in the EAA's Publication, _building the CUSTOM
>AIRCRAFT with WOOD Volume 2_, on page 67. I don't know if this publication
>is still available or not.
>
>Hope this helps
>
>Dick Dery
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
| From: | Daryl R Meece <dameece1(at)juno.com> |
Dick I also had the same thoughts as you. If you measure the length of
the rib drawing you"ll also find that the rib will be longer than the
plans. Somewhere around 1 1/4 inch. What I ended up doing was throw the
full size drawing away and draw the rib on a piece of 1/4 finish ply that
I had lying around. You need to be careful here also as I found out the
hard way. If you read the 32 flying and glider manual Bernie states that
one of the measurements are wrong on the plans. With a good builders
square drawing the rib was alot easier than I thought it would be. Good
luck.....
Daryl Meece
Covair Piet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Maragret & Debbie James" <MADjames(at)theknapp.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Hi Kirk, The prop on G-BUCO is basically a home-made copy of the 'Evra D11
28 B' as found on a Jodel. I borrowed the original for the test flying and
used Eric Clutton's excellent little book on propeller making to carve my
own. It was quite straightforward to do, the most time consuming part was
finding , selecting and gluing up the timber for the blank. If you can
build a Pietenpol, then you have all the skills & patience to carve a prop -
and its a very rewarding experience. Size is a nominal 72" x 50" .
Regards - Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Alan,,,, I got the Eric Clutton prop book recently. I plan on giving it
a try also. When I used the formula with the power curve, I came out with
a 64" x 34" for the corvair engine. Is the 72"x 50" for a Ford engine?
Also, what type of wood did you use?
Thanks,,, Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan
Maragret & Debbie James
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet ceiling?
Hi Kirk, The prop on G-BUCO is basically a home-made copy of the 'Evra D11
28 B' as found on a Jodel. I borrowed the original for the test flying and
used Eric Clutton's excellent little book on propeller making to carve my
own. It was quite straightforward to do, the most time consuming part was
finding , selecting and gluing up the timber for the blank. If you can
build a Pietenpol, then you have all the skills & patience to carve a prop -
and its a very rewarding experience. Size is a nominal 72" x 50" .
Regards - Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Maragret & Debbie James" <MADjames(at)theknapp.freeserve.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet ceiling? |
Hi Carl, G-BUCO is powered by a 90hp Continental and the prop is carved from
laminations of Maple. Its fairly tough to carve but makes for a very robust
prop. I have also made them in mahogany which is a lot easier to carve but
you have to be a little more careful to protect the leading edge from
damage. So far all the Piets in the United Kingdom are powered by
Continentals, the authorities here don't exactly encourage the use of
converted car motors unless its a VW. There are a few 'Subaru ' powered
Piets being built though, and we should see the first getting airborne early
next year, in the meantime I'm dreaming of the day when I can come over
there and get a ride in a genuine 'A' powered machine. It will happen -
dreams do come true.
Regards - Alan
-----Original Message-----
From: Carl Loar <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
Date: 02 July 2000 22:47
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Piet ceiling?
>
>Alan,,,, I got the Eric Clutton prop book recently. I plan on giving it
>a try also. When I used the formula with the power curve, I came out with
>a 64" x 34" for the corvair engine. Is the 72"x 50" for a Ford engine?
>Also, what type of wood did you use?
>Thanks,,, Carl
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan
>Maragret & Debbie James
>Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 4:38 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet ceiling?
>
>
>
>
>Hi Kirk, The prop on G-BUCO is basically a home-made copy of the 'Evra D11
>28 B' as found on a Jodel. I borrowed the original for the test flying and
>used Eric Clutton's excellent little book on propeller making to carve my
>own. It was quite straightforward to do, the most time consuming part was
>finding , selecting and gluing up the timber for the blank. If you can
>build a Pietenpol, then you have all the skills & patience to carve a
prop -
>and its a very rewarding experience. Size is a nominal 72" x 50" .
>Regards - Alan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard DeCosta <aircamper(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | horiz stab upper camber? |
Finished my horiz stab this afternoon. Didnt realize it while I was
building, but owing to the fact that I forgot to lift up the leading
and trailing edges to be centered with respect to the thicker main
beam, my horiz stab now has a distinct upper camber; giving it an
almost airfoil shape (although slight). Is this likely to effect the
flight characteristics of my piet? Will the horiz stab actually create
lift?
Thanks,
Richard
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conrad, Bart D" <Bart.Conrad(at)na.boeing.com> |
| Subject: | horiz stab upper camber? |
I did the exact same thing but on the rudder. To try and salvage my mistake
I notched the main spar so the ribs would have the same symetrical curvature
on both sides. I did a pretty good job of notching the main beam for the
ribs to recess into on one side and probably would have been ok. After
looking at it for about a year and, knowing that it wasn't perfect, I took
the hacksaw to it and ripped out the ribs and main beam and installed a new
beam and ribs. Now I don't have to stare at it in disgust every time I pass
it in the shop!
> ----------
> From: Richard DeCosta[SMTP:aircamper(at)yahoo.com]
> Reply To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 02, 2000 7:16 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: horiz stab upper camber?
>
>
>
> Finished my horiz stab this afternoon. Didnt realize it while I was
> building, but owing to the fact that I forgot to lift up the leading
> and trailing edges to be centered with respect to the thicker main
> beam, my horiz stab now has a distinct upper camber; giving it an
> almost airfoil shape (although slight). Is this likely to effect the
> flight characteristics of my piet? Will the horiz stab actually create
> lift?
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> =====
> Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
> My Piet project:
> http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
>
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Horizontal Stabilizer Upper Camber |
Richard,
Yes it will produce some lift, but in the wrong direction that you would
want.
You could do like Pfalz did with theirs back in 1917 and mount it so the
curve
is down, since you want to generate a downward force to counter the wings
efforts at raising the tail in flight.
The other choice is to carefully disassemble it and start over... sigh.
Or make a new one.
Rodger
Just heading out to continue the Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | horiz stab upper camber? |
Just turn it over Richard. I would purposly build it this way next time.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
DeCosta
Subject: Pietenpol-List: horiz stab upper camber?
Finished my horiz stab this afternoon. Didnt realize it while I was
building, but owing to the fact that I forgot to lift up the leading
and trailing edges to be centered with respect to the thicker main
beam, my horiz stab now has a distinct upper camber; giving it an
almost airfoil shape (although slight). Is this likely to effect the
flight characteristics of my piet? Will the horiz stab actually create
lift?
Thanks,
Richard
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ED GRENTZER" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Thanks/control horn const |
Thanks to everyone for the great info on control horns, looks like BHP
wins hands down, now that I know that the built up hollow horns are
so widely accepted I guess I'll go with the plans, weld in bushings on
the ends and add the little U shaped reenforcements to the flanges and gas
weld them with a small tip. Man this list is a great info source.
Thanks again!!!
Ed
Palm Harbor Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
Fly5K(at)egroups.com, airsoob(at)lists.kz
| Subject: | Say this on Ebay |
Anyone looking for a good Piet starter project might want too look at
this.
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=373692958
Steve W - Pietenpol in construction!
GN-1--<(next project).
IHA #6
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
Hi Joe,
Yes, I've just received the notification of the BPA Newsletter Publication.
I would like to find out what has happened to the dues that were sent to
Grant last year. He never sent my subscription and never cashed my money
order. Will he pass all the unopened mail on to who ever continues the
letter. Joe, I 'm not asking you directly just throwing out some question to
who ever might have an answer.
Thanks,
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 06/29/00 |
Try some varsol on a scrap piece of Lexan first, I don't believe it will
hurt it
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
I have brazed alot of the fittings per the plans and was wondering if the
brazing
was strong enough. I used " brass" brazing rod with flux. I am concerned
about the
bushings for the bell crank. I know there is not that much stress but any
input
would be appreciated. I tried welding the bushings with 4130 rod and it warp
the
bushing to where it would not slip over the shaft. My bushings for my
control stick
assembly are also brass brazed.
I did weld the bell crank with 4130 rod and was happy with the
results. I would recommend welding the airfoil shape bell crank on.
any input would be appreciated.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DaveM" <dmagaw(at)att.net> |
If done right, clean metal and proper proceedure, brazing is very strong.
That is why it is used for repairs on non-airplane equipment. A good brazed
joint is generally stronger than the individual parent metal peices.
Hope this helps.
Dave
>
> I have brazed alot of the fittings per the plans and was wondering if the
> brazing
> was strong enough. I used " brass" brazing rod with flux. I am concerned
> about the
> bushings for the bell crank. I know there is not that much stress but
any
> input
> would be appreciated. I tried welding the bushings with 4130 rod and it
warp
> the
> bushing to where it would not slip over the shaft. My bushings for my
> control stick
> assembly are also brass brazed.
>
> I did weld the bell crank with 4130 rod and was happy with the
> results. I would recommend welding the airfoil shape bell crank on.
>
> any input would be appreciated.
>
> Ron
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Here's another thought I might throw at the group. Since there is no
sideward
forces working on the horns, why wouldn't a good brazing be just as strong
to connect the pieces together? With the bushing and the u in place,,, it
seems
that all the horns could be assembled this way... What's everyones thought
on this?
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
PTNPOL(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Brazing
I have brazed alot of the fittings per the plans and was wondering if the
brazing
was strong enough. I used " brass" brazing rod with flux. I am concerned
about the
bushings for the bell crank. I know there is not that much stress but any
input
would be appreciated. I tried welding the bushings with 4130 rod and it
warp
the
bushing to where it would not slip over the shaft. My bushings for my
control stick
assembly are also brass brazed.
I did weld the bell crank with 4130 rod and was happy with the
results. I would recommend welding the airfoil shape bell crank on.
any input would be appreciated.
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
you still have to attach the "L" shaped bracket to the horns which ties the
horns to the elevator and rudder spars. there are side forces working on these
pieces. I wouldn't trust brazing on this. these horns are the easiest pieces
to weld, give it a try---
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
Carl Loar wrote:
>
> Here's another thought I might throw at the group. Since there is no
> sideward
> forces working on the horns, why wouldn't a good brazing be just as strong
> to connect the pieces together? With the bushing and the u in place,,, it
> seems
> that all the horns could be assembled this way... What's everyones thought
> on this?
> Carl
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
I'm pretty sure I sent dues for 2000 back in '98. Anybody else do the same?
Dick G.
Ft. Myers, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
This is to clarify my previous notes on Pietenpol CG limitations.
In the old Civil Aeronautics Manual 18 (get one that was issued 6/1/43 or
before - the later ones do not contain the needed information), directions
are given for the mechanic to establish the proper CG limits on aircraft
for which such CG limits were not established by the old Department of
Commerce. CAM 18 of that era showed diagrams and text that stated that in
the case of monoplanes, an acceptable standard is 22% to 34% of the mean
aerodynamic chord (MAC). This is in accord with today's aviation industry
standards. In the case of the Pietenpol, the rectangular wing has
a constant chord of 5 feet, so we can confidently establish the MAC as 60
inches.
22% of 60 = 13.20 inches aft of wing leading edge is the forward
CG limit
34% of 60 = 20.40 inches aft of wing leading edge is the rearward
CG limit
Bernard Pietenpol made the recommendation to never exceed 20" aft of wing
leading edge CG, and this is certainly good advice.
There are several "authentic" versions of Piet plans, and they vary
somewhat (is that a surprise?) On the "Steel Tube Fuselage Supplement for
Pietenpol AirCamper" dated 3/8/65, a dimensioned 3-view of the "1937 Air
Camper with 1960 Corvair engine" shows the datum as the wing leading
edge. A datum, as defined in the industry, is a fixed (immovable)
identifiable point on the airframe to which other points are
referenced. This would imply that the wing on the Piet is fixed. The
moment the wing is moved fore or aft, the original datum is
destroyed. Most airplanes have a fixed-position wing, making the datum
iimmovable. Often, the front of the firewall is designated as the
datum. It sure does not move.
On the 3/8/65 Pietenpol (O.C.Hoopman) drawing, the firewall is referenced
as a fixed point. The leading edge of the wing is depicted as 11.25 inches
aft of the firewall, and the leading edge of the wing is
labelled "datum." This implies, of course, that the "datum" is fixed at
that point 11.25 inches aft of the firewall.
The Pietenpol drawing lists the empty weight of the airplane with a Corvair
engine as "677 lbs." By comparison, the drawing for the Piet with the Ford
engine (the "improved" version) shows the empty weight of the airplane with
the Ford engine as "610 lbs." So here we have the Ford airplane, with the
heavier Model A engine (and even allowing for the extra wood for the
longer fuselage) weighing less than the lighter-engined Corvair
airplane. So much for the accuracy of the Pietenpol plans.
Better to nail the wing into place and use a clean sheet of paper to run
the proposed CG computations.
The most obvious and practical way to keep the cabanes and wing struts
straight and to properly balance the Piet is to place the engine (whatever
kind it is) where it should be. If you need help with this, ask any A&P or
IA. Moving the wing is an admission that the builder did not plan
ahead. And keeping the wing in the proper position clears the rear seat entry.
Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must accept
the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of the
Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.
The empty weight CG establishment is a rather academic figure, since the
airplane will not be flown in this condition. To a mechanic or
aeronautical engineer, it will be an indicator of things to come when the
aircraft is loaded. More meaningful are the two criteria that must be
met: the most forward CG that will be experienced, and the most rearward
CG that will be experienced.
The most forward CG on the Piet will be with a lightweight pilot (120
pounds?) in the rear seat. Fuel weight will be a slight factor if the fuel
tank location is forward of the empty CG. With the small amount of fuel in
the Piet and the short moment arm of a fuselage tank, this is almost
negligible concerning the balance of the aircraft. With a wing tank, the
fuel weight is just about on the empty CG.
The limit everyone is concerned about is the rearward limit. The most
rearward CG will be achieved with a heavy pilot (220 pounds or
more). Since the front seat passenger is very near the empty CG, and the
fuel is at or near the empty CG, these two weights have little effect to
move the actual CG. You can almost make the rule that anything you put
into the rear cockpit of the Piet will determine the operating
CG. Therefore, you should start out with an empty CG that is at or close
to the allowable forward CG limit.
It is quite possible that there are Pietenpols flying around that are
dangerously exceeding the practical and proven rear CG limits of a standard
high wing airplane, especially with the larger sizes of today's pilots (a
common complaint is that the cockpits are too small).
Another factor to consider is that many Piets with two people on board are
getting up in weight to over 1100 or even 1200 pounds (some exceed 1250
pounds!). If your FAA operating specifications specify a maximum gross
weight of less than that, you are flying over the placarded weight, and you
should get your FAA operating specs changed to allow your actual operating
weight. Otherwise, you are already in violation and the Friendlies can hit
you.
