Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ce
November 26, 2001 - December 13, 2001
OK! Time to tune up the table saw!!
Kent, in windy Oklahoma
P.S. I have just sent Matt at Matronics my contribution. I will
definitely be using a lot of his bandwidth!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Don't Miss The Video... |
Hey Listers!
Just a reminder that in support of the 2001 Email List Fund Raiser, Andy
Gold of The Builder's Bookstore ( http://www.buildersbooks.com/ ) is
donating a FREE COPY of the new edition of Van's "The RV Story" video (VHS)
to any List Member making a Contribution of $50 or more!
To take advantage of this wonderful Offer, please include the following
information along with your Contribution, either in the Message Box if you
Contribute on-line, or on a slip of paper if your Contribution is by check
via the USMail:
Van's RV Story Video Offer
$50 or Greater Contributor
[your name]
[your shipping address]
[your City, State and Zip Code]
If you've already made a Contribution of $50 or more during the 2001 Fund
Raiser and would still like to receive the video, please drop me an email (
dralle(at)matronics.com ) and include the information shown above with the
following Subject Line:
Subject: Video Offer
Please note that this new edition of "The RV Story" will first be available
in about 8 weeks.
I want to thank Andy Gold and the Builder's Book Store for this *very
generous* Contribution! If you haven't taken a moment to check out The
Builder's Book Store web site yet, you owe it to yourself to have a look (
http://www.buildersbooks.com/ ). Andy has a fabulous selection of
interesting, informative, and exceptionally useful books and videos on his
site. Please have a look!
I would like to thank everyone that has so generously made a Contribution
so far in this year's List Fund Raiser! Just a few more days until I send
out the List of Contributors for 2001. Make your Contribution today to
make sure your name is on the LOC!!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbloud" <gbloud(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
Kent,
Where in Oklahoma are you, I'm in Tulsa. I have my fuselage nearly
completed. I started my fuselage first, with the thinking that when I
got started on the wings and tail, I would have something to hang them
on when done. There are several ongoing Pietenpol projects that I know
of here in Tulsa. Send me an E-MAIL if you wish. By the way gang, this
is my first posting here, been just reading for a while soaking up all
the info. Thanks!!
Jody
Tulsa, Ok.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | The plans arrived today! |
Kent said:
I'm going to spend the next few days or weeks reading the plans over,
(and over...) and building a worktable. The plans say to start with the
fuse, is that what most builders have done? I thought about starting
with the ribs, or tail section, something small at first. But if it's
easier in the long run to just get going on the fuse I'll do that.
Kent, I started with the ribs first, for a couple of reasons. One, it is
sort of mindless work, after you get the jig built and have assembled a
couple of ribs, and it gives you time to think about the rest of the project
as you are working. Two, it sort of tunes up your woodworking skills, and
if you screw up a rib, you can just pitch it without wasting a lot of time
and wood. The third reason has to do with my own personality - I get all
enthusiastic and work hard for a while, then get burned out and don't want
to do boring or tedious tasks. I knew I would be all fired up when I
started working on the Pietenpol, so I wanted to get the boring tedious job
done first, before I burned out.
One thing to consider if you build the fuselage first - it is big and
difficult to store while you build the other components. Wings and tail
surfaces are relatively flat and can hang on the wall or be suspended from
the ceiling to get them out of the way. Once you build the fuselage you
will be stuck with it sitting in the middle of your workspace for many
months.
Time spent looking over the plans and thinking is time very well spent. The
plans have some inconsistencies, and many things can be done better than
originally designed, due to modern materials. If you haven't already bought
it, I suggest you buy Mike Cuy's video on building NX48MC. He makes the
suggestion that all the fittings need to be longer and I second that
opinion. Look through the plans very carefully and try to visualize how
everything fits together before committing it to wood and steel. And
remember - you will make mistakes, many of them. Just make sure none of
them are still in it when you fly it.
Good Luck!
Jack Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Kent writes:
>There's a lot to look at with the supplements, different
>engine mounts, extended fuselage and the like. How do you guys
>keep it straight?
I know what you mean; that's what I thought when I first got my set a few
months back. But after 10 or 15 evenings of slowly looking at details,
going back and forth between plans and details, it starts to come together.
Then there are also plenty of good photos on various websites, and those
tell even more.
>I thought about making a cocpit mockup to check the fit.
It can't hurt. If you don't go to too much trouble, that is. Best of all
would to be to find somebody near you with a Piet or at least a fuselage you
can climb into, but if not- a quick plywood and 2x4 mock-up can be built in
no time. There are some non-negotiable relationships between things in the
Piet, so it's good to know how they go together. The only thing you can
tweak is the seat; catch Mike Cuy's comments on his video, about how he
raised his seat a tad. Note location of pilot's shoulders relative to the
cockpit coaming in Mike's plane and others; the only thing about raising the
seat is it makes it more difficult to get the recommended angle for the
shoulder straps. You don't want them tending to compress your spine under
impact. The stick, rudder pedals, and panel location are pretty well locked
in by the dimensions and configuration of structure, so it's good to get a
firm idea of how they are all going to fit for you. To me, everything falls
nicely to hand.
>I'm a tad over 6' 1", 185 lbs.
Well, I won't comment on Mike's size since I've never met him, but one
Pietenpol pilot that I do know personally, is at least that size (see photo
on the page at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets.html) and has no
problem.
>One never knows when an engine may show up thats just right
Yep. If you're patient, you will find one. There is a guy on the
CorvAIRCRAFT list who has 4 Corvair engines, pickled and crated for storage
in his garage, ready to convert for aircraft use, trying to get someone to
clear them out for the cost of crating; $100 to take them all off his hands.
Try to find a little Continental for that price, even run out and in
pieces!
>My wife said she wants one bay for her car
Funny how they always want the roomy side, too!
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
Jody,
I'm in Oklahoma City. Glad to know there are some builders locally,
even if an hour or two away. I'm a member of EAA Chapter 24 , but no one is
building a Piet. The only other wood aircraft going on here are a couple of
GP-4's, a KR-II, and a Volksplane rebuild. The rest seem to be RV's.
I asked about the starting sequence of building as I wanted to start
with something easy (if ribs are easy). I figure I can hang the tail and
wings off the wall after they are built, while I start the fuse, unless
builders usually find they use leftover wood from the fuse to use in the
tail. Is there such a thing as left over spruce? :)
Hey, the plans for the ribs show one support against the spar, I
thought wood ribs used a support against the front and back of the spar. Is
'support' the right terminology??
Is the fuse recommended first because the tail parts need to be made
to fit the fuse? So many questions, I'll have to search the archives like
a wild man.
I stayed up till midnight looking at the plans. There seem to be
about 3 separate drawings of the flying struts. ?? Is there anything
missing on the plans that need to be there? That last statement will lead
down a long path, I'm sure.
Need to buy some Kerosene for the garage heater, it got down in the
30's here last night! Winter is here at last, after a beautiful fall.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Piet Directory available to find those near you |
Group---forgive me for repeating this but Doc Mosher up in
beautiful Wisconsin publishes a great little Piet/GN-1 N-number
directory for some modest price. It's a great resource to locate
Piets/GN-1's in your state or locale. Some are projects, some
are flying. Doc has taken up this initiative out of his pure love for
the Piet movement. He was there for all 17 of us who flew into Oshkosh
1998 for the 70th Anniversary of the Piet design celebration----offering
to shuttle pilots, family, luggage, whatever from Brodhead to Hartford to
Oshkosh and back. He gave us the no-radio pilot briefing arrival procedures
into Oshkosh. Quite a guy.
Doc Mosher
1071 Meadow Lane
Neenah, WI 54956
920-727-1534
docshop(at)TDS.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | 6'1" and 185 lbs. |
Kent---I'm 5'10" and 195lbs and the short fuselage is just
fine for me-----BUT to be totally comfortable with your extra
height I'd build the long. You get two additional inches of
leg room in each cockpit by building the long or 1966 plans
version. A note about seat height---I raised my seat 2" above
plans and that was too much. One inch would have been fine.
The one thing I did though that has given me more cockpit comfort
was to angle the seat back to be less upright. I used long triangular
1"x1" pieces of poplar glued to the fuselage bulkhead/diagonal area
by the pilots seat to accomplish this. Plans built seats to me feel
too up right. They don't allow you to recline much at all which is
needed for your back's sake. Jack Phillips notes on doing the
tedious tasks first is good. Get them out of the way. When you
get tired of woodwork, do some metal work. You can save yourself
a ton of wasted time by not doing all the metal parts first. I can't
emphasize this enough. Build the wood parts first and then build the
metal parts to fit the wood, not vice-versa. You'll find that plans built
parts do not always fit the wood. You don't want to have to gouge out
wood to make a bad fitting work. Bernard Pietenpol was very stingy
about his clearances and tolerances to the point of being impossible
to work out. If you want to buy some poster board from you local
drug store or Wal-Mart and cut out some fake fittings from them and
bend them over your wood structure or see how they fit first. Once you've
got it in paper to work, just trace that out over your sheet 4130 metal
and start cutting and drilling. Not to make the group ill by my saying
this again but for Christmas the book set from EAA by Tony Bingelis is
a super resource to answer all your questions that will arise during building.
This is a long-haul project with lots of hand-crafted parts. Don't let this
stop you. You'll get better and better as you go with your skills. It seems
like it will never end and that you will never fly, but stick with it. Take a
break if you need to, go get a ride in someone's Piet, take a course in
welding, but don't give up. This plane is way, way, way too much fun to
fly to not finish. Ask Doug Bryant, Jim Sury, Howard Henderson, Tom
Bowdler, etc.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The plans arrived today! |
Kent,
I suggest you build ribs first. I cut all gussets and uprights and organized them
in numbered piles. This alleviated a lot of the tediousness associated with
rib building. I used Aerolite glue and found it easier to use than T-88 on
small parts.
Regarding cockpit size, I'm 6', 200 lbs. I fit very nicely in the long fuselage.
Tried the front cockpit on a short fuselage once and found it very cramped.
I agree with Mike Cuy and others that you should build the wood parts THEN build
metal parts to fit the wood. (Ask me how many sets of control horns I've built!)
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
>>> "K. and J. Hallsten" 11/26 9:11 PM >>>
I received my set of plans from Donald today, and started looking
them over. At first glance I thought I would really have my hands full.
There's a lot to look at with the supplements, different engine mounts,
extended fuselage and the like. How do you guys keep it straight?
I'm going to spend the next few days or weeks reading the plans over,
(and over...) and building a worktable. The plans say to start with the
fuse, is that what most builders have done? I thought about starting
with the ribs, or tail section, something small at first. But if it's
easier in the long run to just get going on the fuse I'll do that.
My Piet will have the three piece wing, extended fuselage. I
thought about making a cocpit mockup to check the fit. I'm a tad over
6' 1", 185 lbs., so the extra 2 inches with the ext. fuse is a given,
would I need more? Someone let me know if I need to spend the time
doing this. I think the cockpit width will be fine, snug but fine.
I would like to look for a Corvair, but that may be jumping the gun
a bit. One never knows when an engine may show up thats just right for
a small plane. Our EAA chapter had a meeting at an engine builders shop
in March. He had just finished a small Continental as a side project,
and seemed to lament the fact that , "There's just not much call for
these little things any more." He sounded as if he would be stuck with
it. I was thinking that it would be a pretty nice Piet engine, I wonder
if he still has it, and how much it costs?
I'm lucky to have a 3-car garage, but I have to share it with every
one else in my family. There would be room for a fuse to sit there, but
things would be crowded. My wife said she wants one bay for her car when
it's nasty outside. If I don't keep her happy this will be a l-o-n-g
hard winter.
OK! Time to tune up the table saw!!
Kent, in windy Oklahoma
P.S. I have just sent Matt at Matronics my contribution. I will
definitely be using a lot of his bandwidth!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
In a message dated 11/26/01 11:20:34 PM Pacific Standard Time, gbloud(at)msn.com
writes:
> Kent,
> Where in Oklahoma are you, I'm in Tulsa. I have my fuselage nearly
> completed. I started my fuselage first, with the thinking that when I
> got started on the wings and tail, I would have something to hang them
> on when done. There are several ongoing Pietenpol projects that I know
> of here in Tulsa. Send me an E-MAIL if you wish. By the way gang, this
> is my first posting here, been just reading for a while soaking up all
> the info. Thanks!!
> Jody
> Tulsa, Ok.
>
Guys,
There are quite a few Piets in Wichita also. Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
| Subject: | The plans arrived today! |
Kent,
Congratulations on your new project! I remember what it felt like a couple
of years ago when I started on my Piet. Two and a half years later, I have
the woodwork pretty much done, and I'm starting to think about controls and
landing gear.
I too started out by making a bunch of ribs, largely because they didn't
cost too much and didn't take too much space. Like Greg, I cut out all the
little gussets and uprights and put them into numbered bags before I
started. I did find some surprises though.
I've been using T-88 on the project from the beginning. Easy to use and it
fills gaps. I eventually got into a pattern where each day, I'd assemble
one rib in the jig but just with butt joints between the spruce members, no
gussets. When I took the rib out of the jig, the butt joints would hold
long enough to sand a clean surface on the sides of the rib, clean off the
sawdust with a tack cloth, then glue and staple on the gussets. The little
nails are just too finicky, and I pulled all of the staples after the glue
was completely hard. A month later I had all of my ribs.
You asked about the number of uprights that lay against the spars. This
seems to have varied over the years. The Flying and Glider Manual plans
don't show any at all. I think they're really for alignment only--they
don't take any stress once the wing is constructed. I went with a single
upright against each spar so I could hold the ribs to the spars with spring
clamps during assembly. Just my opinion, but if you make a slot for the
spar to go in, it will probably either bind or be too loose. Once you get
the wing assembled, you'll have to cut away some of the uprights against the
spar anyway to make room for the cabane and lift strut mounting.
I found that no matter how much I tried for precision on the leading and
trailing edges of the ribs, they just didn't come out very well.
Especially, on the leading edge, there's a really short upright that is
nearly impossible to get on straight. I wound up making a router fixture
and trimming all of the leading and trailing edges after construction. I
used the notched T.E. and cut those after construction too. That way
they're all exactly alike.
You'll have a lot of fun. Keep us posted.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
For what its worth, I built my fuselage, then mocked up the seat with
books (old FAR's work well) and the panel with cardboard, I then used a
short stick ductaped down for the stick.
Saved time building a mockup and still got to fiddle with tall to build
the seat, where to put pedals etc.. As it turns out the long fuselage
stock plans work out out just fine for me.
I'm 5'6" and would have to have mounted the rudder pedals on the rear
ash cross member, but I use adjustable cushions in all my a/c. With 2"
cushions at butt and back, my parachute fits fine. I'll add another 3"
or so of cushion when flying without it. This puts my rudder (I'm using
pedals and heel brakes) right by the side of the from seat. Nice.
Question: What do you finished & flying guys think about the 1/8" seat
back?
I've learned to trust the plans, but this one's got me back in Aunt
Maude mode again. Let me know if any of you have had problems with
rowdy passengers or wear. Have any of you braced this area?
Hot tip of the day: When tying the tail together, site down your
centerline table marking and scribe the line of intersection with one
tail side, then the other. Transfer the lines to top and bottom as well
as the end of the tail.
Use a belt sander to get down to business, then wrap some 120grit paper
around a foot long piece of 1/8" ply. I used a bungee to provide light
pressure between the sides. Sand straight between the two sides and it
will even things up real nicely.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | The plans arrived today! |
Kent and all,
I'll say ditto! I also got my plans from Don on November 26 and had pretty
much the same thoughts on looking at the plans. I'm 6'2" and will
definitely make a mock-up of the long fuselage as far back as the second
cockpit. That way, I can tinker with the seat and the location of the
pedals without damaging the final structures. I've go a bunch of old lumber
I can use to build the mock-up and hopefully gain some woodworking skills in
the process. And, it will give me something to do while figuring out where
to get the good lumber.
I did get copies of Bengelis's books and one did have some recommendations
on the angles for seats. I'll go back and look when I get to that point.
Any Piets flying or being built in eastern Pennsyvania??
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | maynord <maynord(at)terracom.net> |
| Subject: | Need help with wood? |
Pietenpol Folks:
Yesterday, we went to look at Sitka Spruce at our local lumber company.
They had a good quantity, but it was all large pieces, 1 1/4" thick, and
ten feet long. Also, they said it was not dry, and would shrink over time.
I am aware that sitka spruce in the aviation catalogues is kiln dried and
pre-cut to various measurements.
Questions:
1) Did you folks purchase pre-cut, kiln dried wood,
or did you dry your wood yourself and then cut it and smooth it?
2) Is a table saw the best tool for cutting long lengths of sitka?
3) Is a 1/4" chuck router sufficient, or do I need a 1/2" chuck?
4) If I cut my own, do I need to cut oversize, then dry, and then smooth?
Or do I cut oversize, then smooth oversize so that it dries to the correct
size? This last option is the one suggested by the lumber company, but I
am concerned that if you glue shrinking wood, it will make for poor joints,
etc.
We are neophytes, so even these basic issues are a challenge for us..........
Robert & Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Swanson" <swans071(at)tc.umn.edu> |
| Subject: | The plans arrived today! |
Hi all,
I would second the vote for a mockup for purposes of changing seat angle.
Bingelis recommended 15 degree, and I think my car seats measured about the
same. I compromised at 12 degrees. The plans call for 6 deg. When I built
my mockup, I made the seat angle adjustable with a bolt and wing nut going
through a slot. That way I could try several combinations, and get the
right measurements. 12 deg worked best for me. I also moved the seat back
backwards about 2 inches, to make room for the Temper Foam cushions that I
will be using. That puts me back in the same place with no cushion.
I wish I had made my turtledeck a bit higher, to get the shoulder straps at
a higher angle. Maybe next time!
Al
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave
Trainer
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
Kent and all,
I'll say ditto! I also got my plans from Don on November 26 and had
pretty
much the same thoughts on looking at the plans. I'm 6'2" and will
definitely make a mock-up of the long fuselage as far back as the second
cockpit. That way, I can tinker with the seat and the location of the
pedals without damaging the final structures. I've go a bunch of old lumber
I can use to build the mock-up and hopefully gain some woodworking skills in
the process. And, it will give me something to do while figuring out where
to get the good lumber.
I did get copies of Bengelis's books and one did have some
recommendations
on the angles for seats. I'll go back and look when I get to that point.
Any Piets flying or being built in eastern Pennsyvania??
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop for A65 |
Jim, thanks to you and Steve Quick for response to my questions about a
prop. I have sent a check to Hegy props for a 72X42. Ray's grandson, Jim
Corder, seems to be the man now. I am hoping that the 42 will not be too
much for the A65, but Jim Corder, mentioned that he would repitch if
necessary to meet static RPM requirements as long as I pay the shipping.
Thanks again for your help. John
>
>John I think Mr. Hegy is deceased now. I bought a 72X42 from him for my
>C-85 and it cost my $500. Now that was about 3 years ago. Really nice prop
>too. You shouldn't have any problem getting a prop. Good luck. jas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Getting started. |
Hello Kent: Keep asking questions. Lots of questions! The one sore
spot I have about the Piet project is the fact that the plans, although
look good are very vague and lacking in detail. I wish I'd found this
list before I started as you have. BHP. built 20+ "ships" ( I love that
word) and it appears that he never bothered to re draw a cleaned up set
of plans. That's why you are getting so many great suggestions, and why
I have so large a box of scrap! Here is my tip
on gluing. If using epoxy, pour equal amounts of each part into
Rubbermaid squeeze bottles. For mixing, get a bunch of medicine cups
(like the one that comes on Pepto Bizmo) Hobby shops or Hobby Lobby has
them. They have graduated markings on them so you will always have equal
parts of resin and hardener. You will have to mark the amount
graduations you will be using on the cup with a small dot from a felt
tip pen as the graduations don't show up well when you get the resin and
hardener in it. Put the thicker resin in the cup first. then the thin
hardener will pour nicely on top of the resin. If you put the thin
hardener in the cup first, the heavy resin will sink sink to the bottom
of the cup and blow your accurate measurement. I'm on my 3rd filling of
the squeeze bottles and the two bottles have always kept at equal levels
throughout telling me that my glue batches have always been the proper
50/50 ratio. Leon S. In colder wind swept Ks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Swanson" <swans071(at)tc.umn.edu> |
| Subject: | Getting started. |
Kent, to build on what Leon said about using epoxy:
I bought a bunch of hypodermics (without the needles) that have ml markings
on them. I found mine at the Fly Market at Oshkosh and Lakeland. I found
small 3 oz plastic cups like you get in cheap restaurants at Sam's Club- 500
for a very reasonable fee. I put resin in one hypo, and hardener in the
other, then empty them into the cup. I found that 15ml of each was about
all I could use in a batch before it started to get thick. When I'm done I
leave the mixing stick in the excess glue in the cup, let it cure, then
write the date and what it was used for on the cup. Then I have a glue
sample that I can match to my builder's log.
Great thing about this list- there are a hundred ways of doing things, and
you can pick and choose what works best for you. I have printed many of the
e-mails from this group and file them in my construction book for later so I
don't forget a good idea.