Remember the first rule your flight instructor tried to impress on you -
"Don't treat gravity with levity, lest the earth arise and smite
thee!" We're all in it for fun. That's what the Piet is all about.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey guys,
Thanks for the advice;-) Its nice to have a little piece of mind.
Is BRASS good enough for brazing or should we use COPPER?
In addition, I am having a problem with corrosion with the flux. I primered
the
metal fittings and the flux is flaking off causing the primer to come off.
Thanks,
Ron
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
You might try silver solder for the bushings -- you will need about .005"
clearance in the joint for it to work well -- the heat required is only in
the 1000-1500 degree range. Use a "too long" piece tubing for the bushing &
cut it off after you do the process -- sure beats trying to keep a little
bit of tubing centered while you are heating everything up! ;-) Also, check
a crafts shop for the flux -- Jewelers have a neat paste flux for the silver
solder.
I've used brass fillet brazing on about 1/2 dozen bike frames over the past
15 years with good success (my bike frames are still in one piece! ;-) -- it
does take a HOT water soak & a wire brush to clean off the flux (if you
don't, it will lift the primer)
Mike Conkling
Pretty Prairie, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
Carl,
I welded our horns. It wasn't difficult to do at all and in this
application I think it would be best to weld. There is some side load at
the base and this needs to be considered. Warpage can be reduced by
welding short sections at a time.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Ron,
Brazing is done with bronze rods, not brass and bronze is quite strong.
The reason brazing is used at all is that it doesn't require as much heat
and the possibilities of warpage is reduced. Brazing in bushings or the
upright bolt for the rudder bar pivot bolt is plenty strong enough as
neither of these are structural in any way. All you're trying to due is
to fasten these in position so they won't slip or turn causing a hole to
elongate. Use brazing only on non-structural components were warping
could cause a lot of problems. Also, welding a bolt can cause enough
heat to destroy the temper and strength properties of that bolt. A bolt
can crystalize at the weld and cause it to break in time. This is why
Bernie said to braze these bolts in place instead of welding. Welding a
bolt can actually weaken it.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
Building the wing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
In a message dated 07/04/2000 9:23:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes:
<< I'm pretty sure I sent dues for 2000 back in '98. Anybody else do the
same?
>>
I paid the full dues through the end of the year...then for some reason Grant
'schedule of dues' printed in the Newsletter indicated additional money was
required for the last two months of my already paid up membership. Rather
than argue what was a minor point I sent the additional few bucks. Then to
add insult to injury I was never sent the last two issues. I'd like to know
what caused him to take such a sudden turn. I don't buy the "busy with
remodeling" excuse. I'm sure there's a logical reason but he has never, to
my knowledge told anyone what it was. I'm not angry, just disappointed in a
guy I know to be a fine person. Anyone else with a similar experience ?
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
Had essentially the same experience....and the same response. Disappointing
experience that seems to be completely out of character.
Warren
DonanClara(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 07/04/2000 9:23:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes:
>
> << I'm pretty sure I sent dues for 2000 back in '98. Anybody else do the
> same?
> >>
> I paid the full dues through the end of the year...then for some reason Grant
> 'schedule of dues' printed in the Newsletter indicated additional money was
> required for the last two months of my already paid up membership. Rather
> than argue what was a minor point I sent the additional few bucks. Then to
> add insult to injury I was never sent the last two issues. I'd like to know
> what caused him to take such a sudden turn. I don't buy the "busy with
> remodeling" excuse. I'm sure there's a logical reason but he has never, to
> my knowledge told anyone what it was. I'm not angry, just disappointed in a
> guy I know to be a fine person. Anyone else with a similar experience ?
> Don Hicks
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
DonanClara(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 07/04/2000 9:23:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes:
>
> << I'm pretty sure I sent dues for 2000 back in '98. Anybody else do the
> same?
> >>
> I paid the full dues through the end of the year...then for some reason Grant
> 'schedule of dues' printed in the Newsletter indicated additional money was
> required for the last two months of my already paid up membership. Rather
> than argue what was a minor point I sent the additional few bucks. Then to
> add insult to injury I was never sent the last two issues. I'd like to know
> what caused him to take such a sudden turn. I don't buy the "busy with
> remodeling" excuse. I'm sure there's a logical reason but he has never, to
> my knowledge told anyone what it was. I'm not angry, just disappointed in a
> guy I know to be a fine person. Anyone else with a similar experience ?
> Don Hicks
>
Don; I believe you just voiced what more than a few of us has been feeling. I
no longer expect to receive the missing copies. Just the courtesy of an
explanation, no, at this point in time an apology to BPA members should be
expected.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
I also sent in the extra money and am disappointed. Most of all, I'm
just glad to see it's going again. Grant did a great job and if he was
unable to continue I'm sure he had a very good reason.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Piet Group-
Recently I have received some renewed interest in my 1999 home
video about the building and flying of my Pietenpol Air Camper
and thought I would post this site (below) which has all the info about the
tape.
http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/cuyvideo.html
Best Regards,
Mike Cuy
NX48MC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Doc,
Thanks for clearing alot of things up. This explains alot.
There was only one paragraph that I think that you got backwards,,,
""Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must accept
the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of the
Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.""
The way I see it is , what you are doing in theory, is holding the wing at
one spot and moving the body and struts forward under it, you are moving
weight forward , not aft.
Since the whole aircraft is hanging under the wing, ( the wing is the real "
flying" " plane") the body has to be "slid" forward to a sweet spot.
I'm not to that point yet, and hope that I don't have to modify.
walt evans
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com>
Date: Tuesday, July 04, 2000 11:13 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
>
>This is to clarify my previous notes on Pietenpol CG limitations.
>
>In the old Civil Aeronautics Manual 18 (get one that was issued 6/1/43 or
>before - the later ones do not contain the needed information), directions
>are given for the mechanic to establish the proper CG limits on aircraft
>for which such CG limits were not established by the old Department of
>Commerce. CAM 18 of that era showed diagrams and text that stated that in
>the case of monoplanes, an acceptable standard is 22% to 34% of the mean
>aerodynamic chord (MAC). This is in accord with today's aviation industry
>standards. In the case of the Pietenpol, the rectangular wing has
>a constant chord of 5 feet, so we can confidently establish the MAC as 60
>inches.
> 22% of 60 = 13.20 inches aft of wing leading edge is the forward
>CG limit
> 34% of 60 = 20.40 inches aft of wing leading edge is the rearward
>CG limit
>
>Bernard Pietenpol made the recommendation to never exceed 20" aft of wing
>leading edge CG, and this is certainly good advice.
>
>There are several "authentic" versions of Piet plans, and they vary
>somewhat (is that a surprise?) On the "Steel Tube Fuselage Supplement for
>Pietenpol AirCamper" dated 3/8/65, a dimensioned 3-view of the "1937 Air
>Camper with 1960 Corvair engine" shows the datum as the wing leading
>edge. A datum, as defined in the industry, is a fixed (immovable)
>identifiable point on the airframe to which other points are
>referenced. This would imply that the wing on the Piet is fixed. The
>moment the wing is moved fore or aft, the original datum is
>destroyed. Most airplanes have a fixed-position wing, making the datum
>iimmovable. Often, the front of the firewall is designated as the
>datum. It sure does not move.
>
>On the 3/8/65 Pietenpol (O.C.Hoopman) drawing, the firewall is referenced
>as a fixed point. The leading edge of the wing is depicted as 11.25 inches
>aft of the firewall, and the leading edge of the wing is
>labelled "datum." This implies, of course, that the "datum" is fixed at
>that point 11.25 inches aft of the firewall.
>
>The Pietenpol drawing lists the empty weight of the airplane with a Corvair
>engine as "677 lbs." By comparison, the drawing for the Piet with the Ford
>engine (the "improved" version) shows the empty weight of the airplane with
>the Ford engine as "610 lbs." So here we have the Ford airplane, with the
>heavier Model A engine (and even allowing for the extra wood for the
>longer fuselage) weighing less than the lighter-engined Corvair
>airplane. So much for the accuracy of the Pietenpol plans.
>
>Better to nail the wing into place and use a clean sheet of paper to run
>the proposed CG computations.
>
>The most obvious and practical way to keep the cabanes and wing struts
>straight and to properly balance the Piet is to place the engine (whatever
>kind it is) where it should be. If you need help with this, ask any A&P or
>IA. Moving the wing is an admission that the builder did not plan
>ahead. And keeping the wing in the proper position clears the rear seat
entry.
>
>Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must accept
>the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of the
>Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
>wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
>problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.
>
>The empty weight CG establishment is a rather academic figure, since the
>airplane will not be flown in this condition. To a mechanic or
>aeronautical engineer, it will be an indicator of things to come when the
>aircraft is loaded. More meaningful are the two criteria that must be
>met: the most forward CG that will be experienced, and the most rearward
>CG that will be experienced.
>
>The most forward CG on the Piet will be with a lightweight pilot (120
>pounds?) in the rear seat. Fuel weight will be a slight factor if the fuel
>tank location is forward of the empty CG. With the small amount of fuel in
>the Piet and the short moment arm of a fuselage tank, this is almost
>negligible concerning the balance of the aircraft. With a wing tank, the
>fuel weight is just about on the empty CG.
>
>The limit everyone is concerned about is the rearward limit. The most
>rearward CG will be achieved with a heavy pilot (220 pounds or
>more). Since the front seat passenger is very near the empty CG, and the
>fuel is at or near the empty CG, these two weights have little effect to
>move the actual CG. You can almost make the rule that anything you put
>into the rear cockpit of the Piet will determine the operating
>CG. Therefore, you should start out with an empty CG that is at or close
>to the allowable forward CG limit.
>
>It is quite possible that there are Pietenpols flying around that are
>dangerously exceeding the practical and proven rear CG limits of a standard
>high wing airplane, especially with the larger sizes of today's pilots (a
>common complaint is that the cockpits are too small).
>
>Another factor to consider is that many Piets with two people on board are
>getting up in weight to over 1100 or even 1200 pounds (some exceed 1250
>pounds!). If your FAA operating specifications specify a maximum gross
>weight of less than that, you are flying over the placarded weight, and you
>should get your FAA operating specs changed to allow your actual operating
>weight. Otherwise, you are already in violation and the Friendlies can hit
>you.
>
>Remember the first rule your flight instructor tried to impress on you -
>"Don't treat gravity with levity, lest the earth arise and smite
>thee!" We're all in it for fun. That's what the Piet is all about.
>
>Doc Mosher
>Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "SAM & JAN MARINUCCI" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Video Inquiries |
To the discussion group,
I have a copy of Mikes' video and would highly recommend it to
anyone building or even thinking of building a Piet. Although it is an
amateur video, there is a wealth of information available. I refer to it
from time to time just to better understand some details that are unclear
to me on the plans. Mike has also added some terrific scenes of his Piet in
flight.
You won't regret the cost of the video, it's well worth it.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 2:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Video Inquiries
>
>Piet Group-
>
>Recently I have received some renewed interest in my 1999 home
>video about the building and flying of my Pietenpol Air Camper
>and thought I would post this site (below) which has all the info about the
>tape.
>
>http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/cuyvideo.html
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Mike Cuy
>NX48MC
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Article on spars |
I have been having trouble sending this article to some of you who
have requested it.
If you wish to receive it via snail mail send an SASE to:
Greg Cardinal
5236 Shoreview Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55417
There will be no charge for copies.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Walt, your point about moving the wing is the way I thought about it also,
your really not moving the wing your moving the fuselage. I helped a friend
with his CG on a Piet some years ago and we had some problems dependable
calculating the effects of a move between wing and fuselage.
After lots of thought and chicken scratches on paper I realized that this
is not true. Only if the wing was lighter than air would this be the case.
Because the wing has weight it also applies pressure on the loading of the
lift surface(itself) and it produces the center of lift. If you look at the
center of lift of the wing and then figure the moment(CG) of the wing,
different parts of the wing have different loads applied.(lbs. per square
inch) When we figure wing loading we calculate the average lb./in sq.. not
the real loading at any given point. This is what CG effects and what the
builder wants is to have this moment of loading centered over the center of
lift. So in effect by moving the struts you effect the CG relative to the
center of lift but not exactly at the same ratio of effect as you would if
you placed a weight in the tail or nose at a given distance from the datum.
This is what in effect is happening with the 'moving datum' the datum is
really a reference to the center of lift. Which the leading edge of the
wing is good for. Because we are moving the relationship of the weight of
the fuselage to the wing it just makes it much more difficult to calculate
this distance because we need to know the exact moments end to end. Which
is why when I helped a friend do this to his plane we got different results
than expected. At the time we attributed it to the scales being non linear
but in fact it was the relationships of the different moments changing. So
we made small changes until we got the desired results.
Or I'm completely nuts. You decide.
This will come across as rambling and not make much sense I'm sure.
Greg
>
>Doc,
> Thanks for clearing alot of things up. This explains alot.
>There was only one paragraph that I think that you got backwards,,,
>
>""Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must
accept
>the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of the
>Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
>wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
>problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.""
>
>The way I see it is , what you are doing in theory, is holding the wing at
>one spot and moving the body and struts forward under it, you are moving
>weight forward , not aft.
>Since the whole aircraft is hanging under the wing, ( the wing is the real
"
>flying" " plane") the body has to be "slid" forward to a sweet spot.
>I'm not to that point yet, and hope that I don't have to modify.
>walt evans
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
During my novice searchings I have found many engines used on the Piet. One
which I would like some info on is the Subaru application. Could someone
steer me in the direction of a publication as to type, weight to power ratio
etc or just personal
knowledge you may have on the subject. Thanks
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Greg,
You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,
<<< After lots of thought and chicken scratches on paper I realized that
this
is not true. Only if the wing was lighter than air would this be the
case.>>>
But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is
pulling up, and the body pulling down.
I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the
wing to the body thru struts.
But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it's like
a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank
towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the
engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
Date: Thursday, July 06, 2000 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
>
>Walt, your point about moving the wing is the way I thought about it also,
>your really not moving the wing your moving the fuselage. I helped a
friend
>with his CG on a Piet some years ago and we had some problems dependable
>calculating the effects of a move between wing and fuselage.
> After lots of thought and chicken scratches on paper I realized that this
>is not true. Only if the wing was lighter than air would this be the case.
>Because the wing has weight it also applies pressure on the loading of the
>lift surface(itself) and it produces the center of lift. If you look at
the
>center of lift of the wing and then figure the moment(CG) of the wing,
>different parts of the wing have different loads applied.(lbs. per square
>inch) When we figure wing loading we calculate the average lb./in sq..
not
>the real loading at any given point. This is what CG effects and what the
>builder wants is to have this moment of loading centered over the center of
>lift. So in effect by moving the struts you effect the CG relative to the
>center of lift but not exactly at the same ratio of effect as you would if
>you placed a weight in the tail or nose at a given distance from the datum.
>This is what in effect is happening with the 'moving datum' the datum is
>really a reference to the center of lift. Which the leading edge of the
>wing is good for. Because we are moving the relationship of the weight of
>the fuselage to the wing it just makes it much more difficult to calculate
>this distance because we need to know the exact moments end to end. Which
>is why when I helped a friend do this to his plane we got different results
>than expected. At the time we attributed it to the scales being non linear
>but in fact it was the relationships of the different moments changing. So
>we made small changes until we got the desired results.
>
>Or I'm completely nuts. You decide.
>
>This will come across as rambling and not make much sense I'm sure.
>
>Greg
>
>>
>>Doc,
>> Thanks for clearing alot of things up. This explains alot.
>>There was only one paragraph that I think that you got backwards,,,
>>
>>""Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must
>accept
>>the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of
the
>>Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
>>wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
>>problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.""
>>
>>The way I see it is , what you are doing in theory, is holding the wing at
>>one spot and moving the body and struts forward under it, you are moving
>>weight forward , not aft.
>>Since the whole aircraft is hanging under the wing, ( the wing is the real
>"
>>flying" " plane") the body has to be "slid" forward to a sweet spot.
>>I'm not to that point yet, and hope that I don't have to modify.
>>walt evans
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing rib question |
--- Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
> Isablcorky(at)aol.com
>
> Hey Dick,
> Here's anotherone to make you scratch your head.
> After finding the 28 3/8
> measurement on my full size tracing I further
> cheched my plans and here is
> another quirk; On drawing # 5 " Measurements of Wing
> Rib Profile" the
> following dimentions are given from the rear face of
> the front spar to the
> front face of the rear spar:
> 1.125
> 1.50
> 1.50
> 3
> 3
> 3
> 5
> 5
> 4
> This totals 27.125 The foor is after subtracting
> the width of the rear spar.
> I'm certain there is some explanation for these
> differences.Can someone help?
> Corky in La
Maybe because you are not using metric ;-) :-) :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks/control horn const |
Ed,
Just a little advice:
Reinforcing a "little" here and there over the plans
ends up with a overweight aircraft... sometimes very
dangerous in handling.
All the designers prayer:
"God, please make the builders follow the plans, Amen"
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- ED GRENTZER wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks to everyone for the great info on control
> horns, looks like BHP
> wins hands down, now that I know that the built up
> hollow horns are
> so widely accepted I guess I'll go with the plans,
> weld in bushings on
> the ends and add the little U shaped reenforcements
> to the flanges and gas
> weld them with a small tip. Man this list is a great
> info source.
> Thanks again!!!
> Ed
> Palm Harbor
> Fl.
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Walt said:
> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,
>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is
>pulling up, and the body pulling down.
The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravity
force. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at the
same rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancy
in the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it's
different areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.
>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the
>wing to the body thru struts.
>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it's
like
>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank
>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the
>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.
Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you move
the plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubic foot
to adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinny
kid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in the
calculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.
Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the head as
a child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Dan
One thought on this. By moving the wing you are also moving the location of
the fuel (lap tank only), and cockpits relative to the "new datum". While I
agree with you that the wing should not be moved. The new loading locations
may be better for avoiding an aft CG problem. The aft cockpit would be
closer to the CG, and fuel would be further forward.
One issue I don't see people talking about is the moment arm of the tail.
By moving the wing back you are shorting the moment arm of the tail and
making it less effective.
Marc Davis
-----Original Message-----
From: Don Mosher [mailto:docshop(at)famvid.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
This is to clarify my previous notes on Pietenpol CG limitations.
In the old Civil Aeronautics Manual 18 (get one that was issued 6/1/43 or
before - the later ones do not contain the needed information), directions
are given for the mechanic to establish the proper CG limits on aircraft
for which such CG limits were not established by the old Department of
Commerce. CAM 18 of that era showed diagrams and text that stated that in
the case of monoplanes, an acceptable standard is 22% to 34% of the mean
aerodynamic chord (MAC). This is in accord with today's aviation industry
standards. In the case of the Pietenpol, the rectangular wing has
a constant chord of 5 feet, so we can confidently establish the MAC as 60
inches.
22% of 60 = 13.20 inches aft of wing leading edge is the forward
CG limit
34% of 60 = 20.40 inches aft of wing leading edge is the rearward
CG limit
Bernard Pietenpol made the recommendation to never exceed 20" aft of wing
leading edge CG, and this is certainly good advice.
There are several "authentic" versions of Piet plans, and they vary
somewhat (is that a surprise?) On the "Steel Tube Fuselage Supplement for
Pietenpol AirCamper" dated 3/8/65, a dimensioned 3-view of the "1937 Air
Camper with 1960 Corvair engine" shows the datum as the wing leading
edge. A datum, as defined in the industry, is a fixed (immovable)
identifiable point on the airframe to which other points are
referenced. This would imply that the wing on the Piet is fixed. The
moment the wing is moved fore or aft, the original datum is
destroyed. Most airplanes have a fixed-position wing, making the datum
iimmovable. Often, the front of the firewall is designated as the
datum. It sure does not move.
On the 3/8/65 Pietenpol (O.C.Hoopman) drawing, the firewall is referenced
as a fixed point. The leading edge of the wing is depicted as 11.25 inches
aft of the firewall, and the leading edge of the wing is
labelled "datum." This implies, of course, that the "datum" is fixed at
that point 11.25 inches aft of the firewall.
The Pietenpol drawing lists the empty weight of the airplane with a Corvair
engine as "677 lbs." By comparison, the drawing for the Piet with the Ford
engine (the "improved" version) shows the empty weight of the airplane with
the Ford engine as "610 lbs." So here we have the Ford airplane, with the
heavier Model A engine (and even allowing for the extra wood for the
longer fuselage) weighing less than the lighter-engined Corvair
airplane. So much for the accuracy of the Pietenpol plans.
Better to nail the wing into place and use a clean sheet of paper to run
the proposed CG computations.
The most obvious and practical way to keep the cabanes and wing struts
straight and to properly balance the Piet is to place the engine (whatever
kind it is) where it should be. If you need help with this, ask any A&P or
IA. Moving the wing is an admission that the builder did not plan
ahead. And keeping the wing in the proper position clears the rear seat
entry.
Anyone deciding to cant the cabane struts to move the wing aft must accept
the fact that the wing itself is a significant portion of the weight of the
Piet, weighing something like 150 pounds. Even the weight of the steel
wing struts moves aft. Moving all that weight aft to correct a rear CG
problem seems hardly the way to correct the original problem.
The empty weight CG establishment is a rather academic figure, since the
airplane will not be flown in this condition. To a mechanic or
aeronautical engineer, it will be an indicator of things to come when the
aircraft is loaded. More meaningful are the two criteria that must be
met: the most forward CG that will be experienced, and the most rearward
CG that will be experienced.
The most forward CG on the Piet will be with a lightweight pilot (120
pounds?) in the rear seat. Fuel weight will be a slight factor if the fuel
tank location is forward of the empty CG. With the small amount of fuel in
the Piet and the short moment arm of a fuselage tank, this is almost
negligible concerning the balance of the aircraft. With a wing tank, the
fuel weight is just about on the empty CG.
The limit everyone is concerned about is the rearward limit. The most
rearward CG will be achieved with a heavy pilot (220 pounds or
more). Since the front seat passenger is very near the empty CG, and the
fuel is at or near the empty CG, these two weights have little effect to
move the actual CG. You can almost make the rule that anything you put
into the rear cockpit of the Piet will determine the operating
CG. Therefore, you should start out with an empty CG that is at or close
to the allowable forward CG limit.
It is quite possible that there are Pietenpols flying around that are
dangerously exceeding the practical and proven rear CG limits of a standard
high wing airplane, especially with the larger sizes of today's pilots (a
common complaint is that the cockpits are too small).
Another factor to consider is that many Piets with two people on board are
getting up in weight to over 1100 or even 1200 pounds (some exceed 1250
pounds!). If your FAA operating specifications specify a maximum gross
weight of less than that, you are flying over the placarded weight, and you
should get your FAA operating specs changed to allow your actual operating
weight. Otherwise, you are already in violation and the Friendlies can hit
you.
Remember the first rule your flight instructor tried to impress on you -
"Don't treat gravity with levity, lest the earth arise and smite
thee!" We're all in it for fun. That's what the Piet is all about.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I am sure that Jim won't mind if I fwd this message, in case some members of
the group have not seen it before.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim VanDervort <dpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wt
>All you gotta do is move the wing back.
>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.
>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out
>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)
>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back
>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.
>
>
>JimV.
>
>
>--- Michael Brusilow
>wrote:
>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )
>>
>> <> empty with a -8
>> cont
>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short
>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.
>>
>> If your are going to use a continental in the above
>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next
>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.
>>
>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )
>>
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tuesday, September 07, 1999 9:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol weight and balance
(http://members.aol.com/gmaclaren/wb.html)
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
Brodhead -1994
Tail
Number Engine
Type Fuselage
Length Empty
Weight CG
empty / inches
aft of datum CG
w/170# pilot
& 7 gal. fuel Wt. w/170# pilot
& 170# pass
& 7 gal. fuel CG w/170# pilot
& 170# pass
& 7 gal. fuel
N444MH Ford 'A' Short 648 7.49 17.72 1048 18.83
NX13691 Ford 'A' Short 676 11.83 21.04 1088 22.02
NX4662T Ford 'A' Short 671 13.69 20.45 1071 20.7
NX5228 Ford 'A' Long 684 6.69 16.16 1084 17.33
C FCMG 0-200 Long 774 15.25 20.42 1208 19.43
N 396S C-85 Long 820 15.2 18.61 1256 16.57
N 687MB 0-200 Long 705 5.59 14.57 1143 15.79
N 778DD Corvair Long 731 9.08 15.93 1191 14.98
----
||
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
I am sure that Jim won't mind if I fwd this message for those who have not
seen it before.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam)
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim VanDervort <dpilot(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, September 21, 1999 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Piet wt
>>All you gotta do is move the wing back.
>Do not move the engine forward on the fuselage.
>Mr. Pietenpol said that would make it hard to come out
>of a sideslip quickly. (note the word quickly)
>My Piet weighs 610, and I had to move the wing back
>6.5 inches, cause I weigh 275.
>
>
>JimV.
>
>
>--- Michael Brusilow
>wrote:
>> Claude Wrote:( or was it Claude )
>>
>> <> empty with a -8
>> cont
>> > , a wood prop, lite cub style gear ,a short
>> fuselage and 1 piece wing.
>>
>> If your are going to use a continental in the above
>> configuration, it will have to be put in the next
>> county to get anywhere near the CG range.
>>
>> Mike B Piet N 687MB ( Mr Sam )
>>
>>
>>
>
>__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mac Zirges" <macz(at)netbridge.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
A comment on the CG discussion--You have to think of the wing as a skyhook
that the rest of the airplane hangs from. This is especially easy to
conceptualize since the Piet is a parasol where the rest of the plane
literally does hang down below the wing.
Anyway, the center of lift of the wing is the fulcrum that the weight of the
fuselage etc. hangs from so to adjust CG you move the fuselage forward/back
to change balance relative to this point.
As a note, the purpose of the horizontal tail is to provide pitch stability
around this wing pivot point, and to insure that an airplane will naturally
pitch nose-down, ie NOT pitch nose-up and stall, there is designed in a
downward force component for the tail--this is why you sometimes see
designers use inverted airfoils for horizontal stabilizers.
Cheers, Mac in Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Yotz <gyachts(at)kans.com>
Date: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
>
>Walt said:
>> You said that my theory works only if the wing is lighter than air,,,
>>But when you are flying ,,,the wing IS lighter than air. The wing is
>>pulling up, and the body pulling down.
>
>The wing isn't light than air, there is only more lift force than gravity
>force. Gravity is pulling the mass of the wing and the body down at the
>same rate. If the wing was truely lighter than air it would have buoyancy
>in the liquid we call air. Therefore the weight of the wing in it's
>different areas effect CG and it's relavance to the fusealge.
>
>
>>I realize that there are other forces too, like "prying" forces from the
>>wing to the body thru struts.
>>But if you want to "hang" from the perfect CG point on the wing,,, it's
>like
>>a fat kid and a skinny kid on the see-saw.....You have to slide the plank
>>towards the skinny kid, till the board balances. You can also move the
>>engine fwd. ( have the skinny kid skoot back) to do the same thing.
>
>
>Exactly what I was saying, except if you try to calculate before you move
>the plank under the kid you must know how much the plank ways per cubic
foot
>to adjust for the added weight of the plank on that side besides the skinny
>kid. Because the plank has mass and weight it must be figure in the
>calculation to get proper CG placement just like the wing.
>
>Or I'm complete nuts, you decide. (I do remember getting hit in the head
as
>a child when trying to adjust perfect CG on a see-saw)
>
>Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Boy, this thread is getting wayyyy out of hand. The terms CG, CL and datum
are being confused and, sometimes, misused. This is not as difficult as we
have let it become.
1. Forget the "datum," it is an imaginary thing. There is no "moving" or
"not moving" the datum. Make it the tip of your spinner and forget it once
you calculate the cg for the first time.
2. You do have a CG, which is not going to change absent some physical
change to the airplane. (before anyone says anything, changing to a heavier
pilot or burning fuel are physical changes)
3. You also have a CL, which is going to move on the wing depending on the
angle of attack.
4. To fly properly, for our purposes, the CG must fall within the range of
travel of the CL, preferably toward the forward end of the range so that
the airplane tends to nose down in a stall.
5. If the CG is not where it is supposed to be in relation to the CL,
something has to move.
6. If the CG is too far aft, you have got to either move the CG forward,
or the CL back, BOTH of which are perfectly acceptable means that have been
used since the invention of the airplane.
6a. Moving the CG Forward. With most airplanes, one can simply move a
piece of equipment forward. With a Piet, we have very little "ballast"
that can be moved so we are left with moving the engine forward (unless you
want to pack the spinner with lead). Bernie has caused undue consternation
with his admonition that moving the engine makes the airplane more
difficult to recover from a slip "quickly" (key word). Haven't all of you
seen an "anteater" American Eagle biplane? (or any other biplane with a
lighter engine) With the OX-5 engine it is properly proportioned. With
the 125 h.p. Kinner engine, it has a four-foot nose on it. These aircraft
are not difficult to slip. While Bernie may have been correct, his
statement has been over-emphasized.