Thanks to everyone on the list over the years!
Al Swanson
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Leon
Stefan
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Getting started.
Hello Kent: Keep asking questions. Lots of questions! The one sore
spot I have about the Piet project is the fact that the plans, although
look good are very vague and lacking in detail. I wish I'd found this
list before I started as you have. BHP. built 20+ "ships" ( I love that
word) and it appears that he never bothered to re draw a cleaned up set
of plans. That's why you are getting so many great suggestions, and why
I have so large a box of scrap! Here is my tip
on gluing. If using epoxy, pour equal amounts of each part into
Rubbermaid squeeze bottles. For mixing, get a bunch of medicine cups
(like the one that comes on Pepto Bizmo) Hobby shops or Hobby Lobby has
them. They have graduated markings on them so you will always have equal
parts of resin and hardener. You will have to mark the amount
graduations you will be using on the cup with a small dot from a felt
tip pen as the graduations don't show up well when you get the resin and
hardener in it. Put the thicker resin in the cup first. then the thin
hardener will pour nicely on top of the resin. If you put the thin
hardener in the cup first, the heavy resin will sink sink to the bottom
of the cup and blow your accurate measurement. I'm on my 3rd filling of
the squeeze bottles and the two bottles have always kept at equal levels
throughout telling me that my glue batches have always been the proper
50/50 ratio. Leon S. In colder wind swept Ks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop for A65 |
John,
What was the cost that Mr. Corder quoted you for the prop? Is is a scimitar
shape?
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Myers" <jmyers(at)powernet.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Prop for A65
>
> Jim, thanks to you and Steve Quick for response to my questions about a
> prop. I have sent a check to Hegy props for a 72X42. Ray's grandson, Jim
> Corder, seems to be the man now. I am hoping that the 42 will not be too
> much for the A65, but Jim Corder, mentioned that he would repitch if
> necessary to meet static RPM requirements as long as I pay the shipping.
>
> Thanks again for your help. John
>
> >
> >John I think Mr. Hegy is deceased now. I bought a 72X42 from him for my
> >C-85 and it cost my $500. Now that was about 3 years ago. Really nice
prop
> >too. You shouldn't have any problem getting a prop. Good luck. jas
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with wood? |
The wood must be dried to realise its full strength. The EAA wood book
covers this in detail. Also, once the wood is dried, it will pretty much
retain that dried out (13% or so) moisture level indefinitely. That way it
will not warp and twist.
Get some kiln dried wood and spend the extra dough.
chris Bobka
tech counselor
----- Original Message -----
From: "maynord" <maynord(at)terracom.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Need help with wood?
>
> Pietenpol Folks:
>
> Yesterday, we went to look at Sitka Spruce at our local lumber company.
> They had a good quantity, but it was all large pieces, 1 1/4" thick, and
> ten feet long. Also, they said it was not dry, and would shrink over
time.
> I am aware that sitka spruce in the aviation catalogues is kiln dried and
> pre-cut to various measurements.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1) Did you folks purchase pre-cut, kiln dried wood,
> or did you dry your wood yourself and then cut it and smooth it?
>
> 2) Is a table saw the best tool for cutting long lengths of sitka?
>
> 3) Is a 1/4" chuck router sufficient, or do I need a 1/2" chuck?
>
> 4) If I cut my own, do I need to cut oversize, then dry, and then smooth?
> Or do I cut oversize, then smooth oversize so that it dries to the
correct
> size? This last option is the one suggested by the lumber company, but I
> am concerned that if you glue shrinking wood, it will make for poor
joints,
> etc.
>
> We are neophytes, so even these basic issues are a challenge for
us..........
>
>
> Robert & Michael
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jfelts101(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
Somewhow I've got a feeling there are none in South Dakota tho.
Jerry in South Dakota
Soloed 28 Oct 2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Prop for A65 |
Chris, I was quoted $500 plus shipping. $250 up front and balance upon
completion. I have heard that the price used to be in the $300 to $350
range back 5 or 6 years ago, but has increased - like so many other
things. Yes, it is supposed to be scimitar with 4 laminations (Actually
part of a 5th lamination to get my requested hub thickness. I am using -42
bolts. I think he uses 3/4 inch layers.
John
>
>John,
>
>What was the cost that Mr. Corder quoted you for the prop? Is is a scimitar
>shape?
>
>Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: The plans arrived today! |
Hi Dave. There's a Piet' flying out of Danville (8N8). I don't think the
guy keeps it there, but he is a local. I saw it there this year during a
fly-in. Nice plane with a C-65.
I'm about to order wood and get started on a Piet'.
Where are you located? I'm just 10mi. north-west of Harrisburg.
George Allen
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(soon to be Peit'. builder)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
> Any Piets flying or being built in eastern Pennsyvania??
>
> Dave
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Need help with wood? |
Robert and Michael, I am no expert on wood but have done my share of
sawmilling and drying wood. Different species react differently to
moisture content and method of drying. My experience is that most kiln
dried wood tends to be more stable than air dried, and maintains a lower
%age of moisture over time. For what it is worth, I have noticed that air
dried wood tends to be more limber and easier to form if you can ascertain
that you have control of the wood after formed. Air dried wood seems to
retain much more of the characteristics of green wood, probably because you
typically don't get the internal moisture content down to the same level as
kiln dried. I think you will find that you will have a very tough time
(read that long time) getting the low moisture content that you need by air
drying. It also depends on where you are located. Where I live, I won't
live long enough to air dry wood down to 13 to 15%, now if I lived in some
parts of Arizona, maybe. I recommend you either get kiln dried wood or
kiln dry the wood you plan on using. There are some locations that I would
use air dried woods, but not in critical structural locations. If you do
decide to buy and dry, then dry before you plane or "smooth". Hoping this
is helpful.
John
>
>Pietenpol Folks:
>
> Yesterday, we went to look at Sitka Spruce at our local lumber company.
>They had a good quantity, but it was all large pieces, 1 1/4" thick, and
>ten feet long. Also, they said it was not dry, and would shrink over time.
>I am aware that sitka spruce in the aviation catalogues is kiln dried and
>pre-cut to various measurements.
>
>Questions:
>
>1) Did you folks purchase pre-cut, kiln dried wood,
>or did you dry your wood yourself and then cut it and smooth it?
>
>2) Is a table saw the best tool for cutting long lengths of sitka?
>
>3) Is a 1/4" chuck router sufficient, or do I need a 1/2" chuck?
>
>4) If I cut my own, do I need to cut oversize, then dry, and then smooth?
> Or do I cut oversize, then smooth oversize so that it dries to the correct
>size? This last option is the one suggested by the lumber company, but I
>am concerned that if you glue shrinking wood, it will make for poor joints,
>etc.
>
>We are neophytes, so even these basic issues are a challenge
>for us..........
>
>
>Robert & Michael
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The plans arrived today! |
In a message dated 11/26/01 10:59:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hallstenokc(at)home.com writes:
<< I received my set of plans from Donald today, and started looking
them over. At first glance I thought I would really have my hands full.
There's a lot to look at with the supplements, different engine mounts,
extended fuselage and the like. How do you guys keep it straight? >>
Great to hear your getting started ! I've been lurking on this list for a
while, and need to do the same, order the plans and get started !
This is a great medium, keep posting and let us all know how your doing on
your project ok ? There's LOTS and LOTS of experienced folks just waiting
to answer your questions. I've learned alot since joining this list.
I think your right in starting to build the table first.
This is an AWESOME place to get help and encouragement, your in the RIGHT
place here !
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: The plans arrived today! |
In a message dated 11/26/01 10:59:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,
hallstenokc(at)home.com writes:
<< I would like to look for a Corvair, but that may be jumping the gun
a bit. One never knows when an engine may show up thats just right for >>
Do subsribed to the CorvAIRCRAFT list:
===============================CorvAIRCRAFT===============================
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe corvaircraft" to"majordomo(at)usm.edu"
For help send "info corvaircraft" or "help" to "majordomo(at)usm.edu"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K. and J. Hallsten" <hallstenokc(at)home.com> |
All,
Thanks for the head start on tips! I am starting a notebook with
this good info, as I too print out useful e-mails from this list. I've
been reading the list for over a year and followed builders in their
progress. I was pretty sure I knew how to build an airplane, having
done it in my head over and over. But now the plans are on the dining
room table and I feel like I'm on a first date. Thinking what am I
going to do now!
Anyway, time to fire up the coffe pot, place a spruce order, and
finish my bench. Somewhere in my notes is a wood list downloaded from
the forum.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | The plans arrived today! |
George,
I'm in East Stroudsburg and hang around with a group in chapter 839 of
EAA.
Several folks in the local EAA chapter have built planes that are currently
flying. However, most of those planes are all metal and of the RV famliy.
I know of two other folks that have recently got Pietenpol plans and are
about in the same stage as I am, that is just beginning.
I've flown in to Danville in the past. Nice airport with all grass
runways.
A few weeks ago, I drove down to Grimes (halfway between Harrisburg and
Allentown). It has a nice little aviation museum with, among others, a
pretty Peitenpol with a model A engine.
Keep in touch and lets see how things progress.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
Allen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
Hi Dave. There's a Piet' flying out of Danville (8N8). I don't think the
guy keeps it there, but he is a local. I saw it there this year during a
fly-in. Nice plane with a C-65.
I'm about to order wood and get started on a Piet'.
Where are you located? I'm just 10mi. north-west of Harrisburg.
George Allen
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(soon to be Peit'. builder)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
> Any Piets flying or being built in eastern Pennsyvania??
>
> Dave
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 6'1" and 185 lbs. |
In a message dated 11/27/01 10:41:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
<< This is a long-haul project with lots of hand-crafted parts. Don't let
this
stop you. You'll get better and better as you go with your skills. It
seems
like it will never end and that you will never fly, but stick with it. Take
a
break if you need to, go get a ride in someone's Piet, take a course in
welding, but don't give up. This plane is way, way, way too much fun to
fly to not finish. >>
Some VERY good advice from what I can tell so far.
ESPECIALLY the last sentence ...
"Way to much fun to fly to not finish" !
Isn't that what its all about in the end, "fun to fly" ??
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
In a message dated 11/27/01 7:21:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Jfelts101(at)aol.com writes:
<< Somewhow I've got a feeling there are none in South Dakota tho.
Jerry in South Dakota
Soloed 28 Oct 2001
>>
Soloed a Piet ? If so WOoooHoooOO!! Great for you !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JamesJboyer(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
In a message dated 11/27/2001 4:21:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
Jfelts101(at)aol.com writes:
> Somewhow I've got a feeling there are none in South Dakota tho.