The amount of movement we are talking about when we lengthen the engine
mount is not enough to alter the control effectiveness of the rudder. If
the weight of the airplane has not changed (of course except for the minor
weight of the additional mount material), the same amount of mass is
rotating around the CG anyway. If the CG moves forward, the rudder should
become MORE effective because it has a longer arm.
6b. Moving the CL Aft. Much easier than building a new engine mount,
cowling, and all new engine controls, fuel lines, etc., the wing, i.e. CL,
can be moved back AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE. The hinged struts and
adjustable wires are designed that way for a purpose, to allow the wing to
move. Yea, yea, you move the weight of the wing aft as well. BIG DEAL.
We are talking about a relatively small amount of weight that is fairly
close to the CG, so the change in the CG is minimal as compared the the
movement of the CL. If the wing needs to be moved back a large distance so
that the angles of struts becomes an issue, you have got much bigger
problems.
The solution is, first, BUILD IT LIGHT! It is a Pietenpol, not the space
shuttle. You do not need GPS, autopilot, a full IFR panel, a starter, a
complete competition aerobatic harness system, a wet bar, 47 hand-rubbed
coats of dope, or any, ANY additional structure other than what is called
for.
If it looks like you are going to have a CG problem, either from rough
calculations or the fact that your hot tub is placed just behind the rear
cockpit, consider moving the engine for a coarse CG adjustment, and make
fine adjustments to the finished product by moving the wing. That is how
it has always been done.
Or this could all be wrong.
(any Richard Bach fans out there?)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Learning is finding out what you already know.
Doing is demonstrating that you know it.
Teaching is reminding others that they know just as well as you.
You are all learners, doers, teachers.
--- Richard Bach
There is no such thing as a problem without a gift for you in its hands.
You seek problems because you need their gifts.
--- Richard Bach
And of course... Everything above maybe wrong....
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jared wilkinson <jared_wilkinson(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Way to go, Rambo! I got a kick out of your post!
'Nuff said, right!
Jared Wilkinson
Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Omar had it right |
Omar Khayyam would have flown a Piet. I took his advice today:
"Take the cash and let the credit go...", and so went out to the
hanger and worked on the Piet's wing. Now all of the ribs are glued
in place, the alieron beams are glued in, the compression struts are
glued in, and the wing tips are made. Next step is to install metal
brackets and add the anti-drag wires. Oh, and of course, make and
attach the leading edge. Think I'll make that one piece too with a
splice in the middle.
A one piece wing IS long sitting on the saw horses and you have
to walk around the end to get to the work area on the other side.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Wayne Sippola" <sippola(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Article on spars |
Thanks Greg, I received both parts. I ran the numbers as per the article
and came up with a maximum of 4000 and change pounds, but the calculation
was only for the flanges. I pulled out the textbooks and did a calculation
for the flanges and the 1/2" ply web and get a Maximum load (read breaking
point) of 7000 plus pounds. This is for a web height of 4 3/4" and a
flange width of 1" by 1" high.
----------
> From: Greg Cardinal <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Article on spars
> Date: Thursday, July 06, 2000 11:09 AM
>
>
> I have been having trouble sending this article to some of you who
> have requested it.
> If you wish to receive it via snail mail send an SASE to:
>
> Greg Cardinal
> 5236 Shoreview Ave. So.
> Minneapolis, MN 55417
>
> There will be no charge for copies.
>
> Greg
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John E Fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
I would like some info on is the Subaru application. Could
> someone
> steer me in the direction of a publication as to type, weight to
CONTACT ! magazine.
I would recommend Contact ! magazine. It is dedicated to the promotion
of auto engines for use in aircraft. There have been many articles about
Subaru engines over the past few years. It is published by Mick Myal.
I believe you can receive any back issues you would like, and he also has
prepared a book with most of the past, useful engine articles. The
address is Contact !, 2900 E. Weymouth, Tucson, Arizona, 85716-1249.
Subscription cost is $20 / year for six issues.
Email: | Date: | Jul 07, 2000 |
| From: | Chris A Tracy <catdesigns(at)juno.com> |
I am in the proces of building the fuselage sides and was woundering when
do I install the 1/8th in ply sides. Before or after you attach the two
sides together? Also how did you hold the gusset plates on untill the
glue dried, Nails? Did any one using a spring steel tail wheel beef up
the tail section of the fuselage? Do I need to?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Chris,,, for what it's worth,,, I waited till my seats were done and my
controls
were in before I attached the side ply. Thought it was a lot easier doing it
that way.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris A
Tracy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage
I am in the proces of building the fuselage sides and was woundering when
do I install the 1/8th in ply sides. Before or after you attach the two
sides together? Also how did you hold the gusset plates on untill the
glue dried, Nails? Did any one using a spring steel tail wheel beef up
the tail section of the fuselage? Do I need to?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Piet: bpa newsletter |
I think a lot of us got the shaft by ole Grant
I was paid until 03-2001. After many tries to contact Grant, I
finally gave up.
I'm glad to hear someone else is going to take the ball and run.
Count me in.
bed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Thank you John for the info and your concern for my plight. Am still headed
in the A model direction but needed some info on the others
Claude
________________________________________________________________________________
Chris,
After you pop the fuse side out of the jig, lay it on top of the
plywood. Mark the location of the stringers on the ply with a pencil, this
will give you a guide for the brass aircraft nails. (Remember to make a right
and left side) Would have to go back to see what size nails I used, but I
think they were 3/4 of an inch long. Nails are used all over to provide
clamping pressure while the glue dries. I found that a pair of needle nose
pliers works great for nailing, helps save the fingers while try to hit those
little nails.
When I joined my fuse I started at the front and make sure to square up the
front half first. (will need lots of pipe clamps, etc.) After that dried
then went back and pulled the tail post together. I marked a center
reference line on my workbench and tried to keep the fuse center marking over
that line while I pulled the tail post together. One thing you should think
about before joining the fuse is join the tail post. When you join the two
side, the tail post will have to have some degree of an angle cut to allow
the sides to mate up for gluing. I think it would be much easier to do most
of the cutting before you join the front of the fuse.
Anyone out there got a good starting angle to use.
Scott Dufreche.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
-----Original Message-----
From: Teal38(at)aol.com <Teal38(at)aol.com>
Date: Saturday, July 08, 2000 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage
>
>Chris,
>
>
I marked a center
>reference line on my workbench and tried to keep the fuse center marking
over
>that line while I pulled the tail post together. >
>Scott Dufreche.
>
This may help lining up the fuselage:
Squaring up fuselage (Woodwork-fuselage)
by Michael Brusilow
When constructing the fuselage a useful tool is to run a centerline at the
shop ceiling with moveable plumb bobs. Then it is an easy task to true up
the work at any station on the fuselage.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "ws133b(at)uswest.net |
by omahpop1.omah.uswest.net with SMTP; 8 Jul 2000 16":42:55.-0000(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: BPA newsletter |
Don:
I had essentially the same results as you. Additionally, I attempted to order
copies of back issues, but that check was never cashed.
Ted Tuckerman
DonanClara(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 07/04/2000 9:23:49 AM Central Daylight Time,
> dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes:
>
> << I'm pretty sure I sent dues for 2000 back in '98. Anybody else do the
> same?
> >>
> I paid the full dues through the end of the year...then for some reason Grant
> 'schedule of dues' printed in the Newsletter indicated additional money was
> required for the last two months of my already paid up membership. Rather
> than argue what was a minor point I sent the additional few bucks. Then to
> add insult to injury I was never sent the last two issues. I'd like to know
> what caused him to take such a sudden turn. I don't buy the "busy with
> remodeling" excuse. I'm sure there's a logical reason but he has never, to
> my knowledge told anyone what it was. I'm not angry, just disappointed in a
> guy I know to be a fine person. Anyone else with a similar experience ?
> Don Hicks
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?) |
Talking about Richard Bach,
One great book is "A Gift of Wings" ISBN 0440204321
In one of his histories he mentions the diference
betwen a airplane pilot and a real aeronaut (sp?) I
read (and have) the book in spanish. A read it every
so often when I need "air"
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Greg Yotz wrote:
>
>
> Learning is finding out what you already know.
> Doing is demonstrating that you know it.
> Teaching is reminding others that they know just
> as well as you.
> You are all learners, doers, teachers.
>
> --- Richard Bach
>
>
> There is no such thing as a problem without a
> gift for you in its hands.
> You seek problems because you need their gifts.
>
>
> --- Richard Bach
>
>
> And of course... Everything above maybe wrong....
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Get Yahoo! Mail Free email you can access from anywhere!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuselage Tail Post |
Scott,
The notes I made show when viewed from the top of the fuselage,
measure at the tailpost; 1/2" and then on the inside side of the
longeron, measure 3.6". Connect the two points and this is the
amount to cut to make the tailpost longerons come together nicely.
It seemed to work for us.
However, we glued the tailpost first, put on the gussets top and
bottom to help hold it together and then started gluing going forward.
Works both ways though, I guess.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)techplus.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)Bach! |
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Center of Gravity Standards (?)
>
> Boy, this thread is getting wayyyy out of hand. The terms CG, CL and
datum
> are being confused and, sometimes, misused. This is not as difficult as
we
> have let it become.
> The solution is, first, BUILD IT LIGHT! It is a Pietenpol, not the
space
> shuttle. You do not need GPS, autopilot, a full IFR panel, a starter, a
> complete competition aerobatic harness system, a wet bar, 47 hand-rubbed
> coats of dope, or any, ANY additional structure other than what is called
> for.
Amen! Interesting to note that the 1994 Brodhead weight and balance results
show the Ford powered aircraft all turned out lighter!
> (any Richard Bach fans out there?)
I forget whose GN-1 at Brodhead it was, but on the dash in the front pit is
a Richard Bach qoute,
" Argue for your limitations, and sure enough they're yours!" Good advice
for a builder/pilot.
John Mc
P.S.
My copy of A Gift of Wings is getting to be about worn out. I read it when I
have to proctor exams at the college.
Right after that I have to get out to shop and build a few more parts.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | primer and varnish |
Does anyone know of good 2part epoxy metal primer and varnish that doesn't
cost $40.00 per quart or about that much?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
| Subject: | Mike Cuy (and his plane) |
If you ever get a chance check out Mike's plane. It
is unbelievable. Plus Mike is a gracious gentleman.
I watched him let someone else fly that Piet this
weekend. He also propped may T-Craft. Thanks Mike.
Dave
N36078 and a Piet that may be done when I retire.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Motor Mount |
| From: | "Sherri Morton" <smorton3(at)bellsouth.net> |
I am looking for an engine mount for my Piet for an O200. Oh , and cheap helps.
If anyone hears one for sale, please steer them my way. Thanx---Paul
Paul Morton
678-482-1661 (H)
770-399-6256 x 5710 (W)
paul.morton(at)ceridian.com
smorton13(at)bellsouth.net
Access your e-mail anywhere, at any time.
Get your FREE BellSouth Web Mail account today!
http://webmail.bellsouth.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
Chris- I incorporated a two-leaf spring assembly on my
Piet rather than the tubular/triangular plans setup. Where
the bottom longerons join each other I filled that delta-shaped
area in between with a piece of white ash or some kind
of hardwood....then made a thin plate of 4130 steel to fit
on top of that 'filler block' with 3 bolts sticking down thru
the metal plate and wood to extend below the belly.
The bolt heads were welded to the steel plate so that
no wrench is needed when installing the leaf springs
onto those anchor bolts extending thru the bottom of the
fuselage. I recall adding a 1/8" plywood layer over the
bottom of this 'filler block' too for added strength.
I purchased a two-leaf spring from Wicks and a "homebuilders
special" 6" solid steerable tailwheel from ACSpuce.
I needed another hole drilled into my leaf springs and as
per Tony Bingelis's books I used a masonry bit with
no cutting fluid to do the job- worked great.
The standard plans setup for the tailskid/tailwheel assy.
is fine, but has been know to be torn or ripped out of
the bottom longerons in certain instances so if you or
anyone else goes that route, don't be afraid to add some
kind of plywood around the area where the longeron fittings
for that thing attach. Don't let anyone scare you about
adding "all that weight" if you do the leaf spring/ tailwheel
version because that is why Pietenpol allows us to move
the wing back to balance the CG for our particular airframe/
engine installations. (just don't beef up the rest of the
plane and keep it in general a light as humanly possible.)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Davis, Marc" <marc.davis(at)intel.com> |
| Subject: | Piet with a Soob EA81 |
I follow the soob engine list and saw a note about a Piet with a Soob engine
in it. I thought you might like the details.
The guy who built the plane is not on the net.
Three piece wing
Long fuselage
Soob EA81
Direct drive
60X32 wood Tennessee prop
Ford Pinto carb
Honda civic rad mounted under engine mount
3000 RPM take off
2100 cruse at 70mph
750 FPM climb solo (no dual yet) this is a guess because he has no VSI. He
is a 3000 hour pilot and a CFI.
Better climb than a C65
The engine mount is 4" longer than the "A" mount and the wing is "as far
back as I can get it"
CG is per plains now
He has built 13 other airplanes and really likes this one.
He has just finished flying off his 40.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | "eyebrow " patterns for A-65 |
Does anyone have eyebrow patterns for a Cont. A-65? Could make patterns
from a local Cub, but if someone had crosshatch patterns they could share,
it would be easier.
thanks
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Beanlands <kbeanlan(at)spots.ab.ca> |
| Subject: | Rib-Stitching.... |
A while back there was some discussion about rib-stitching and, in
particular, how long it takes. At the time, there was some question as to
whether it was really needed. Well, here's the scoop.
Specs:
Aircraft type: Christavia MK 1, not a Piet,
Wing Panel span: 15' wing
Chord: 54"
LE covering: Aluminum back to the spars both top and bottom.
Ribs: 16 ribs per panel, 12" spacing, 15 ribs get stitched.
The rib-stitching was finished last night at 11.5 hours for one wing, not
including aileron. There are a total of 154 stitches in the wing and an
additional 12 in the aileron. I ended up with 18 in the inboard 3 (not
including the root tib) ribs, 12 in the next 3 and 8 in each of the
8 aileron bay ribs. That's not too bad and it was quite easy to do once
you get a rythm going. I have the wing suspended from the ceiling with
tie-down straps. The wing is sitting LE down. I've been starting at the
trailing edge and working forward. We start with a seine (sp?) knot
and do the rest with what we call a "Staggerwing knot". Paul and Tammy of
AFS came across the knot when restoring thier first Staggerwing. It's the
method perscribed by Beech to stitch the wing. It's essentially 2 half
hitches that lock nicely together. It really speeds up the process.
Anyway, I suspect a time of 20-23 hours (you learn with the first wing;-)
to stitch the whole wing. The increase in strenth is quite apparent as you
work along the wing. Weight increase is minor (less than 8 ozs.).Of
course, with a 1650 lb plane cruising at over 120 mph, I have no choice
but to stitch.
Ken Beanlands B.Eng (Aerospace)
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Christavia MK 1 C-GREN
<http://www.spots.ab.ca/~kbeanlan>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com> |
Ref: Ken Beanlands notes about ribstitching
Happy to see that you got the rhythm going on your ribstitching. I f you
have ever seen flight photos looking down at airplanes with rather loose
fabric, you know how much the fabric actually balloons between each
rib. The fabric on the top of the wing actually changes the airfoil quite
dramatically. But in addition, rib stitching provides a "ripstop" in case
a portion of the fabric ever decides to go for a Dow. This also applies if
a bay or two needs replacement fabric for any reason (internal rib repair,
torn fabric, etc.) - you have good perimeters to fasten to.
I've never used the "Beech" knots, but will experiment. I agree that the
modified seine knot is a time consumer. Thanks.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Instrument Needs |
Would appreciate input on sources for new/used instruments as follows:
Altimeter - 0 - 20,000
Airspeed - 0 - 150
Tachometer - for 75 Cont. w/out elec.
Cowl mounted compass
T. & B. w/venturi
Oil Temp. and Press.
Thanks,
Dick G.
Ft. Myers, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Instrument Needs |
Dick,,,, I saved hundreds of dollars buying my instruments on line at ebay
in
the aircraft section..... check it out.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
Gillespie
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Instrument Needs
Would appreciate input on sources for new/used instruments as follows:
Altimeter - 0 - 20,000
Airspeed - 0 - 150
Tachometer - for 75 Cont. w/out elec.
Cowl mounted compass
T. & B. w/venturi
Oil Temp. and Press.
Thanks,
Dick G.
Ft. Myers, FL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Instrument Needs |
for used items try Central Air Parts, Staunton, IL. PH 618-635-3252
JoeC
Zion, IL
Richard Gillespie wrote:
>
> Would appreciate input on sources for new/used instruments as follows:
> Altimeter - 0 - 20,000
> Airspeed - 0 - 150
> Tachometer - for 75 Cont. w/out elec.
> Cowl mounted compass
> T. & B. w/venturi
> Oil Temp. and Press.
>
> Thanks,
> Dick G.
> Ft. Myers, FL
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Bravo, Mike Cuy! |
I recommend to all builders and dreamers of Pietenpols, to get Mike's video.
Got it yesterday and only thru half, but it's a great, down to earth,
informative tape.
I've already gotten oodles of ideas from it.
Good work, Mike.
Now I've got a question,,,I'm making my cowling, and wondering what you did
to the alum. around the openings to finish the edge? I've seen some just
roll the edge, and others roll a piece of wire for roundness.
thanks,
walt evans
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard DeCosta <aircamper(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | construction order |
I've come to a sortof impass with my contruction; a chicken and egg
kindof thing... Do you guy enerally install your seats before your
control system, or the other way 'round?
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bravo, Mike Cuy! |
The wire in the rolled edge is not for "roundness" but adds quite a bit of
strength. Without the wire, the best you can do is double the aluminum
back over itself. Once it is flattened, the edge is no stronger than it
was in the first place.
The rolled edge is not as hard as it looks. Get a piece of hard wire (not
too soft!) maybe 3/16" or slightly less. On big biplanes, I use 1/4", but
that is too big for a Piet. Figure out how much metal it takes to roll all
the way around the wire. For 1/4", I think is it about 3/4", for 3/16", I
would guess 1/2". Cut your sheet metal with that much extra all the way
around the cockpit opening, and draw a line where the finished edge should
be.
Take a long piece of square hardwood (1"x1" or something) and cut a narrow
slot in the end of it to the 1/2" (or whatever) depth so that it is a tight
fit on the metal. Then round over one outside edge so that the point is
about the same radius as the wire you are using (I'll explain why in a
second).
Working around the cockpit opening, gradually bend the flange up. It is
easier to bend the flange to the outside so that the wire ends up on the
outside of the metal rather than the inside. Once the padding is on, you
cannot tell the difference anyway (it is on the outside of most of the old
1920's biplanes). When the flange gets to 90 degrees, one side of the
hardwood tool would be flat against the metal, this is why you round off
one side, so that you can bend the flange past 90 degrees and make the
inside radius of the bend about the same size as your wire.
At this point, you may need to trim some of the metal because of
stretching. If you have too much excess, the metal will not roll tightly
around the wire. Too little, though, and it will not hold the wire in
firmly.
Now you are ready to install the wire. There are two ways to do this, your
choice. I personally put the metal on a jig or tie it with safety wire so
that it is in the approximate shape it will be on the airplane. I then
bend the wire to shape to fit in the flange. I have friends, however, who
leave the metal flat on a table, install the wire flat, and bend the entire
piece to fit the airplane after the wire is installed. Personally, I do
not like this method because it makes the metal harder to install without
"scalloping" because it wants to spring back, but with the smaller wire
size on a Piet, it may be perfectly "doable".
Once the wire is laid into the channel, bend the flange on around the wire
tightly. I use a pair of well-worn smooth-jawed duckbill pliers and work
it around gradually. (you WILL have blisters, though!) If you have judged
the length of the excess just right, when the metal gets around so that it
touched itself, it takes a slight "pop" to make it tuck under the edge of
the wire. I do this with a light tack hammer and a sharpened piece of
wood. Once the metal tucks underneath the edge of the wire, it is amazing
how stiff the edge is.
Having said all of this, I am not sure what different ways people are doing
their Piets. I have seen some with no reinforcing at all, which may be OK,
too. On a homebuilt, I have also taken a piece of hard aluminum tubing,
bent it to shape, and riveted it to the edge of the metal. This is very
strong, too, but the hard tubing is a bear to bend into a complex shape.
How's his for an answer to a question that you didn't even ask? If anyone
is interested, and this is too confusing, I can try to make up a couple of
drawings of what I am talking about.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
Richard, I built and installed the seats B-4 putting in the controls and had no
real problem with the controls. the connecting rod between the sticks needed
some notching in the V braces (front seat back) for clearance. -----However,
hindsight being 20-20 , doing it over I would leave one side panel off the fuse
till all controls are in for easier access and would definitely incorporate
Mike Cuy's idea of removable seat tops for future access.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
ps---Brodhead is 2 weeks away and will be my 3rd year attending. hope to be the
last year I'm driving in.
Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> I've come to a sortof impass with my contruction; a chicken and egg
> kindof thing... Do you guy enerally install your seats before your
> control system, or the other way 'round?
>
> =====
> Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
> My Piet project:
> http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Cowling Edges, etc..... |
Now I've got a question,,,I'm making my cowling, and wondering what you did
to the alum. around the openings to finish the edge? I've seen some just
roll the edge, and others roll a piece of wire for roundness.
Walt- Thanks for the kind words about the video.......and now to the
important part- I built ALL of my aluminum parts using .024 or .025"
2024 T3 from Dillsburg Aeroworks, Dillsburg, PA. 717-432-4589.
This is a no-frills supplier for dragster, bike builders, and mostly
aircraft builders. They carry AN hardware (all of it, too.) and tons
of 4130 sheet steel, tubing, etc. etc. They ship very quickly and
go the old-fashioned route of you send a check back when you get
the stuff. Nice. Anyway, the only edges that I finished with rounded
or hemmed seams were the engine cooling eyebrow baffles, and those
were made of 2024-0 , or what they call "dead soft" aluminum.
I patterned mine right from Cub eyebrows with some fitting and
cutting to clear my cowling installation. ( I loaned the pattens and
they are long gone I'm afraid.) The front edge of those cooling baffles
have a piece of 1/16" diam. wire rolled into them, or sandwiched
in a folded or hemmed seam. I took a piece of 1/4 inch plywood,
laid the posterboard pattern over it, cut it to shape, sanded over the
edge a bit, and used a rubber mallet to coax the -0 aluminum over
the edge. You tuck the reinforcing wire in that bend and slowly
hammer the hem over it. I think I used a piece of pine to soften
the blow marks on the alum...but no one really looks at them
once you paint them with barbecue stove paint to take the heat.
.025" thick alum. does seem much too light for cowlings, cockpit
covers, etc....but it is not. It flops around off the plane, but
installed it holds its own. Look at Tony Bingelis's words on methods
of cowling installations and you cannot go wrong. It doesn't
seem like enough to hold the thing in place, but boy it works just fine.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chicken or the Egg--sort of |
Richard,
Were we to do it again, we would put the seat in after
the control system. Or at least not glue the seat bottoms
on untill afterwards.
But with the seats in, we were able to go flying with
"Walter Mitty" time and again.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Gene, the discription of the cockpit combing
comes at the right time. I didn't want to just put padding
on the sheet metal as it still leaves a sharp edge underneath
and is flimsy at that.
You did a good job of clearly describing the process.
Rodger
Piet in progress
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | construction order |
Richard,,, When I built the fuse,, I left off the side plys and built the
seat frames. Worked out well. I also have removable seat bottoms.Once the
controls were done, I attached the ply sides and started the gear,,,
a whole other story.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Richard
DeCosta
Subject: Pietenpol-List: construction order
I've come to a sortof impass with my contruction; a chicken and egg
kindof thing... Do you guy enerally install your seats before your
control system, or the other way 'round?
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Firewall- hold off on installing this. |
Richard- The very last thing I did on the fuselage was to
install the 1/8" plywood firewall......because otherwise you'll
need to visit your local chiropractor when trying to fit and
install your front seat controls, especially the rudder pedals.
What is even better is if you mount your engine temporarily
and run ALL of your controls without the firewall installed,
(or just screwed in so it's removable.) and see where all your
services run thru the firewall area. Take some posterboard
and cut it out around all those engine controls and such to
see where each line will come thru your firewall, then transfer
those holes to your plywood and sheet metal firewall for
placement. Sure makes life easier. If you've already glued
your plywood firewall in place, consider cutting it out and
saving yourself a ton of hassle.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Cowling Edges, etc..... |
Mike,,, As to your reference to Tony Bingelis,,, I remember you and others
talking
about his books. Well as far as all the tech manuals,books,plans,etc that
I've
had to get for this project,,, his is the best for dialing in problems. I'm
working
on my panel at the moment and his book is really helping. I highly recomend
it.
I got to grab a cessna and hop over your way to see your plane in person.
I'm in Toledo so it should be a good little cruise.
Carl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D
Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cowling Edges, etc.....
Now I've got a question,,,I'm making my cowling, and wondering what you did
to the alum. around the openings to finish the edge? I've seen some just
roll the edge, and others roll a piece of wire for roundness.
Walt- Thanks for the kind words about the video.......and now to the
important part- I built ALL of my aluminum parts using .024 or .025"
2024 T3 from Dillsburg Aeroworks, Dillsburg, PA. 717-432-4589.
This is a no-frills supplier for dragster, bike builders, and mostly
aircraft builders. They carry AN hardware (all of it, too.) and tons
of 4130 sheet steel, tubing, etc. etc. They ship very quickly and
go the old-fashioned route of you send a check back when you get
the stuff. Nice. Anyway, the only edges that I finished with rounded
or hemmed seams were the engine cooling eyebrow baffles, and those
were made of 2024-0 , or what they call "dead soft" aluminum.
I patterned mine right from Cub eyebrows with some fitting and
cutting to clear my cowling installation. ( I loaned the pattens and
they are long gone I'm afraid.) The front edge of those cooling baffles
have a piece of 1/16" diam. wire rolled into them, or sandwiched
in a folded or hemmed seam. I took a piece of 1/4 inch plywood,
laid the posterboard pattern over it, cut it to shape, sanded over the
edge a bit, and used a rubber mallet to coax the -0 aluminum over
the edge. You tuck the reinforcing wire in that bend and slowly
hammer the hem over it. I think I used a piece of pine to soften
the blow marks on the alum...but no one really looks at them
once you paint them with barbecue stove paint to take the heat.
.025" thick alum. does seem much too light for cowlings, cockpit
covers, etc....but it is not. It flops around off the plane, but
installed it holds its own. Look at Tony Bingelis's words on methods
of cowling installations and you cannot go wrong. It doesn't
seem like enough to hold the thing in place, but boy it works just fine.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Flite407(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
Hey Guys
Can anyone tell me where Brodhead is and what the dates are, I would like to
try to get up there if I can. Thanx
Gary
New Orleans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
For those of us not fortunate enough to be going to Osh or
Broadhead, and would still like to do something interesting the weekend
of July 29-30, and can make it to So. Calif....
The Corvair engine gang will be gathering at Brackett Field in La
Verne, CA for a weekend of hangar flying and corvair engine discussion.
We will have several corvair engines in various stages of completion and
modification. We will also have Bob Sutcliff of SC Performance who
builds a 3100cc 500 HP version of the corvair for sandrails, along with
his expertise and parts bin. We will also have a Rinker Redrive parts
set available for inspection.
This is just an informal "experimental and educational" gathering of
"Vairheads" who are interested or just curious about using the Corvair
engine in aircraft.
We also expect to have KR, Qtypes and Pietenpol folks drive/fly in
sometime during this week-end.
If anyone has any interest, please e-mail me off line for more info.
Cheers,
Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | front seat bottom |
Have any of you put a reinforcement in the front seat bottom? I am
uncomfortable having the sharp end of the rudder bar pivot in a position to
impale the front seat passenger in a crash. A small steel plate maybe?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Brodhead, 2000 Information |
This info below is from Grant's Piet web site:
Brodhead, Wisconsin. THE Pietenpol gathering of the year. In 2000 we
celebrate the 71st anniversary of Bernard Pietenpol's first flight of his
2-place Ford-powered monoplane that became know as the "Air
Camper."
The annual gathering of Pietenpol airplanes is a "laid-back" affair that's
been held at the Brodhead, Wisconsin airport for the past 24 years.
Brodhead has lots to see; maybe two dozen Pietenpols (many of them with
Ford 'A' engines), good food, usually including a pork chop roast Friday
evening and/or brats and corn on Saturday. Nothing "official," no
registration, no prizes, good conversation, possible Pietenpol rides, and
camping 'under the trees' on the field if desired.
Ample room for motor homes. Small donation for camping requested and
most attendees donate something to purchase a 'Reunion' souvenir button.
Donations cover the costs for trash collection, toilets, etc.