Hi Jerry, I'm originally from Watertown. My Piet progress is fuselage 80%
done (90%) to go as you will find out, ribs all done, tail surfaces all done.
and stell fittings in progress.
My goal is to fly it back to Watertown to see my brother and talk him into
going to Brodhead with me.
Go luck building a Piet; you will have a lot of fun and time passes sooooo
fast!
Cheers, Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Brown Tool Gift Certificate Reminder... |
Hi Listers,
Just a reminder that in support of the 2001 Email List Fund Raiser, Michael
Brown of Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. ( http://www.browntool.com ) has
generously offered to provide Gift Certificates to all Listers making
Contributions of $30 or more this year!
Making your Contribution to support these Email Lists and to qualify for
the Brown Tool Gift Certificate is fast and easy by using the SSL Secure
Credit Card Contribution Web Site at:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Or by sending a personal check Contribution to:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore CA 94551-0347
According to Michael, "The Gift Certificates have absolutely no strings
attached and are as good as cash for anything from the Brown Tool Web Site
or Catalog."
The amount of your Gift Certificate is based on the size of your List
Contribution and is according to the following:
$100 or greater Contribution receives a $25 Gift Certificate!
or
$30-$99 Contribution receives a $10 Gift Certificate!
==================== How To Receive Your Certificate ====================
To receive your Brown Tool Gift Certificate, send an email message to:
browntooloffer(at)matronics.com
and include the following information:
1) Subject Line: Tool Offer
2) Which Gift Certificate you qualify for ($10 or $25)
3) [Your Name]
4) [Your Mailing Address]
5) [Your City, State Zip]
** Please only use the email address shown above (
browntooloffer(at)matronics.com ) to request your Gift Certificate!
*** Anyone making a List Contribution of $30 or more in 2001 qualifies for
the Gift Certificate! But, you have to follow the instructions above to
receive it!
==================== How To Receive Your Certificate ====================
You should receive your Gift Certificate from Brown Tool in about 2-4 weeks.
I want to thank Michael Brown of Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. for this
wonderful offer in support of the Email Lists! If you haven't yet had a
look at the Brown Tool Web Site ( http://www.browntool.com ), then you own
it to yourself to take a peek! He has some great deals and good quality tools.
I would like to thank everyone that has already made a Contribution in this
year's Fund Raiser!
Thank you!!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | "K. and J. Hallsten" and the new piet |
I agree with Jack Phillips, make the ribs first. They are easy to do once
the jig is made up. I ended up making one rib a night using T88. I fyou use
epoxy, remember to coat the inside of the gusset with epoxy before you
adhere it to the rib. That way you don't have to brush on the finish coat in
those hard-to-reach places after the rib is completed. And get Tony's books
if you don't already have them.
Jeff in in cold and sleeting Texas. It's warmer
in North Bay, Ontario.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> |
Robert & Michael
Regarding the undried spruce from a lumber yard, I think you may be going
somewhere you don't want to be. If you don't mind spending the money, get
your wood from a place like Aircraft Spruce and Specialty. Their wood is
kiln-dried and precision cut and more importantly - graded for aircraft use.
They have any size you need. I got all my wood from them, delivered, ready
to go. I can't imagine how much time that saved me.
Jeff in cold and windy Texas. (But it's outright balmy at my dad's
place in Penetanguishene, Ontario)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The plans arrived today! |
Dave,
It's a small world. I'm in NJ, just 15 minutes from I80 (Allemuchy exit) ,
in Byram Twsp. I go through your area once in a while on field work. You
can't be more than 45 min. from me. I've got a long fuse Piet on the gear
with a 65. Only one wing left to cover.
You, or anyone are welcome to come and try out the back seat for size.
This way you'll save time on the mockup and take measurments for modifying
yours for you.
I'm flying to Fla. tomorrow, and won't be back till Tues. So if you are
interested, and I don't answer you right away, I'll get back to you Tues.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
>
> George,
>
> I'm in East Stroudsburg and hang around with a group in chapter
839 of EAA.
> Several folks in the local EAA chapter have built planes that are
currently
> flying. However, most of those planes are all metal and of the RV famliy.
> I know of two other folks that have recently got Pietenpol plans and are
> about in the same stage as I am, that is just beginning.
> I've flown in to Danville in the past. Nice airport with all
grass
> runways.
> A few weeks ago, I drove down to Grimes (halfway between
Harrisburg and
> Allentown). It has a nice little aviation museum with, among others, a
> pretty Peitenpol with a model A engine.
>
> Keep in touch and lets see how things progress.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of George
> Allen
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
>
>
>
> Hi Dave. There's a Piet' flying out of Danville (8N8). I don't think
the
> guy keeps it there, but he is a local. I saw it there this year during a
> fly-in. Nice plane with a C-65.
> I'm about to order wood and get started on a Piet'.
> Where are you located? I'm just 10mi. north-west of Harrisburg.
>
> George Allen
> GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
> (soon to be Peit'. builder)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Trainer" <dtrain(at)ptd.net>
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: The plans arrived today!
>
>
> > Any Piets flying or being built in eastern Pennsyvania??
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Robert & Michael,
I'm going to poke in a little old and new history regarding woods.
Bernr'd built his planes from locally obtainable spruce, air dried it for a
couple of months, built and went flying...something like 21 airplanes for
himself and customers.
Steve Eldridge in Utah recently built his from locally obtainable Douglas
Fir, graded it himself according to acceptable standard aircraft requirements
and built a great plane for something like $5000.00 total.
Buying "Aircraft Grade" Sitka Spruce at $7.00-$15.00 per board foot is
certainly an acceptable option. And...if you have more time than money and the
discipline to learn how to grade wood, you certainly can build a great Piet from
locally obtainable materials. I would highly recommend the articles by
Alexander on how to grade and test wood that are available from the archives on
Kitplanes.
As an aside, a whole bunch of the cost of "Certified" Aircraft Spuce and
Plywood is for the stamp, that indicates an insurance company and their lawyers
have been paid a nice chunk of change incase you auger in and your family
decides to hire an "expert witness" that you were sold defective materials.
Just any old white wood from Home Depot is most likely not a great idea. Be
certain that you do know exactly what kind of wood you are getting, that it is
clear, vertical grain with not less than 8 rings to the inch, and has little or
no twist in the entire length, with no pitch pockets.
Just an alternative point of view....
~Cheers,
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
When I first started, after receiving the plans and manual guide that
Don sells, I built a 16'x4' level table.
Then I started on the fuse first as Bernie suggested as everything hangs
off of it. I also purchased my engine at the same time so I would not
get burned out working on just one part. It's worked out really well for
me. As I would fabricate different parts, landing gear, motor mounts,
brackets, tailfeathers, etc,
I could attach them and make sure that they fit. The fuse for me has
been the neverending part of the
piet journey. I'm still doing things to it as I get closer to covering.
One big thing I did learn was don't put a due date on the project, just
build and enjoy till it's done.
Carl
Please visit my latest piet page at
www.megsinet.net/skycarl/pietpage12.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
I second that. I wouldn't mind having a spruce filled lumber yard near me,
but... The spruce from Wicks and ASS are graded, cut and ready to build
with. All of the wood for the tail was about $150.00 USD and the wing rib
wood was about $96 USD. It was worth it to me not having to search for and
grade wood AND not having to rip all those capstrips.
By the way, anybody get the drawings for those UK spars?
Joe
Spring, TX
>
>Robert & Michael
>Regarding the undried spruce from a lumber yard, I think you may be going
>somewhere you don't want to be. If you don't mind spending the money, get
>your wood from a place like Aircraft Spruce and Specialty. Their wood is
>kiln-dried and precision cut and more importantly - graded for aircraft
>use.
>They have any size you need. I got all my wood from them, delivered, ready
>to go. I can't imagine how much time that saved me.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Joe,
I have made two requests for these drawings, and have not received a
response as yet.
~Cheers,
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Meadows" <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Joe et al,
I agree with you, I bought all of my spruce from either Wicks or Aircraft
Spruce. One difference was that I bought maybe 3 bargain bags of spruce from
Aircraft Spruce, and by ripping the various-sized pieces in these bags, I
built up all my tail feathers real cheap! I also ripped-out many brace
struts for my fuselage from these same bags. You do have to look at that
wood, sometimes you get some pin knots and some splits, but it mostly, it's
a real cheap way to lay in a supply of usable spruce. I bought finished
longerons, and will buy finished 3/4" spar material when the time comes.
I did use marine grade plywood for most of my fuselage, the British marine
plywood spec, BS1088 I think it is, very closely resembles the aircraft
spec, and was much cheaper, so I went with that. I also used some Home Depot
Doug Fir for stringers and such. It's a tiny bit heavier, but much cheaper,
and it's good ole Doug Fir!
I also started with the ribs, then went to the tailfeathers then fuselage.
If I were to do it again, I might do the ribs, tailfeathers, and then go on
to build up the wings. Wings are much easier to store than that big ole
fuselage! Joe K. - I think this is what you're planning?
Later,
Gary Meadows
Spring, TX
I second that. I wouldn't mind having a spruce filled lumber yard near me,
but... The spruce from Wicks and ASS are graded, cut and ready to build
with. All of the wood for the tail was about $150.00 USD and the wing rib
wood was about $96 USD. It was worth it to me not having to search for and
grade wood AND not having to rip all those capstrips.
By the way, anybody get the drawings for those UK spars?
Joe
Spring, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary Meadows" <gwmeadows(at)hotmail.com> |
Okay,
Oops, I lied. I did have to buy the longer pieces for the horizontal
stabilzer from Spruce, but the REST of the tail feathers was cut from the
bargain bag. Didn't want to mislead anyone there....
Gary
Spring, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
Joe and Warren,
I, too, have made a request for the drawings, but haven't heard anything.
Mark Boynton
>
> Joe,
> I have made two requests for these drawings, and have not received a
> response as yet.
> ~Cheers,
> ~Warren
>
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/pietenpol-list
>
>
>
>
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "allen smith" <allenfarleysmith(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | put those hacksaws back in the toolbox |
Hello fellow builders,
I wanted to see if any of you folks would be interested in having access to
a really good laser cutting service. I don't want to step on any toes or
under-cut (forgive the pun) existing companies that already offer laser cut
parts for Pietenpols but I've stumbled upon a great opportunity
here....Here's the short story: I'm a mechanical engineer. My last five
years work has involved designing, and going into production with a
lightweight two wheel electric vehicle.(www.egovehicles.com) The design uses
an aluminum chassis that I developed using flat plate laser cutting
techniques and I have developed a great relationship with an upstart laser
cutting company.