Bring a notebook. Bring a camera. Bring two rulers -- you'll wear out
one!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Brodhead, 2000 Information |
Opps....the most important part is that Brodhead
will be held Friday the 28th, Saturday the 29th, and
Sunday the 30th of July....with Saturday usually being
the best day.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Combing |
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cockpit Combing
<childsway@indian-creek.net>
>
>Thanks Gene, the discription of the cockpit combing
>comes at the right time. I didn't want to just put padding
>on the sheet metal as it still leaves a sharp edge underneath
>and is flimsy at that.
I made the combing by using tubular foam which was slotted to fit over the
combing edge, layed on the cockpit sides, then overlayed with a strip of
quilted synthetic fabric. It was then sewn to the metal combing with leather
lacing ( small holes drilled into the combing ) & fixed to the cokpit sides
with small screws.
No sharp edges, not flimsy.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
Richard,
We installed the seats first althought the aft or pilot's seat bottom is
still not glued down. we found we had to modify the vee shaped hole at
the forward seat back inorder to get the fore/aft stick interconnect rod
to fit.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Combing |
We had thought about putting the rubber foam over the comming edges but
this can still be cut in case of impact. The airport operator where we
have our project says to get some stiff plastic tubing with a slitin it
to cover the edges first, then put on the foam and cover with leather or
whatever. The plastic tubing is harder and will not cut a easily.
Rolling the edges sounds like the best bet though. I like this idea.
An old Stearman I restored years ago had a garden hose under the
covering and this had been cut in couple of places. The Stearman also
had an aluminum tube running along the side below the padding to
reinforce the comming. This tube had also been broken from use.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
the Brodhead dates are July 28, 29 & 30. If you look at your road atlas of
Wisc., find Janesville, far south near IL line and roughly central state, look
west to Monroe, than find Brodhead roughly between the two.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
Flite407(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hey Guys
> Can anyone tell me where Brodhead is and what the dates are, I would like to
> try to get up there if I can. Thanx
> Gary
> New Orleans
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
>
>Have any of you put a reinforcement in the front seat bottom? I am
>uncomfortable having the sharp end of the rudder bar pivot in a position to
>impale the front seat passenger in a crash. A small steel plate maybe?
Front seat bottom?
Make it removable.
Rudder bar pivot? There is a single pivot. I noticed after many hrs of
flying that the bar had vertical motion. I inspected the bolt & it was OK &
decided that the motion was in the nature of the long arm from the pivot
bolt to the end of the rudder bar.
To eliminate this motion & the stabilize the bar, I placed two fore & aft
runners between the seat supports on either side. Thus, the rudder bar rides
on these supports & is in effect, stabilized.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cockpit Combing |
I left off the part about the cockpit padding because I had already offered
advice no one had asked for. You usually cannot find foam pipe insulation
with a hole smaller than 1/2", which is too big and loose fitting. I
usually put on a piece of rubber hose that fits the rolled edge on the
inside and is the same OD as the inside of the foam insulation. This may
be unnecessarily heavy on a Piet, though.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
----------
> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat bottom
> Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 3:27 PM
>
> Front seat bottom?
>
> Make it removable.
>
Mike, I meant that the bottom is only 1/16" plywood and not much protection
from the pointed pivot. Removable has nothing to do with it. Just
wondering if that has bothered anyone else and whether they have come up
with a solution
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
I crashed and there was absolutely no movement of the control bar or rudder
bar at all.
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
Richard Hi,
I haven't talked to you for a while. How are you. I see you are progressing
well. I put my controls in after I had put in the seat. Not much difficulty
there. Joe C. mentioned to notch out the front seat "V" supports for
clearance. You need to think about that for a minute. I too thought I needed
it for clearance and actually notched one side. I definitely regretted doing
that. The notches are not on the drawings, nor have I seen anyone else's
Piet. with notches. I thought the connecting rod between the front and rear
cockpit needed the clearance but in actual fact the aileron travel is not
that great and is not needed. I regretted cutting the notch thinking it
would weaken the structure, but in actual fact there was no failure in that
area from my crash, which was sort of flat/forward direction. The Pilot's
seat back cracked open from the weight of my back along the bottom of the
seat.
Regards,
Domenico Bellissimo
Pietenpol Survivor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard DeCosta <aircamper(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: construction order |
What was it that actually caused your crash again? Are you in the air
again yet?
--- Domenico Bellissimo wrote:
>
>
> Richard Hi,
>
> I haven't talked to you for a while. How are you. I see you are
> progressing
> well. I put my controls in after I had put in the seat. Not much
> difficulty
> there. Joe C. mentioned to notch out the front seat "V" supports for
> clearance. You need to think about that for a minute. I too thought I
> needed
> it for clearance and actually notched one side. I definitely
> regretted doing
> that. The notches are not on the drawings, nor have I seen anyone
> else's
> Piet. with notches. I thought the connecting rod between the front
> and rear
> cockpit needed the clearance but in actual fact the aileron travel is
> not
> that great and is not needed. I regretted cutting the notch thinking
> it
> would weaken the structure, but in actual fact there was no failure
> in that
> area from my crash, which was sort of flat/forward direction. The
> Pilot's
> seat back cracked open from the weight of my back along the bottom of
> the
> seat.
>
> Regards,
> Domenico Bellissimo
> Pietenpol Survivor
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JOEL CARROLL <drcarroll_2000(at)yahoo.com> |
i have the opportunity to purchase a 160 hp
continental complete, mags,starter, carb,etc NO
LOGS.is this a deal,and what should i look out for?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | spark plugs , wire, etc. |
Talking to a friend who flew his A-65 with plugs that he got from this
place. He used #D16 18mm. they are only $2.50 ea. Even stock the wire ends
( mag and plug) . So you can make up your own harness.
Also this place has all other parts for Mags. and other old stuff. Haven't
heard this discussed before, so I thought I'd mention it.
http://www.magnetoparts.com/
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
----------
> From: Domenico Bellissimo
> Date: Friday, July 14, 2000 8:01 PM
>
> I crashed and there was absolutely no movement of the control bar or
rudder
> bar at all.
> Domenico
>
>
Domenico:
I am not worried about the rudder bar moving. I am concerned about the
seat collapsing down onto the pivot and impaling the front passenger. I
would have thought someone else had considered this danger and addressed
it.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
>
>
>I am not worried about the rudder bar moving. I am concerned about the
>seat collapsing down onto the pivot and impaling the front passenger. I
>would have thought someone else had considered this danger and addressed
>it.
>
> Gene
Hey Gene:
In answer to your question, I think that if there was sufficient vertical
force to collapse the front seat, impaling the front passenger woud be the
least of your problems.
In all the fatal Piet accidents that I have reviewed, structural failure of
the aircraft was not a factor.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
----------
> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
> In all the fatal Piet accidents that I have reviewed, structural failure
of
> the aircraft was not a factor.
Mike:
Neither am I worried about a structural failure of the aircraft. If you
had said that you had never seen a structural failure of a seat bottom, I
would be more interested. How many fatal Piet accidents are you talking
about?
I do not think an accident with a downward force sufficient to collapse the
seat bottom is all that remote or otherwise unsurvivable. The seat bottom
structure is not all that strong.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
Gene,
Since this topic has started, I had the chance to study the rudder bar
assy on my project ( built it a while ago).
I don't see what you would get impaled on. The only thing rising above the
solid cross bar is the brace bracket end and a nut. Now consider that you
are sitting on 1/4" ply seat , and that has three 1" thk supports running
fore and aft. In a downward thrust the seat would contact the flat rudder
bar, and "flatly" push it down. I think the legs of the support would bend,
or be pushed thru the floor.
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene and Karen Rambo <rambog(at)erols.com>
Date: Sunday, July 16, 2000 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat bottom
>
>
>----------
>> From: Michael Brusilow <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
>
>> In all the fatal Piet accidents that I have reviewed, structural failure
>of
>> the aircraft was not a factor.
>
>Mike:
>
>Neither am I worried about a structural failure of the aircraft. If you
>had said that you had never seen a structural failure of a seat bottom, I
>would be more interested. How many fatal Piet accidents are you talking
>about?
>
>I do not think an accident with a downward force sufficient to collapse the
>seat bottom is all that remote or otherwise unsurvivable. The seat bottom
>structure is not all that strong.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
In a downward thrust the seat would contact the flat rudder
> bar, and "flatly" push it down. I think the legs of the support would
bend,
> or be pushed thru the floor.
Walt:
You're probably right. Maybe I am giving too much credit to the strength
of the rudder pivot support.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | For Sale Cont. A 65 |
Continental A 65 for Sale.
457 hrs,. since factory reman.. New slick mags & wiring harness. New
Spark plugs. Stromberg Carb.. Includes logs. $3750.00 US$ plus
shipping.
duane@mo-net.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sale Cont. A 65 |
This sounds interesting. Where are you located. I was planning to engine
shop at OSH. I am in St. Paul, MN.
Dick Navratil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane" <duane@mo-net.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: For Sale Cont. A 65
>
> Continental A 65 for Sale.
> 457 hrs,. since factory reman.. New slick mags & wiring harness. New
> Spark plugs. Stromberg Carb.. Includes logs. $3750.00 US$ plus
> shipping.
> duane@mo-net.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Joel,
If you were to buy such an engine it would be best to overhaul it.
Unless you know for certain the absolute history of the engine and why it
was removed from its former aircraft you won't know what condition it is
in. Even if you were to take compression and find this to be excellent,
you still won't know if it will swallow a valve on its first flight or if
the crankshaft is cracked or any other myriad details. Lycoming engines
have had a lot of trouble with oil pumps and the system that Lycoming
uses to drive its oil pump is its one real weak link. If you were to buy
such an engine, pay only enough so that you can come out OK after
overhaul. The current owner will virtually have to give it away.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol Family Web Site |
As many of you know, to obtain plans, information, and
purchase costs, the Pietenpol family has a web site for
all of us.....that was down for a while but is back in
operation. This is a good place to start for everyone.
http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp/
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RBush96589(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | broadhead parking |
Does any body know if there is room for a tractor trailer to park at
Broadhead,or maybe a place close by to drop a trailer and just come in the
tractor?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: broadhead parking |
I don't think I would hesitate stopping by. the tractor trailer rig might be
frowned on at the field but the main drag (E-W) just north of the field should
be no problem for the trailer. if I remember on the south side of the road is
a bit of a frontage road with several small businesses. this IS a small rural
town and the week-ends find this frontage road mostly deserted. FWIW
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
RBush96589(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Does any body know if there is room for a tractor trailer to park at
> Broadhead,or maybe a place close by to drop a trailer and just come in the
> tractor?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RBush96589(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | broadhead parking |
Thanks Joe for the information, I will be at Oshkosh Wednesday, Thursday and
Friday and I really would like to go to broadhead Saturday if I can get
things worked out with the parking this way I can make money while I have
fun!
Thanks again,
Robert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Woodflier(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead. I'll be
flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a "Non-Piet"? I'm
building a Piet, 3-pc wing, Cont. A-65.; wing ribs are built, and left wing
is essentially done.
Matt Paxton
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
somebody correct me if I'm wrong but I've always felt that this is a let your
hair down, everyone is welcome affair. there has for the past few years that I've
attended been many other homebuilt as well as factory built aircraft in
attendance.
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
Woodflier(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead. I'll be
> flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a "Non-Piet"? I'm
> building a Piet, 3-pc wing, Cont. A-65.; wing ribs are built, and left wing
> is essentially done.
>
> Matt Paxton
>
> _
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
>
>I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead. I'll be
>flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a "Non-Piet"?
Matt ! Absolutely no problem for you to fly in with a non-Piet.
Lots of other aircraft types are not only are based there, but fly-in for the
weekend. You'll see everything from OX-5 powered Waco's to Piper
Saratogas. Many people simply tie down and put their tents right under
the wings.....Piets and others alike. People with campers, RV's, and other
tents pretty much gather between the road and the Chapter hangar/hall area
which is close to where they eat, socialize, restroom facilities, and
pavilion. (shade) The Piets park on the other side of the chapter
hangar. Note the main runway of use is the EAST-WEST and generally
the diagonal runway is X-ed out and closed for landings and takeoffs during
the weekend. This facilitates a nice traffic flow for those giving rides and
coming and going. The peak flying activities seem to be morning and
evening for more gentle wind conditions, but something is always in the
air it seems. Left hand traffic prevails with no unicom that I know of in
use. See and be seen. The E-W runway is smooth, wide, and long.
I've seen twins, amphibians, and T-6's come and go easily.
I know this is more than you asked, but I'm providing it as background
for those who may be attending for the first time.
There are NO motels in Brodhead. They do have a McDonalds, Post
Office, grocery store, some churches and a car dealer....misc small
restaurants, laundry mat, etc. etc....but no motels. We have
stayed in Monroe from time to time which is quite nice.
Don't expect to sleep in if you camp....there is always some Piet
pilot.....who most want to strangle later in the day.....who takes to the
air on Sat. and Sun mornings before sunrise and does a dozen or so
low passes up and down the runways. It always happens when you
are finally perfectly sound asleep too :)) !!
There is 80 octane available on the airport....and I'm not sure about
this but I think 100LL too. Almost positive. (as of last year, that is.)
Take notes, take photos, take videos if you can, and absorb as
much info as you can and get all the ideas that you want to incorporate
(or avoid) in your Air Camper. Don't forget to buy an awesome Piet
hat from good Utah buddy Steve Eldredge who will be driving in this
year with his family. Steve was our discussion group guru and
administrator for several years and was the one who got this whole
group rolling on-line. Am I boring you yet ?
You'll have fun, I'm sure.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
Packing the Suburban tonight!!!!!
On the road Friday. Mike C. I hope you show up, I'll be ground bound this
year, so you will have to do the dawn patrol honors :)
And yes I have hats. Red, blue and green ones. I've been looking forward
to this for months and I am so anxious to get there again. Didn't think I'd
make it for a long time, but were going. --Might even make it up to OSH for
a day.... maybe.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D
Cuy
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead
>
>I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead. I'll
be
>flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a "Non-Piet"?
Matt ! Absolutely no problem for you to fly in with a non-Piet.
Lots of other aircraft types are not only are based there, but fly-in for
the
weekend. You'll see everything from OX-5 powered Waco's to Piper
Saratogas. Many people simply tie down and put their tents right under
the wings.....Piets and others alike. People with campers, RV's, and other
tents pretty much gather between the road and the Chapter hangar/hall area
which is close to where they eat, socialize, restroom facilities, and
pavilion. (shade) The Piets park on the other side of the chapter
hangar. Note the main runway of use is the EAST-WEST and generally
the diagonal runway is X-ed out and closed for landings and takeoffs during
the weekend. This facilitates a nice traffic flow for those giving rides
and
coming and going. The peak flying activities seem to be morning and
evening for more gentle wind conditions, but something is always in the
air it seems. Left hand traffic prevails with no unicom that I know of in
use. See and be seen. The E-W runway is smooth, wide, and long.
I've seen twins, amphibians, and T-6's come and go easily.
I know this is more than you asked, but I'm providing it as background
for those who may be attending for the first time.
There are NO motels in Brodhead. They do have a McDonalds, Post
Office, grocery store, some churches and a car dealer....misc small
restaurants, laundry mat, etc. etc....but no motels. We have
stayed in Monroe from time to time which is quite nice.
Don't expect to sleep in if you camp....there is always some Piet
pilot.....who most want to strangle later in the day.....who takes to the
air on Sat. and Sun mornings before sunrise and does a dozen or so
low passes up and down the runways. It always happens when you
are finally perfectly sound asleep too :)) !!
There is 80 octane available on the airport....and I'm not sure about
this but I think 100LL too. Almost positive. (as of last year, that is.)
Take notes, take photos, take videos if you can, and absorb as
much info as you can and get all the ideas that you want to incorporate
(or avoid) in your Air Camper. Don't forget to buy an awesome Piet
hat from good Utah buddy Steve Eldredge who will be driving in this
year with his family. Steve was our discussion group guru and
administrator for several years and was the one who got this whole
group rolling on-line. Am I boring you yet ?
You'll have fun, I'm sure.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Oshkosh to Broadhead |
Does anyone know anyone going from Oshkosh to Broadhead next friday morning?
Doug Bryant and I desperatly need a ride !! We'll rent a car if all else
fails. Please e-mail me directly rcaprd(at)aol.com
thanks
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
Thanks for the details. I was concerned about bringing my twin in there.
My chart lists the runway as 2400' . Does that sound about right?
Thanks
Dick Navratil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead
>
> >
> >I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead.
I'll be
> >flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a "Non-Piet"?
>
> Matt ! Absolutely no problem for you to fly in with a non-Piet.
> Lots of other aircraft types are not only are based there, but fly-in for
the
> weekend. You'll see everything from OX-5 powered Waco's to Piper
> Saratogas. Many people simply tie down and put their tents right under
> the wings.....Piets and others alike. People with campers, RV's, and
other
> tents pretty much gather between the road and the Chapter hangar/hall area
> which is close to where they eat, socialize, restroom facilities, and
> pavilion. (shade) The Piets park on the other side of the chapter
> hangar. Note the main runway of use is the EAST-WEST and generally
> the diagonal runway is X-ed out and closed for landings and takeoffs
during
> the weekend. This facilitates a nice traffic flow for those giving rides
and
> coming and going. The peak flying activities seem to be morning and
> evening for more gentle wind conditions, but something is always in the
> air it seems. Left hand traffic prevails with no unicom that I know of
in
> use. See and be seen. The E-W runway is smooth, wide, and long.
> I've seen twins, amphibians, and T-6's come and go easily.
> I know this is more than you asked, but I'm providing it as background
> for those who may be attending for the first time.
> There are NO motels in Brodhead. They do have a McDonalds, Post
> Office, grocery store, some churches and a car dealer....misc small
> restaurants, laundry mat, etc. etc....but no motels. We have
> stayed in Monroe from time to time which is quite nice.
> Don't expect to sleep in if you camp....there is always some Piet
> pilot.....who most want to strangle later in the day.....who takes to the
> air on Sat. and Sun mornings before sunrise and does a dozen or so
> low passes up and down the runways. It always happens when you
> are finally perfectly sound asleep too :)) !!
> There is 80 octane available on the airport....and I'm not sure about
> this but I think 100LL too. Almost positive. (as of last year, that
is.)
> Take notes, take photos, take videos if you can, and absorb as
> much info as you can and get all the ideas that you want to incorporate
> (or avoid) in your Air Camper. Don't forget to buy an awesome Piet
> hat from good Utah buddy Steve Eldredge who will be driving in this
> year with his family. Steve was our discussion group guru and
> administrator for several years and was the one who got this whole
> group rolling on-line. Am I boring you yet ?
> You'll have fun, I'm sure.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Runway Length at Brodhead |
>
>Thanks for the details. I was concerned about bringing my twin in there.
>My chart lists the runway as 2400' . Does that sound about right?
>Thanks
>Dick Navratil
Runway 9/27
Dimensions: 2430 x 155 ft. / 741 x 47 m
300 FT STWY W END & 535 FT STWY E END.
Surface: turf, in fair condition
Runway edge lights: low intensity
Runway edge markings: /27 MARKED BY ORANGE & WHITE HALF BARRELS.
RUNWAY 9 RUNWAY 27
Traffic pattern: left left
Runway end identifier lights: no no
Centerline lights: no no
Displaced threshold: no no
Touchdown point: no no
Obstructions: TREE TREES
Location
Lat/Long: 42-35-30.035N / 089-22-30.419W
(42.5916764 / -89.3751164)
(estimated)
Elevation: 793 ft. / 242 m (estimated)
Variation: 00E (1985)
From city: 2 miles S of BRODHEAD, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
Dick, I think the longest runway is longer than 2400 but others on here
know better than I. There was a P-51 operating out of there last year, and
several twins, so I don't think you will have a problem.
----------
> From: Richard Navratil <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead
> Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 11:34 PM
>
>
> Thanks for the details. I was concerned about bringing my twin in there.
> My chart lists the runway as 2400' . Does that sound about right?
> Thanks
> Dick Navratil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)lerc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2000 2:47 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead
>
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >I'll be at Oshkosh and would like to come down for a day to Brodhead.
> I'll be
> > >flying a Bellanca 260. Is there a problem with flying in in a
"Non-Piet"?
> >
> > Matt ! Absolutely no problem for you to fly in with a non-Piet.
> > Lots of other aircraft types are not only are based there, but fly-in
for
> the
> > weekend. You'll see everything from OX-5 powered Waco's to Piper
> > Saratogas. Many people simply tie down and put their tents right under
> > the wings.....Piets and others alike. People with campers, RV's, and
> other
> > tents pretty much gather between the road and the Chapter hangar/hall
area
> > which is close to where they eat, socialize, restroom facilities,
and
> > pavilion. (shade) The Piets park on the other side of the chapter
> > hangar. Note the main runway of use is the EAST-WEST and generally
> > the diagonal runway is X-ed out and closed for landings and takeoffs
> during
> > the weekend. This facilitates a nice traffic flow for those giving
rides
> and
> > coming and going. The peak flying activities seem to be morning and
> > evening for more gentle wind conditions, but something is always in
the
> > air it seems. Left hand traffic prevails with no unicom that I know
of
> in
> > use. See and be seen. The E-W runway is smooth, wide, and long.
> > I've seen twins, amphibians, and T-6's come and go easily.
> > I know this is more than you asked, but I'm providing it as background
> > for those who may be attending for the first time.
> > There are NO motels in Brodhead. They do have a McDonalds, Post
> > Office, grocery store, some churches and a car dealer....misc small
> > restaurants, laundry mat, etc. etc....but no motels. We have
> > stayed in Monroe from time to time which is quite nice.
> > Don't expect to sleep in if you camp....there is always some Piet
> > pilot.....who most want to strangle later in the day.....who takes to
the
> > air on Sat. and Sun mornings before sunrise and does a dozen or so
> > low passes up and down the runways. It always happens when you
> > are finally perfectly sound asleep too :)) !!
> > There is 80 octane available on the airport....and I'm not sure about
> > this but I think 100LL too. Almost positive. (as of last year, that
> is.)
> > Take notes, take photos, take videos if you can, and absorb as
> > much info as you can and get all the ideas that you want to incorporate
> > (or avoid) in your Air Camper. Don't forget to buy an awesome Piet
> > hat from good Utah buddy Steve Eldredge who will be driving in this
> > year with his family. Steve was our discussion group guru and
> > administrator for several years and was the one who got this whole
> > group rolling on-line. Am I boring you yet ?
> > You'll have fun, I'm sure.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh to Broadhead |
I'll be there at oshkosh and will be driving down one
of the days, I'll see if I can find you guys out of
the masses.
del
--- Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Does anyone know anyone going from Oshkosh to
> Broadhead next friday morning?
> Doug Bryant and I desperatly need a ride !! We'll
> rent a car if all else
> fails. Please e-mail me directly rcaprd(at)aol.com
> thanks
> Chuck Gantzer
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Runway Length at Brodhead |
What is the identifier for Brodhead??
Wanted to look it up on my moving map.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Runway Length at Brodhead |
C36 if I remember right....
check www.airnav.com great site.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg Yotz
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
What is the identifier for Brodhead??
Wanted to look it up on my moving map.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Runway Length at Brodhead |
oops it is C37
c36 c37 whatever it takes.... :)
Steve E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
Eldredge
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
C36 if I remember right....
check www.airnav.com great site.
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg Yotz
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
What is the identifier for Brodhead??
Wanted to look it up on my moving map.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Runway Length at Brodhead |
Thanks Steve. C37 was it. But my database in the AnywhereMap didn't have
runway info. Did learn that Brodhead is 90.9nm from Osh.
Sure wish I was flying my Piet instead of driving....
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu>
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2000 10:45 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
>
>oops it is C37
>
>c36 c37 whatever it takes.... :)
>
>Steve E
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Steve
>Eldredge
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 8:28 AM
>To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
>
>
>C36 if I remember right....
>
>check www.airnav.com great site.
>
>Stevee
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg Yotz
>Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2000 7:56 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Runway Length at Brodhead
>
>
>What is the identifier for Brodhead??
>Wanted to look it up on my moving map.
>
>Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: "Other" aircraft at Brodhead |
I enjoyed the early morning fly-bys. I knew somebody else was up.
John Langston
Pipe Creek, TX
nle97(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard L Dery <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
| Subject: | Tail feathers construction |
I apologize, but a little while ago someone described how they built up
their vertical fin, rudder, horizontal stab, and elevators. Usually I save
these Piet list messages in a special mailbox, but I missed this one. If
someone has a copy of this letter could you please forward a copy to me
(dickdery(at)teleport.com)
Thank you
Dick Dery
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "oil can" <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | wicks a/c supply |
Does anybody know if WICKS is on the net ?
I cant find them thru any search engine, and havn't seen their ads in any
magazines lately.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Dayton <dayton(at)netwalk.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wicks a/c supply |
> From: "oil can" <oilcanbob(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wicks a/c supply
>
>
> Does anybody know if WICKS is on the net ?
>
> I cant find them thru any search engine, and havn't seen their ads in any
> magazines lately.
>
www.wicks.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wicks a/c supply |
don't know of a web site but their e-mail address is
aircraft(at)wicks.com
regards
JoeC
Zion, IL
oil can wrote:
>
> Does anybody know if WICKS is on the net ?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wicks a/c supply |
According to their catalog they are online at: wicks.com/aircraft
Their E-mail address is: aircraft(at)wicks.com
DickG.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | fishin <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Piet project w/Cont. A65 plus |
> . Never thought I'd be doing this but since my wife developed an arthritic
> condition in her knees and will never be able to enjoy flying in the Piet. I'm
> putting my Piet project up for sale. seems a shame being within a year of
> completing. It appears that I'm well on my way to buying an Ercoupe and can't
> afford 2 planes. let me describe the project;
> Engine- Cont A65, 1140 total time, 0 hrs SMOH by A&P teacher for United
> Airlines as class project for A&P students. have all logs. engine run in on
> test cell with test club installed. engine is complete minus eyebrows which
I
> have cut out but not yet formed.
> Prop- Mcauley metal prop, 7148, better than excellent condition valued at
> ($800/$1000)
> Fuselage-short fuse completed and varnished. all spruce
> Instruments- all VFR and installed but not connected
> Controls- completed and installed, sticks connected to walking bar,
> rudder bar & front pedals installed but not connected
> Landing gear- compression spring suspension completed and mounted, split axle
w/
> Cleveland wheels and brakes, (brakes not installed yet)
> Metal components- all horns and brackets completed.
> Tail assembly- completed, varnished with all horns and brackets attached
>
> Tail wheel- Scott steerable with leaf spring.
> have all cables, thimbles, nicopress sleeves and turnbuckles to complete.
> Fuel tank- have custom made welded aluminum fuselage tanks mounted approx 16+
> gal.
> have many misc parts and hardware to go with it.
> Wing- all ribs completed, have center section spars and am currently working
on
> center section of 3 piece wing.
> will let it go for $5500. I'm located approx 125 miles south of Oshkosh in
Zion
> IL. I will have flyers at Brodhead with pictures. If you have an interest or
know
> of someone who does, give a call and stop by for a look-see. At Brodhead look
for
> the red Ford Explorer and I'm the guy with the grey beard wearing one of SteveE's
> green caps with my name on the back. I'll be at Brodhead on sat only with
> pictures of the project. this is a good deal for someone wanting a jump start
on
> their project with a great engine.
> regards
> Joe Czaplicki
> Zion, IL
> 847-872-2617
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
Richard,
I neglected to screw on the nut holding the spark lead on to the spark plug.
the lead was in the hole but I did not screw the nut to lock it in place. It
was cyl. #5, starboard/front. Got to 120 feet and mushed to 75 feet. Then I
stalled very abruptly and sharp to the left. I only had 75 feet to work with
so I very lucky to alive. I kick right rudder, momentarily put the stick
forward, and right ailerons at the same time, then just before entering a
spin I pulled up elevator and was coming out of the forward dive. I was just
rounding out when I hit with slight right wing down. Hit the corn, snapped
the right wing at the lift struts, rotated 180 degrees from where I was
coming from. The undercarriage collapsed into a pretzel and the forward fuse
from the 1st station ripped off separating the engine from the Fuse. Most of
the energy dissipated away from me when that happened. All this happened in
about 2 seconds flat. My chin hit the turtle deck covering the pilot's
instrument panel and it went flying through the air with the GPS I had just
installed that morning. I hit the ground sort of flat, but in a forward
motion. The forward speed was low probably about 20 knots. I now know where
my stall speed is = 30 Knots on the nose. I have not rebuilt yet. I just
haven't got the inclination to do so yet, but I will. I have sent a Lyc.
O-235- C (100 H.P.) engine to the shop and am just waiting to see how much
it will cost (I expect $10K. Can.) I really don't have the money to pay them
though. I will not go to Brodhead this year, this way I'll save a few bucks
and put it toward the re-build. I have been thinking of building the Wittman
Buttercup. A friend near Rochester is preparing professional drawings the
plane. There are only two in existence. One at the museum in Oshkosh the
other in his shop. It is in the process of being built. I hope to be his
first customer. The Lyc. would be the perfect engine for it. As for the
Corvair, I am going to re-engineer a redrive for it. A friend has engineered
one for his V.W. but it needs to be scaled up a little. It's better than any
I've seen on the market. If you go to Brodhead say hello to everyone for me.