Here's the deal, If any of you guys are interested, I can go drop off a
stack of fed-ex envelopes to them so that they would be able to cut and send
flat plate parts to anyone who may need them. All you would need to do is
fax me what you need and If I have already made AutoCad drawings of the same
part or fitting, I could negotiate a really good deal with them to cut lots
of parts at the same time and save us all some money and a lot of hacksaw
blades. I would be happy to help coordinate an order. All we would need to
do is find the best deal on the appropriate flat plate sheet steel and we
can nest many parts on the same sheet so that we can reduce waste. From
there, we could work out a per piece part cost. They even do a great job at
cutting the holes so that drilling isn't required. Also keep in mind that
the laser does a beautiful job with wood and I am going to have them cut the
slotted turtleback plywood arches for my fuselage when the time comes. I'll
save the drawing files for all to enjoy.
So as not to clutter up the discussions, perhaps those of you who would like
to give the hacksaw a rest could respond directly to my hotmail address
(subject: laser) allenfarleysmith(at)hotmail.com .I will gage the response over
the next week or so and will report back.
18 ribs and counting. Make that 19, before my head hits the pillow tonight.
Thanks,
Allen Smith
Fairhope, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jfelts101(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Oklahoma |
Wish it had been a Piet I soloed in that would have been soooo cool. I soloed
in a Fightstar II
Jerry in South Dakota
Soloed 28 Oct 2001
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Gang...I E-mailed Alan James in England to try to get more info on the
ply webbed spars that they are using on the other side of the pond. Alan was
glad to see our interest in the spars and answered a few of my questions but
said that he felt he couldn't give any details over the internet as the
engineering and the prints belong to Jim wills who evidently did the design
and testing of the spars. Alan said he has
spoken with Jim Wills about our interest in the spars in the U.S. several
times but Jim was not too keen on selling the prints to anyone in the U.S.
for liability reasons. I would really like to use their spar design as they
seem like a lighter weight,stronger,less costly alternative to solid plank
spars. If there is anyone on the list who knows a way to relieve Jim Wills
of the fear of our illustrious U.S. trial lawyers association maybe he would
be willing to sell the plans for the spars here in the U.S. Alan gave me Jim
Wills E-mail addy
( healthmatters(at)talk21.com ) but I haven't E-mailed him directly yet as I
understand where he's coming from.
Ed G. Fl.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
I received a personal response (forgive me, I've forgotten who sent it) and
as I understand it, the UK spar design was drawn by a gentleman in UK who
also sells the drawing and it would be copyright infringement (and downright
not nice) to email it to everyone on the web.
I think it's just a box beam with 1/8" plywood on the sides, oriented
properly of course, spruce on the top, bottom, and as fill under mounting
points, splices, etc... Pretty much the same design as a hollow core door.
The UK Piet web sites have some information and links to figure out the
rest.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Jump-Starting a project, need advice |
>
>There's been some discussion of Aerolite glue in this forum the past few
>months. I would ask for some test samples made when they glued the joint so
>you can break them and see how the glue holds up.
>
>If it is on the gear, a simple test to see how true everything is lined up
>would be to run a steel tape measure from the tailpost to the end of each
>axle. It might also be possible to put the plane in level flight attitude
>and put a level on the top longerons and hang sme plumb bobs to see how
>everything lines up. If the woodwork is good and the structure is well
>aligned, it's probably a good investment. If the fuselage is not aligned
>and true, pass it up. You may never be able to rig it where it will fly
>well. Check out Tony Bingelis' "The Sportplane Builder" , looking at the
>chapters on alignment. Most of the trouble building an airplane is keeping
>everything lined up, and poor aligm=nment is one reason many projects seem
>to drift from builder to builder to builder.
Jack,
Thanks for the advice, very sound IMHO. I initiated the glue-issue
discussion with an earlier post about this project, so I'm certainly going
to be looking critically at the joints; might even see if the seller is
willing to sacrifice a rib (sounds downright Biblical, doesn't it?:)).
Based on your caution, I'll take tools for checking alignment - dug my
Bingelis books out of their boxes (not unpacked yet) & checked the
appropriate sections, so I'll be ready to go.
Thanks!
Kip Gardner
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
I think I will not ever brag about the beautiful La weather again. It turned
foul the moment I sent that letter and it remains, so I'm confined to the
shop with details before me.
Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under the seat
for rudder cables? Seems that using the holes in plywood sets up a vibration
which is resonated by the wooden box fuselage. Probably wouldn't hear it in
flight any way. I would like my controls more sensitive. Would those two part
round plastic fairleads work in this capacity or is the angle too acute?
Detail # 2. I have asked this question many times on this net without
receiving any satisfactory answer. What is the DOWN incident in degrees of
the crankshaft in relation to the top longeron when using an A-65? ( I may
have to order some additional washers.)
Detail # 3. I have a 1/4 in plywood firewall now installed (temporarily). I
have a sheet of stainless steel, .025, ready to install. Being a
simple-minded person I intend to face the plywood. No flanging. Any comments?
If this goes well today I should be able to remount the 65 tomorrow and
weather permitting, hitch the fuse to the T model and choggie on out to the
airport for naked assembly Saturday. Call the FAA man, write a construction
log creatively, and wait for the stuff to hit the fan.
Corky in La where you wouldn't want to be today. They are even predicting
sleet brrrr
Anyone remember our Independence (Snow) Bowl last year?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
| Subject: | Box / UK spars, some more info |
I did a search on our archives for "box spar", and around 1999 the
builders went over the subject. Message 9335 from Leo Ponton had dimensions
and more than what we recently talked about. Message #9338 had Jim Wills
UK address, too. It sounded like he was selling plans at one time.
In 1999 a Mike Bell talked about designing a box spar and having an
engineer associate from work check everything when he finished. Is Mike
still here? It sounded like he had started something, anyway.
In message 9304 a Joe Krzes said he had a "wood Handbook" that had
formulas for calculating dimensions.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
In a message dated 11/29/01 9:09:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
> Pieters,
> I think I will not ever brag about the beautiful La weather again. It
> turned
> foul the moment I sent that letter and it remains, so I'm confined to the
> shop with details before me.
> Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under the
> seat
> for rudder cables? Seems that using the holes in plywood sets up a
> vibration
> which is resonated by the wooden box fuselage. Probably wouldn't hear it in
>
> flight any way. I would like my controls more sensitive. Would those two
> part
> round plastic fairleads work in this capacity or is the angle too acute?
> Detail # 2. I have asked this question many times on this net without
> receiving any satisfactory answer. What is the DOWN incident in degrees of
> the crankshaft in relation to the top longeron when using an A-65? ( I may
> have to order some additional washers.)
> Detail # 3. I have a 1/4 in plywood firewall now installed (temporarily). I
>
> have a sheet of stainless steel, .025, ready to install. Being a
> simple-minded person I intend to face the plywood. No flanging. Any
> comments?
>
> If this goes well today I should be able to remount the 65 tomorrow and
> weather permitting, hitch the fuse to the T model and choggie on out to the
>
> airport for naked assembly Saturday. Call the FAA man, write a construction
>
> log creatively, and wait for the stuff to hit the fan.
> Corky in La where you wouldn't want to be today. They are even predicting
> sleet brrrr
> Anyone remember our Independence (Snow) Bowl last year?
>
>
Corky,
Pulleys under the seat for elevator or rudder cables are ok but not needed.
I build my planes just as shown on the plans and it works fine; can't imagine
any reason to change it. The holes in the wood become a fairlead.
Not sure on the down thrust for the Continental, but it could be the same as
for the A and the Corvair.
The plans call for an 1/8 firewall bulkhead and .010 stainless or galvanize
from Home Depot is good for a firewall. Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Contributors Down By 25%... |
Dear Listers,
First I want to thank everyone that has already so generously made a
Contribution toward this year 2001 List Fund Raiser. It is your support
that makes these Lists possible.
Since there are only a couple more days until the official end of this
year's drive, I want to share some statistics regarding this and previous
Fund Raiser percentages. In years past, the percentage of members making a
Contribution to support the Lists has typically been right around 23% of
the total List population. This year, however, you'll note from the
Contribution Meter that we're only at a little over 16% for some
reason. This is down by roughly 7%, and translates into about a *30%
decrease* in participation this year!
I'm hoping that everyone is just waiting until the very last minute to make
their Contribution this year, and that the needle on the Contribution Meter
will still creep up to the normal 23% in the next few days! Saturday or
Sunday I will be posting the 2001 List of Contributors, so you'll want to
heat up that Contribution Web Site right away to make sure your name is on
the 2001 LOC!!
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
Thank you for your support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
>
>Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under the seat
>for rudder cables?
Corky---I did and then between there and where they exit the
fuselage I installed a nylon fairlead too.
>Detail # 2. I have asked this question many times on this net without
>receiving any satisfactory answer. What is the DOWN incident in degrees of
>the crankshaft in relation to the top longeron when using an A-65?
The crank tip is about 1" below where it would be with zero downthrust
but don't let this hang you up----I tried to build down thrust into my
motor mount and still had to add a few washers but it's still not even
one inch of downthrust and flies just fine. Forgetttabbbouit :)
>Detail # 3. I have a 1/4 in plywood firewall now installed (temporarily). I
>have a sheet of stainless steel, .025, ready to install. Being a
>simple-minded person I intend to face the plywood. No flanging. Any comments?
>You only need 1/8" ply there Corky---but 1/4" would be fine.
I flanged my firewall about 3/4" all the way around so oil, fuel,
and flames would stay outside the cockpits for at least a bit.
Keeps your wood and varnish from attack of anykind.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
My stainless sheet is 24 X 36 which give me enough to flange the top circle
and bottom but it's flush on either side. I'll go that route.
All is going well. I think I'll use nylon fairleads unfer the seat as I
already have micarta fairleads in the rear where it exits.
I'll just washer the hell out of the engine until I think it looks right or
doesn't fly right.
Corky in nasty La where I'll surprise my bride and prepare her " Les
Merveilles de la Mer en Crepes" for her post birthday dinner.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2001 12:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dumb questions
Pieters,
Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under
the seat
for rudder cables?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No, don't need them, fairleads work fine.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
For the rudder cables i used 1/4 " nylon tubing and ran the rudder cables
through it.
This made gentle bends by using nylon straps.
The rudders feel very good.
Dale in Mpls,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
Hey gang, I tried e-mailing Jim Wills about purchasing the spar plans
but received no answer.
If Jim doesn't want to sell plans on this side of the puddle, maybe he
wouldn't mind if someone would share them? Then no libility and if you want
to use them just send him what he would charge for them, whatever that might
be. Trust is a difficult concept. I'd would be glad to send him money, say a
money order, and get back plans with no title block or name on them. There
must be some way....
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(soon to be Peit'. builder)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
> be willing to sell the plans for the spars here in the U.S. Alan gave me
Jim
> Wills E-mail addy
> ( healthmatters(at)talk21.com ) but I haven't E-mailed him directly yet as I
> understand where he's coming from.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "twinboom" <twinboom(at)email.msn.com> |
Hello all,
I have been into R/C slope soaring for about five years now, and know
the value of doing the homework before building a project. I am in the
information gathering stage of building the Piet. The more I learn, the more
I know I have chosen the right plane to build. I just finished watching the
video by Mike Cuy showing the plane he built. Not only is it an award
winning plane, but the video is most excellent. I was going to build the
corvair powerplant first for the Piet, but after some kind direction from
others on the list, have decided to build the plane first. The video is very
informative, and has answered many questions about different things involved
in the building process. This will be my first Homebuilt. I'm looking
forward to getting started on it. I don't usually post anything, but the
video Mike produces is top notch start to finish. I'm sure it would be a
great resource to your reference Libraries. I felt like I needed to give him
a plug for his effort, and the time that went into the making of the video.
Thanks for the list and the teaching/learning it provides.......
Doug Blackburn, Arrowbear Lake, So. Cal.
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca.
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ISR>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] - Why Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? |
Listers,
A couple List Members have asked if the Lists are "in trouble financially"
and wanted to know if this is why I was having a Fund Raiser. It got to
thinking that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund Raiser and also
take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here provide
a far better experience than the commercial equivalents.
I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with
running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the
annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I
have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the
members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to
sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From
the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great
majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List
systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage
members to support the Lists.
I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer a great many
benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first
feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you *cannot*
receive a computer v*rus from any of my Lists directly. I've been on a few
other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected
files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their
posts. This just can't happen with my Lists; each incoming message is
filtered and attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo
and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with
other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be
prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and
simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives
don't get loaded up with a great amount of bitmap "data" that slows the
Archive Search times.
Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are
available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the
way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search
Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the
data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives, in my opinion,
is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header
data and all the other header garbage that seems to build up in a typical
email thread.
I have received an extremely positive response from Listers regarding the
new List Browse feature and the consensus is that the format and ease of
use is outstanding. Members report that having the previous 7 days worth
of messages online for easy browsing and sorting is hugely beneficial. And
again, as with the real time distribution of List email, the messages are
stripped of all the unnecessary email headers and potentially dangerous
v*ruses.
I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain
since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys I knew who where
building RVs. It has grown into nearly 40 different aviation-related Email
Lists and an associated web site that receives over 500,000 hits each
month!! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value
in supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing
and improving a high quality service at a price that's nearly free.
I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows
in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email
Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be
here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free,
that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and
receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
List Fund Raiser!
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
I have an article written by Peter Best that was in an early '60's issue of Sport
Aviation.
The article describes how to calculate the spar cap dimensions on a built up I-beam
spar.
The article is 5 pages and I will mail it to everyone who sends a self addressed,
stamped envelope to me.
Greg Cardinal
5236 Shoreview Ave. So.
Minneapolis, MN 55417
>>> Kent Hallsten 11/29 11:18 AM >>>
I did a search on our archives for "box spar", and around 1999 the
builders went over the subject. Message 9335 from Leo Ponton had dimensions
and more than what we recently talked about. Message #9338 had Jim Wills
UK address, too. It sounded like he was selling plans at one time.
In 1999 a Mike Bell talked about designing a box spar and having an
engineer associate from work check everything when he finished. Is Mike
still here? It sounded like he had started something, anyway.
In message 9304 a Joe Krzes said he had a "wood Handbook" that had
formulas for calculating dimensions.
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
You might also try "Stress Without Tears" by Tom Rhodes Ph.D. The book has two
chapters on design and stress
calculation for spruce and other wood box spars.
Just my two cents, it is entirely possible that the box spar was mandated by the
British aviation
authorities, if so the design should be in the public domain.
I'll look around when I have a chance and see if anything turns up on the Brit
design. If I can get to it,
I'll also run the numbers from Tom's book.
Larry
Greg Cardinal wrote:
>
> I have an article written by Peter Best that was in an early '60's issue of Sport
Aviation.
> The article describes how to calculate the spar cap dimensions on a built up
I-beam spar.
> The article is 5 pages and I will mail it to everyone who sends a self addressed,
stamped envelope to me.
>
> Greg Cardinal
> 5236 Shoreview Ave. So.
> Minneapolis, MN 55417
>
> >>> Kent Hallsten 11/29 11:18 AM >>>
>
> I did a search on our archives for "box spar", and around 1999 the
> builders went over the subject. Message 9335 from Leo Ponton had dimensions
> and more than what we recently talked about. Message #9338 had Jim Wills
> UK address, too. It sounded like he was selling plans at one time.
>
> In 1999 a Mike Bell talked about designing a box spar and having an
> engineer associate from work check everything when he finished. Is Mike
> still here? It sounded like he had started something, anyway.
>
> In message 9304 a Joe Krzes said he had a "wood Handbook" that had
> formulas for calculating dimensions.
>
> Kent
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | alternative spars |
Pieters-
At the risk of sounding simplistic, it's not a real tough task to do the
analysis to backward-engineer a wood box spar equivalent to a solid spar.
Since the original Pietenpol spar was routed at the webs for lightness, a
box section designed for torsional, bending, and shear strength equivalent
to a solid section would actually be a bit over-designed. It would also be
considerably over-designed relative to the later 3/4" thick spar. As
mentioned, solid pieces would be needed at the fitting attach points to
properly transfer the loads.
Analysis and design of an I-section with solid flanges and a plywood web
would be similarly straightforward.
The KR, for one, uses box section spars. It's not rocket science, but I'm
not real sure how willing I would be to design one and put the design out
there for others to build by, unless I either load-tested one both as a bare
spar and in a wing, or else built and flew one to the full limits of the
design.
With a parachute on, of course. ;o) Anyone for some +6G pull-outs from a
split-S?
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative spars |
Oscar,
Interesting thought. Being a competent aerobatics pilot (yes, I have my own
chute), I've deliberated about this same issue over the last few years.
I'd love to do some mild positive g maneuvers with my Piet. From the history of
the Piet as well as the fact that I can routinely do 2.5 - 3 g loops in other
aircraft my thinking is that it's practical. However, here are a few thoughts
before anyone launches off into the delirious burning blue. Ramble mode on...
1. There are some discussions stating that a person (I don't know who) has
evaluated the design and showed it good for +5.25 -2.5 or there abouts, I'll say
I don't remember exactly. I also don't know that person. Piet's don't fall out
of the sky, but who can verify these numbers?
2. No Piet should be built without the jury struts regardless of usage. For
example the lack of these structural elements drops the negative load to -1.5 g
in the above reference.
3. Any aero maneuvers with a converted auto engine should only be done over a
landing field, with lots of altitude, of course. Many float carburetors will
starve or flood the engine in rough maneuvers and the small props used on
corvairs or others will probably not be able to air-start the engine. Ask the
Volkswagen guys!
4. I'd rather have my airplane fail expectedly at 9,000ft rather than in a gust
on downwind. My preference would be an air test. I think though that I'd trust
the calculations for the full design load and take her up to say 4g as a
confidence check. This would be enough to proof against any gust or maneuver
emergencies.
5. But how to test this? The best way would be to pull the g's and then
uncover the wing. You sure as hell don't want to bust something and not know.
Remember too that such a test will test the entire aircraft, not just the wing.
Howdya like to fail a seat bottom at 6 g's?
6. Remember that design load is max, the limit load is the stress that the
structure is "expected to survive once in it's lifetime"! Don't even go there,
not even daydreaming in email.
7. I 'm not suggesting that anyone take any risks. Also, even if I decided to
do some mild acro, I would never do this with a passenger in this airplane. The
weight and load increases rapidly in small planes and you're going to need two
chutes as well. I would not trust the person up front to be able to get out in
an emergency. Don't do this.
8. This is not a negative g airplane. Period.
9. The built up spars are likely to cost close to solid once you've calculated
the wood, ply and glue. Also what's your time worth?
10. I think a design for a box spar would be a valid contribution for the Piet
movement (background music please). Some day we might not be able to find 1
inch spars in good wood. Also, any strength advantages would be a valid safety
issue, regardless of whether you want to loop a 70 year old airplane.
11. If anyone is going to attempt this kind of stuff get training, check the
math and build strong. Don't put a Pietenpol on the front page of the papers,
please. That's all we need.
So, for me I think I'll do some calculation and would like to see some tests,
then I may decide on some light loads. Very cautiously and with a plan.
One thing we might consider is to design the box spar and test one (you'd only
need one side) to destruction. If anyone's game on this, I'll contribute my two
spare ribs and make up an extra set of strut attach hardware. If everyone
chipped in, this could be a great project.
Larry
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> Pieters-
>
> At the risk of sounding simplistic, it's not a real tough task to do the
> analysis to backward-engineer a wood box spar equivalent to a solid spar.
> Since the original Pietenpol spar was routed at the webs for lightness, a
> box section designed for torsional, bending, and shear strength equivalent
> to a solid section would actually be a bit over-designed. It would also be
> considerably over-designed relative to the later 3/4" thick spar. As
> mentioned, solid pieces would be needed at the fitting attach points to
> properly transfer the loads.
>
> Analysis and design of an I-section with solid flanges and a plywood web
> would be similarly straightforward.
>
> The KR, for one, uses box section spars. It's not rocket science, but I'm
> not real sure how willing I would be to design one and put the design out
> there for others to build by, unless I either load-tested one both as a bare
> spar and in a wing, or else built and flew one to the full limits of the
> design.
>
> With a parachute on, of course. ;o) Anyone for some +6G pull-outs from a
> split-S?
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, Oregon
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Free Stuff Reminder... |
Dear Listers,
Don't forget that you can receive a free copy of Van's new Video, "The RV
Story" with a $50 or greater contribution this year, or a $10 Gift
Certificate from Brown Tool for a $30 or greater contribution or a $25 Gift
Certificate for a $100 contribution. Below are two URLs for complete
information on the two Offers. Please follow the respective instructions
*carefully*.
Van's Video Offer Information:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5781141?KEYS=asdf?LISTNAME=Yak?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=09092616692?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
Brown Aviation Tool Gift Certificate Information:
http://www.matronics.com/searching/getmsg_script.cgi?INDEX=5838463?KEYS=asdf?LISTNAME=Yak?HITNUMBER=2?SERIAL=09080216166?SHOWBUTTONS=NO
I want to thank Andy Gold of the Builder's Bookstore and Michael Brown of
Brown Aviation Tool Supply Co. for their generous offers in support the
Lists this year!! Thank you, guys!