Keep in Touch,
Domenico Bellissimo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: front seat bottom |
--- Gene and Karen Rambo wrote:
> Karen Rambo"
>
>
> ----------
> > From: Michael Brusilow
>
>
> > In all the fatal Piet accidents that I have
> reviewed, structural failure
> of
> > the aircraft was not a factor.
>
> Mike:
>
> Neither am I worried about a structural failure of
> the aircraft. If you
> had said that you had never seen a structural
> failure of a seat bottom, I
> would be more interested. How many fatal Piet
> accidents are you talking
> about?
>
> I do not think an accident with a downward force
> sufficient to collapse the
> seat bottom is all that remote or otherwise
> unsurvivable. The seat bottom
> structure is not all that strong.
>
IF the airplane survives, YOU wont!!
energy absorsion is important in airplanes (and cars),
heavier built airplanes are more dangerous than "by
the plans" ones...
Saludos
Gary Gower
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: fatal Piet accidents |
-----Original Message-----
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, July 21, 2000 9:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: front seat bottom
>
>> ----------
>> > From: Michael Brusilow
>>
>>
>> > In all the fatal Piet accidents that I have
>> reviewed, structural failure
>> of
>> > the aircraft was not a factor.
>>
>> Mike:
>>
How many fatal Piet
>> accidents are you talking
>> about?
A while ago I reveiwed all Piet accidents, 50 in all, from 1966 to 1990.
To summarize:
stall spin - 30%
ground loop - 10%
engine failure - 22%
fatalities - 14%
serious injuries - 16%
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh to Broadhead |
In a message dated 7/20/00 7:08:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com writes:
<< I'll be there at oshkosh and will be driving down one
of the days, I'll see if I can find you guys out of
the masses.
del >>
Hey del, I'll be wearing my trusty ol' Pietenpol hat, with a red bill. It's
almost a one of a kind hat !
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Mosher <docshop(at)famvid.com> |
| Subject: | Free online NOAA charts |
AeroPlanner.com provides pilots with some planning tools and data available
in the Internet.
You can view all the NOAA charts online, acess FAA navigation data bases,
plot routes based on airports and navaids, etc. At least that is what
AeroPlanner claims. At any rate, it seems like a nice source.
Ring up http://www.aeroplanner.com or http://aerochart.com for details.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Richar Decosta |
Sorry to hear about that Domenico. Just glad to hear your ok.
By the way, did you have shoulder harnesses? I've worried about a rough
dead stick landing without shoulder harnesses.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Room at OSH available |
Well, my on-again off-again plans for OSH are off again, at least for most
of it, so the room I had reserved will be available. This is a room with a
queen bed in a nice house with central air. The hostess, Sharon Hawkins,
provides continental breakfast. She works the EAA too so it should be
possible to catch a ride with her to and from the show when she goes. The
house is close to a bus line so you can get to/from that way too. Its
available for the whole show.
If interested, contact Sharon Hawkins, 920-232-8554.
Please email me if you get the room so I can get my deposit back.
Randall Henderson
randall(at)edt.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
Greg,
I sure did have a harness. It was anchored on the floor of the fuselage in
the tail section with a 1/8th cable. I attribute my life to that cable's
direct in-line position. If only I had tightened the shoulder straps a
little tighter I would not have hit the front panel. Even with the harness
the body stretches a little under force. I have seen another Pietenpol in an
accident from a 50 feet high stall. The shoulder straps were anchored at the
clusters just aft of the pilots seat. The clusters let go completely from
the force towards the inside. It's as though they weren't fastened at all.
The pilot hit the panel hard, survived but needed surgery to his left eye.
He had 30,000 hours of flight time. Mostly in a 747 but we won't hold that
against him. He has been to Brodhead many times. I don't think he has
rebuilt his Piet. either.
Regards,
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Randall Henderson" <randallh(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Room at OSH taken |
Looks like the room I posted at OSH (Sharon Hawkins') has been taken
(Charlie, be sure to let me and/or the list know if anything changes.)
I will in fact be going but not until Friday or Saturday, and I'll just
camp. Look forward to seeing y'all!
Randall Henderson, RV-6 N6R (~100 hrs)
Portland, OR
http://www.edt.com/homewing
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TXTdragger(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | AvWeb's realtime "tower radio" at Air Venture 2000 |
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, Storchbuilders(at)listbot.com
For those that won't be flying in to Oshkosh the site below, allows you to
hear the tower on your computer. The broadcast is realtime, and it really
gets busy in the mornings. I kept my computer tuned to this as I worked last
year & it was really interesting. Those guys know what they are doing, and
get it on.
http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh2000/index2.html
John D (tt1)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
Shoulder harness attachment is one of the things holding up my covering of
the fuselage. I was considering an 1/8" cable to the stern post or a plate
to the floor of the fuse near the stern post. You don't have any pictures
do you? Seeing your the only one to have tested the harness that I know and
can ask. I think the importance of shoulder harness is lost on some. I
came down in a two place ultralight many years ago and luckly we had a
ballistic chute but before it was deployed, my body was slung around a bit
because the aircraft had no shoulder harness. Then on impact I nearly put
the stick through my eye when my body folded up and my head went between my
knees. Then 2 months later I witnessed a guy get killed in a gyrocopter in
a crash that he would have survived if he hadn't hit his head on the
instrument panel.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
Greg,
You are possibly the only one other than myself that is thinking
practically. Place a plate on the floor of the fuse near the stern. My plate
also spread the load for the tail wheel assembly. (Aside: If you are using a
steerable tail wheel make sure you also have a crush plate on the underside
of the fuselage. I've seen what the tail wheel assembly can do. It
definitely compresses the fibers from the rough taxiing you will be doing).
No I do not have any pictures or drawings and unfortunately it's covered.
That part of the aircraft survived. Now, at the first station behind the
pilot you must weld together a structure (like a 'V", upside down), that
spans the two upper longerons, but lies below the surface of the turtle deck
skin. I used a clevis bolt with a quick disconnect. At the end of the
longerons weld an "L" that you can screw to the cross member between the
longerons from underneath the cross member. At the top of the 'V' , a
fitting will be welded to accept the end of the harness. This fitting sticks
out of the turtle deck behind the pilot. It doesn't look right from an
esthetic point of view. You will get a lot of questions, but so what. It
saved my life. This structure has basically no strength in and of itself (it
only needs to hold the cable up), however but once the cable is tightened
you will see how sleek the is. You see, what you want is something that
holds your weight in line with the tail. Also having the shoulder straps
anchored a station behind the pilot reduced the compression effect on the
pilot. Did I mention before that the seat back split across the bottom right
at the base of the Cox bone, just above the glue joint to the seat top.
Hope this helps,
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: For Sale Cont. A 65 |
Are you planning on going to Broadhead? I'd like to look over the engine
and logs. If you arent coming up, I could come down there on the following
weekend.
Dick Navratil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Duane" <duane@mo-net.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: For Sale Cont. A 65
>
> Continental A 65 for Sale.
> 457 hrs,. since factory reman.. New slick mags & wiring harness. New
> Spark plugs. Stromberg Carb.. Includes logs. $3750.00 US$ plus
> shipping.
> duane@mo-net.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene and Karen Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
I don't know about you guys, but my shoulders are almost one foot above the
turtle deck. Unless your shoulder harness support sticks up that high out
of the turtle deck, it ain't doing much good.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For Sale Cont. A 65 |
I don`t know if I will or not
If I do I will be driving a dark blue and silver Ford Bronco
Duane
Richard Navratil wrote:
>
> Are you planning on going to Broadhead? I'd like to look over the engine
> and logs. If you arent coming up, I could come down there on the following
> weekend.
> Dick Navratil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duane" <duane@mo-net.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 7:28 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: For Sale Cont. A 65
>
> >
> > Continental A 65 for Sale.
> > 457 hrs,. since factory reman.. New slick mags & wiring harness. New
> > Spark plugs. Stromberg Carb.. Includes logs. $3750.00 US$ plus
> > shipping.
> > duane@mo-net.com
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: For Sale Cont. A 65 |
Richard Navratil wrote:
>
> Are you planning on going to Broadhead? I'd like to look over the engine
> and logs. If you arent coming up, I could come down there on the following
> weekend.
> Dick Navratil
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Duane" <duane@mo-net.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2000 7:28 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: For Sale Cont. A 65
>
> >
> > Continental A 65 for Sale.
> > 457 hrs,. since factory reman.. New slick mags & wiring harness. New
> > Spark plugs. Stromberg Carb.. Includes logs. $3750.00 US$ plus
> > shipping.
> > duane@mo-net.com
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
I have a 1/8" cable running from the fittings of the sholder harness, to an
eyebolt, in the tailpost. I enclosed the harness/cable in a fiberglass
headrest, that I set back about an inch from the top of the seat. It makes
cockpit entry a little easier, as well as a little more room to move my head
around. As an added benefit, it makes an open cockpit a little more
aerodyanamic. I did a 1 glass lay-up over a foam plug, that I made with my
hot wire cutter. I covered the turtledeck with seran wrap, taped the foam
plug down to the fuselage, covered the foam with seran wrap, and did the
lay-up right on the plane, so I could make a flange all the way around the
edge, to supply a glue joint. After the resin cured, I popped the foam out,
and it made a perfect fit when I was done. I added re-inforcements on the
inside of the fiberglass where the harness passes thru, as well as 2 ribs to
stiffen it up. I'll glue it to the top of the turtle deck, cover it with
dacron fabric, and paint it red to blend into, and match the fuselage.
See Y'all at Broadhead !!
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Oshkosh to Broadhead |
Chuck, you are right about the hat. I have only 12 made and ther are still
6 or so in the box! We will look for you. I hope to spend most of friday
in Bhead and 1/2 day in OSH.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Oshkosh to Broadhead
In a message dated 7/20/00 7:08:07 AM Central Daylight Time,
farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com writes:
<< I'll be there at oshkosh and will be driving down one
of the days, I'll see if I can find you guys out of
the masses.
del >>
Hey del, I'll be wearing my trusty ol' Pietenpol hat, with a red bill. It's
almost a one of a kind hat !
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TXTdragger(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Oshkosh tower live update |
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, jimsury(at)fbtc.net,
Storchbuilders(at)listbot.com
Works for me (now), had to download (free) updated "Real Player", did'nt
start working untill today .........opening day ....duh !! The AvWeb site
has best pictures also.
If you aren't member of AvWeb, sign up, its free & you get twice weekly
report of aviation news ....... really interesting
http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh2000/index2.html
John Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Yotz" <gyachts(at)kans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
Thanks for the help Domenico. I'm going to sketch something up after I come
back from Osh. Leave today and everything is a mess....
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Conoly" <bconoly(at)surfsouth.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Oshkosh tower live update |
I believe it is "index.htm" and not "index2.htm"
actual page is http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh2000/real/liveatc.html
Thanks, I wish I was there
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: <TXTdragger(at)aol.com>
; ;
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Oshkosh tower live update
>
> Works for me (now), had to download (free) updated "Real Player", did'nt
> start working untill today .........opening day ....duh !! The AvWeb
site
> has best pictures also.
> If you aren't member of AvWeb, sign up, its free & you get twice weekly
> report of aviation news ....... really interesting
>
> http://www.avweb.com/oshkosh/osh2000/index2.html
>
> John Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Freight Charges from A/C Spruce |
I got charged $7.02 for U.P.S. ground on my invoice. The actual rate (from
UPS) was $4.90. Anybody else had similar experiences? Wicks might be
cheaper after all.
DickG.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Freight Charges from A/C Spruce |
That is a common practice from a lot of companies. The mark up goes to
various shipping costs, packaging, labor and such. UPS and FEDEX are also
horrible about charging back companies for minor corrections in zip codes
and such. UPS also has two different rates. One for delivery to a business
and another for residential rate which is higher.
Dick Navratil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Freight Charges from A/C Spruce
>
> I got charged $7.02 for U.P.S. ground on my invoice. The actual rate
(from
> UPS) was $4.90. Anybody else had similar experiences? Wicks might be
> cheaper after all.
>
> DickG.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Domenico Bellissimo" <adbell(at)yesic.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Shoulder Harness |
Excellent! Sounds good.
Domenico
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | carb heat box size? |
Can anyone give me the sizes of the heat box for a A65. Have the picture
from the book, but no dimensions. The height at the carb area, and the
width. Hopefully someones at that stage and the box is in the shop.
thanks
walt
-----------------------------------------------------
Click here for Free Video!!
http://www.gohip.com/freevideo/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard DeCosta <aircamper(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Turtle Deck Supports? |
Can someone shed some light on the best method to get the notches right
for the two aft turtle deck supports? I've been squinting at this for
days with no luck.
Richard
=====
Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
My Piet project:
http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Joe <fishin(at)wwa.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turtle Deck Supports? |
I simply attached the front and rear 1x1/4 strips in place. when glue
was set I
placed individual supports in place to maintain alignment. individual
supports
were 1x1/4 strips, notched and beveled to the notches on top. It worked
out
just fine.
JoeC
Richard DeCosta wrote:
>
> Can someone shed some light on the best method to get the notches right
> for the two aft turtle deck supports? I've been squinting at this for
> days with no luck.
>
> Richard
>
> =====
> Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
> My Piet project:
> http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
>
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turtle Deck Supports? |
you can also clamp all of the supports in place and use a chalk line to get
them straight.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Turtle Deck Supports? |
set the blank arch pieces onthe fuse in the location
that they belong, mark them for width, use a string
and pencil to draw a half circle from one pencil mark
to the other(at the height that the plans call out).
use a divider to mark on the radius the location of
each slot, cut the slots. mine came out perfectly with
the exception that the back of the turtledeck where it
meets the stabilizer is rounded, where as other ones
I've seen since are flattened out there.
--- Richard DeCosta wrote:
> DeCosta
>
> Can someone shed some light on the best method to
> get the notches right
> for the two aft turtle deck supports? I've been
> squinting at this for
> days with no luck.
>
> Richard
>
> =====
> Webmaster, http://www.AirCamper.org/
> My Piet project:
> http://www.AirCamper.org/users/rdecosta
>
> Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
> http://invites.yahoo.com/
>
>
>
> through
>
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
> Matronics!
>
>
>
>
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Redeye" <intercon(at)netactive.co.za> |
Hi All,
June 14, 2000 - July 31, 2000
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-bp