I'd like to thank everyone that has already made a generous Contribution in
support of the Lists!
Thank you!
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative spars |
Pieters:
Been following the discussion about alternative spars and wonder if we have
been concentrating too much on the strength of the spar itself and
forgetting to figure in the terminals (fittings), struts, and of course the
jury struts??? Seems to me to be the possible weak points in the design.
Comments?
John Dilatush, ready to fly except for the prop.
Salida, Colorado
dilatush(at)amigo.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | alternative spars |
Hi Larry,
I may have written the numbers you are referring to - I did write an article
on the need for jury struts that appeared in an issue of the BPA newsletter
several years ago.
To clarify, I ran a stress analysis on MY PIETENPOL, i.e., certified
aircraft spruce spars and ribs, aircraft hardware, aircraft grade 4130
steel, etc. and concluded that with the 3/4" solid spars that I used, the
wing was good for about +/- 4.9 "g's", assuming a gross weight of 1050 lbs.
Note that this is the ultimate load which the spar should be able to
withstand, as you say once in its lifetime. A good theoretical limit for
actual flight loads would be 80% of that, or about 3.9 g's. Interestingly
enough, when you calculate the loads on the struts, the lift struts carry
almost everything (not surprising since they attach near the center of the
wing panels). The cabane struts carry only a few pounds each from the outer
wing panels. Of course, they carry almost all the lift loads generated by
the centersection, but that is not much compared to the outer panels.
As you point out, jury struts should be on every Pietenpol. Without them,
the lift struts can buckle at -1.14 g's, which can be produced by moderate
turbulence.
I intend to carry out a pretty thorough investigation of the flight envelope
during my flight test program, including "g" loading up to about 3.2 g's,
and including spins and accelerated stalls. I will certainly wear a
parachute for such testing, but I can't imagine owning an airplane without
knowing its stall/spin characteristics and knowing that it was strong enough
to withstand any loading I might put on it in maneuvers. I will probably
loop it, since it doesn't have much more drag than the old J-3 Cub that I
learned aerobatics in. I doubt that I will roll it, unless it rolls
considerably faster than a J-3 (shouldn't be difficult). I probably won't
do really stressful maneuvers like snap rolls, although I used to snap that
old Cub.
I absolutely do NOT say that any Pietenpol is good to +/- 3.9 g's. For one
thing, I don't want a lawsuit, but there is too much variation between
builders in the type and quality of wood used, and the skill and care used
in construction. As someone else recently pointed out, we are concerning
ourselves with the basic strength of the wood here, without considering the
strength of the fittings that hold everything together. For myself, I
totally redesigned the landing gear/lift strut attach fittings for the solid
axle wire wheel design that I'm building because I didn't like the way the
original was designed. In many ways BHP was a genius, but some of his
designs and construction practices (like his spar splicing methods) are not
the best way to do things.
Thanks for a thoughtful letter.
Jack Phillips
Oscar,
Interesting thought. Being a competent aerobatics pilot (yes, I have my own
chute), I've deliberated about this same issue over the last few years.
I'd love to do some mild positive g maneuvers with my Piet. From the
history of
the Piet as well as the fact that I can routinely do 2.5 - 3 g loops in
other
aircraft my thinking is that it's practical. However, here are a few
thoughts
before anyone launches off into the delirious burning blue. Ramble mode
on...
1. There are some discussions stating that a person (I don't know who) has
evaluated the design and showed it good for +5.25 -2.5 or there abouts, I'll
say
I don't remember exactly. I also don't know that person. Piet's don't fall
out
of the sky, but who can verify these numbers?
2. No Piet should be built without the jury struts regardless of usage. For
example the lack of these structural elements drops the negative load
to -1.5 g
in the above reference.
3. Any aero maneuvers with a converted auto engine should only be done over
a
landing field, with lots of altitude, of course. Many float carburetors
will
starve or flood the engine in rough maneuvers and the small props used on
corvairs or others will probably not be able to air-start the engine. Ask
the
Volkswagen guys!
4. I'd rather have my airplane fail expectedly at 9,000ft rather than in a
gust
on downwind. My preference would be an air test. I think though that I'd
trust
the calculations for the full design load and take her up to say 4g as a
confidence check. This would be enough to proof against any gust or
maneuver
emergencies.
5. But how to test this? The best way would be to pull the g's and then
uncover the wing. You sure as hell don't want to bust something and not
know.
Remember too that such a test will test the entire aircraft, not just the
wing.
Howdya like to fail a seat bottom at 6 g's?
6. Remember that design load is max, the limit load is the stress that the
structure is "expected to survive once in it's lifetime"! Don't even go
there,
not even daydreaming in email.
7. I 'm not suggesting that anyone take any risks. Also, even if I decided
to
do some mild acro, I would never do this with a passenger in this airplane.
The
weight and load increases rapidly in small planes and you're going to need
two
chutes as well. I would not trust the person up front to be able to get out
in
an emergency. Don't do this.
8. This is not a negative g airplane. Period.
9. The built up spars are likely to cost close to solid once you've
calculated
the wood, ply and glue. Also what's your time worth?
10. I think a design for a box spar would be a valid contribution for the
Piet
movement (background music please). Some day we might not be able to find 1
inch spars in good wood. Also, any strength advantages would be a valid
safety
issue, regardless of whether you want to loop a 70 year old airplane.
11. If anyone is going to attempt this kind of stuff get training, check the
math and build strong. Don't put a Pietenpol on the front page of the
papers,
please. That's all we need.
So, for me I think I'll do some calculation and would like to see some
tests,
then I may decide on some light loads. Very cautiously and with a plan.
One thing we might consider is to design the box spar and test one (you'd
only
need one side) to destruction. If anyone's game on this, I'll contribute my
two
spare ribs and make up an extra set of strut attach hardware. If everyone
chipped in, this could be a great project.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doug Sheets" <doug_sheets(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey Corky! Don't forget to take pictures of the Piet waiting for the "man".
The South wind must have blown all the good weather North to Penna. It's 50
degrees here NO SNOW.
I'm donating my Piet to the local EAA club as a project plane for the
members that don't have the room to build. We'll keep y'all posted!
Doug Sheets, Meadville, PA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative spars |
Jack,
Yes, as I remember, that was an excellent bit of work. A must-read for all builders.
In fact my jury strut comments comes partially from your analysis as well as
experience from the Champ/Citabria community. The higher positive number loading
comes from another off the 1" spars, but like yourself, I don't want to repeat
what I
have read or heard or even state any results I've found as gospel for all.
Additionally, looking at Bernies airfoil, I'm real glad I won't be trying to fly
that
thing inverted! ;-)
Regarding spins, I agree with you. I'd rather know what it acts like up front
and
learn how to deal with any "peculiarities". I'll check the archives and see if
anyone's commented on spinning a Piet.
Larry
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Hi Larry,
>
> I may have written the numbers you are referring to - I did write an article
> on the need for jury struts that appeared in an issue of the BPA newsletter
> several years ago.
>
> To clarify, I ran a stress analysis on MY PIETENPOL, i.e., certified
> aircraft spruce spars and ribs, aircraft hardware, aircraft grade 4130
> steel, etc. and concluded that with the 3/4" solid spars that I used, the
> wing was good for about +/- 4.9 "g's", assuming a gross weight of 1050 lbs.
> Note that this is the ultimate load which the spar should be able to
> withstand, as you say once in its lifetime. A good theoretical limit for
> actual flight loads would be 80% of that, or about 3.9 g's. Interestingly
> enough, when you calculate the loads on the struts, the lift struts carry
> almost everything (not surprising since they attach near the center of the
> wing panels). The cabane struts carry only a few pounds each from the outer
> wing panels. Of course, they carry almost all the lift loads generated by
> the centersection, but that is not much compared to the outer panels.
>
> As you point out, jury struts should be on every Pietenpol. Without them,
> the lift struts can buckle at -1.14 g's, which can be produced by moderate
> turbulence.
>
> I intend to carry out a pretty thorough investigation of the flight envelope
> during my flight test program, including "g" loading up to about 3.2 g's,
> and including spins and accelerated stalls. I will certainly wear a
> parachute for such testing, but I can't imagine owning an airplane without
> knowing its stall/spin characteristics and knowing that it was strong enough
> to withstand any loading I might put on it in maneuvers. I will probably
> loop it, since it doesn't have much more drag than the old J-3 Cub that I
> learned aerobatics in. I doubt that I will roll it, unless it rolls
> considerably faster than a J-3 (shouldn't be difficult). I probably won't
> do really stressful maneuvers like snap rolls, although I used to snap that
> old Cub.
>
> I absolutely do NOT say that any Pietenpol is good to +/- 3.9 g's. For one
> thing, I don't want a lawsuit, but there is too much variation between
> builders in the type and quality of wood used, and the skill and care used
> in construction. As someone else recently pointed out, we are concerning
> ourselves with the basic strength of the wood here, without considering the
> strength of the fittings that hold everything together. For myself, I
> totally redesigned the landing gear/lift strut attach fittings for the solid
> axle wire wheel design that I'm building because I didn't like the way the
> original was designed. In many ways BHP was a genius, but some of his
> designs and construction practices (like his spar splicing methods) are not
> the best way to do things.
>
> Thanks for a thoughtful letter.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
>
> Oscar,
>
> Interesting thought. Being a competent aerobatics pilot (yes, I have my own
> chute), I've deliberated about this same issue over the last few years.
>
> I'd love to do some mild positive g maneuvers with my Piet. From the
> history of
> the Piet as well as the fact that I can routinely do 2.5 - 3 g loops in
> other
> aircraft my thinking is that it's practical. However, here are a few
> thoughts
> before anyone launches off into the delirious burning blue. Ramble mode
> on...
>
> 1. There are some discussions stating that a person (I don't know who) has
> evaluated the design and showed it good for +5.25 -2.5 or there abouts, I'll
> say
> I don't remember exactly. I also don't know that person. Piet's don't fall
> out
> of the sky, but who can verify these numbers?
>
> 2. No Piet should be built without the jury struts regardless of usage. For
> example the lack of these structural elements drops the negative load
> to -1.5 g
> in the above reference.
>
> 3. Any aero maneuvers with a converted auto engine should only be done over
> a
> landing field, with lots of altitude, of course. Many float carburetors
> will
> starve or flood the engine in rough maneuvers and the small props used on
> corvairs or others will probably not be able to air-start the engine. Ask
> the
> Volkswagen guys!
>
> 4. I'd rather have my airplane fail expectedly at 9,000ft rather than in a
> gust
> on downwind. My preference would be an air test. I think though that I'd
> trust
> the calculations for the full design load and take her up to say 4g as a
> confidence check. This would be enough to proof against any gust or
> maneuver
> emergencies.
>
> 5. But how to test this? The best way would be to pull the g's and then
> uncover the wing. You sure as hell don't want to bust something and not
> know.
> Remember too that such a test will test the entire aircraft, not just the
> wing.
> Howdya like to fail a seat bottom at 6 g's?
>
> 6. Remember that design load is max, the limit load is the stress that the
> structure is "expected to survive once in it's lifetime"! Don't even go
> there,
> not even daydreaming in email.
>
> 7. I 'm not suggesting that anyone take any risks. Also, even if I decided
> to
> do some mild acro, I would never do this with a passenger in this airplane.
> The
> weight and load increases rapidly in small planes and you're going to need
> two
> chutes as well. I would not trust the person up front to be able to get out
> in
> an emergency. Don't do this.
>
> 8. This is not a negative g airplane. Period.
>
> 9. The built up spars are likely to cost close to solid once you've
> calculated
> the wood, ply and glue. Also what's your time worth?
>
> 10. I think a design for a box spar would be a valid contribution for the
> Piet
> movement (background music please). Some day we might not be able to find 1
> inch spars in good wood. Also, any strength advantages would be a valid
> safety
> issue, regardless of whether you want to loop a 70 year old airplane.
>
> 11. If anyone is going to attempt this kind of stuff get training, check the
> math and build strong. Don't put a Pietenpol on the front page of the
> papers,
> please. That's all we need.
>
> So, for me I think I'll do some calculation and would like to see some
> tests,
> then I may decide on some light loads. Very cautiously and with a plan.
>
> One thing we might consider is to design the box spar and test one (you'd
> only
> need one side) to destruction. If anyone's game on this, I'll contribute my
> two
> spare ribs and make up an extra set of strut attach hardware. If everyone
> chipped in, this could be a great project.
>
> Larry
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
In my personal opinion (first hand experience) the Box
Spar is better in this ways:
The upper and lower capstips of the spar are in one
piece (in the I bean are one on each side of the
plywood).
The rib suports (one for each rib) are half the width
and go one on each side of the plywood.
In the Box Spar there is double plywood, with better
"box" strength, even if is of 1/2 the thikness of the
I beam ply.
With the new epoxy barnishs, the Box Spar will be
complete sealed against moisture, was the only problem
years ago of the box type, moisture could get inside
and rotten the wood, now a light hand in the inside
and two light hands in the outside, using T-88 epoxy
glue... will make a bullet proof spar (WARNING: NO
BARNISH IN THE GLUE AREAS, be very carefull with
this).
One last thing, is faster and more precise to build a
Box Spar that a I beam, well both types need as much
time and care, every piece of wood (in the rib
area)has to be the same size so the ribs will fit
perfectly and the plywood be straight.
Just my .02 centavos
Saludos
Gary Gower
PS The Flying Flea HM380 spar is a "C" spar, like
the Box Spar but with the plywood in only one side...
This will be my next project, sorry no first hand
experience with this yet.
Gary
--- Larry Neal wrote:
>
>
> You might also try "Stress Without Tears" by Tom
> Rhodes Ph.D. The book has two chapters on design
> and stress
> calculation for spruce and other wood box spars.
>
> Just my two cents, it is entirely possible that the
> box spar was mandated by the British aviation
> authorities, if so the design should be in the
> public domain.
>
> I'll look around when I have a chance and see if
> anything turns up on the Brit design. If I can get
> to it,
> I'll also run the numbers from Tom's book.
>
> Larry
>
> Greg Cardinal wrote:
>
> Cardinal"
> >
> > I have an article written by Peter Best that was
> in an early '60's issue of Sport Aviation.
> > The article describes how to calculate the spar
> cap dimensions on a built up I-beam spar.
> > The article is 5 pages and I will mail it to
> everyone who sends a self addressed, stamped
> envelope to me.
> >
> > Greg Cardinal
> > 5236 Shoreview Ave. So.
> > Minneapolis, MN 55417
> >
> > >>> Kent Hallsten 11/29
> 11:18 AM >>>
> Hallsten
> >
> > I did a search on our archives for "box
> spar", and around 1999 the
> > builders went over the subject. Message 9335 from
> Leo Ponton had dimensions
> > and more than what we recently talked about.
> Message #9338 had Jim Wills
> > UK address, too. It sounded like he was selling
> plans at one time.
> >
> > In 1999 a Mike Bell talked about designing
> a box spar and having an
> > engineer associate from work check everything when
> he finished. Is Mike
> > still here? It sounded like he had started
> something, anyway.
> >
> > In message 9304 a Joe Krzes said he had a
> "wood Handbook" that had
> > formulas for calculating dimensions.
> >
> > Kent
> >
>
>
>
> Month!
> Thank you for your
>
[##########-------------------18.1%----------------------------]
>
>
> Forum -
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
Guys,
Greg Cardinal and myself have all the books for designing the spar. The
problem begins when we must have airfoil data to determine the chordwise
load distribution at various angles of attack. Max rear spar loading occus
at some particlular AOA and max front spar loading occurs at another AOA.
We then take these critical loads and multiply them by the load factor (Say
4 G's) and a safety factor of 150 to 200 percent and come up with the
design load on the spar.
As Bernard Pietenpol designed the airfoil by trial and error, a wind tunnel
determined set of data has never been made available, to my knowledge. We
need plots of Coefficients of Lift, Drag, pitching moments, etc., just like
what shows up in the old NACA reports and the book, Theory of Wing Sections.
I was hoping to find the time to build a useable either full size or scale
model which could have been sent to Kip gardner when he was still working at
Old Dominion U where he could talk someone into running the analysis in
trade for a case of beer but he does not work there anymore.
An I beam shaped spar, rather than a box shaped spar is more efficient as
the cap cross section would be the same whereas you would need, say ( as an
example only - do not use this thickness wood), only one 1/4 inch web versus
two 3/16" webs with the box spar. Savings would be substantial in that you
would be scarfing half the amount of wood, buying half (albeit thicker) the
square footage of material, and you would have to carry two wingspan lengths
of 1/16 inch more material around so it the ship would weigh more.
Also, a continuous spar from tip to tip is more efficient than a two piece
or three piece spar both from a structures standpoint and weight savings
standpoint. The spar design could be made different for each and the single
piece wing boys could enjoy the enhanced performance due to the weight
savings.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)Governair.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Box / UK spars, some more info
>
> I did a search on our archives for "box spar", and around 1999 the
> builders went over the subject. Message 9335 from Leo Ponton had
dimensions
> and more than what we recently talked about. Message #9338 had Jim Wills
> UK address, too. It sounded like he was selling plans at one time.
>
> In 1999 a Mike Bell talked about designing a box spar and having
an
> engineer associate from work check everything when he finished. Is Mike
> still here? It sounded like he had started something, anyway.
>
> In message 9304 a Joe Krzes said he had a "wood Handbook" that
had
> formulas for calculating dimensions.
>
> Kent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
Mike C.
A question on Corky's behalf regarding the downthrust. If you were to build
the motor mount so that the prop end of the shaft is 1" lower than if there
was no downthrust, do I assume that the rear end of the crankshaft is still
at the original point (ie where it would be if there was no downthrust)?
In other words, the question is what is the point of rotation about which
you rotate the crankshaft down? Is it the rear end of the crank? The
engine mounting bosses on the motor mount? The mounting bosses of the motor
mount on the fuselage at the firewall (this would give you less down
thrust)?
I have never had a satisfactory answer to these questions and it does change
things drastically depending on the point of rotation. An inch is not and
inch someimes. Just ask Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson.
Chris---- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Dumb questions
>
>
> >
> >Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under the
seat
> >for rudder cables?
>
> Corky---I did and then between there and where they exit the
> fuselage I installed a nylon fairlead too.
>
> >Detail # 2. I have asked this question many times on this net without
> >receiving any satisfactory answer. What is the DOWN incident in degrees
of
> >the crankshaft in relation to the top longeron when using an A-65?
>
> The crank tip is about 1" below where it would be with zero downthrust
> but don't let this hang you up----I tried to build down thrust into my
> motor mount and still had to add a few washers but it's still not even
> one inch of downthrust and flies just fine. Forgetttabbbouit :)
>
> >Detail # 3. I have a 1/4 in plywood firewall now installed (temporarily).
I
> >have a sheet of stainless steel, .025, ready to install. Being a
> >simple-minded person I intend to face the plywood. No flanging. Any
comments?
> >You only need 1/8" ply there Corky---but 1/4" would be fine.
> I flanged my firewall about 3/4" all the way around so oil, fuel,
> and flames would stay outside the cockpits for at least a bit.
> Keeps your wood and varnish from attack of anykind.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
The approved British spar is 3/4 inch thick spruce, with 1/8" ply on one side
only for the front spar, and 5/8" spruce with 1/8" ply on one side only for the
front spar. The verticals at the ribs are square and center-lined on the rib,
and the butt plates and strut plates are "sized according to their metal fitting
requirements".
Cheers,
~Warren.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
Warren,
Thanks, that makes the method of construction very clear to me.
A question though, is this spar the suggested replacement when 1" spruce is not
available or is it the preferred construction per the PFA?
Regards,
Larry
-------------
"Warren D. Shoun" wrote:
>
> The approved British spar is 3/4 inch thick spruce, with 1/8" ply on one side
> only for the front spar, and 5/8" spruce with 1/8" ply on one side only for the
> front spar. The verticals at the ribs are square and center-lined on the rib,
> and the butt plates and strut plates are "sized according to their metal fitting
> requirements".
> Cheers,
> ~Warren.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
Spruce isn't even a "local" product. They buy it from here and the freight charges
for long lengths are huge, so they need to get the most use out of a solid spar.
With
this method, 3 guys can make spars from one of ours. It was a design driven by
economics, and approved by the PFA.
Cheers,
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Box / UK spars, some more info |
Living here in Western australia I shudder to think of the airfreight costs
of a set of spruce wing spars on top of the spruce itself. (Check out the
exchange rate for the Aussie dollar and you will see what I mean), so I am
very interested in exploring any alternate means of fabricating spars. Just
had another look at Mike Cuy`s video and it appears he used 1/2" spruce for
the web with 1" x 1" spruce spar caps.
Any thoughts on substituting the spruce web with one of ply ?
Cheers,
Rod W. Tail feathers finished, two Corvair engines sitting at the docks
and 500 feet of rib cap on the way.
>From: "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Box / UK spars, some more info
>Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 21:09:10 -0800
>
>
>
>Spruce isn't even a "local" product. They buy it from here and the freight
>charges
>for long lengths are huge, so they need to get the most use out of a solid
>spar. With
>this method, 3 guys can make spars from one of ours. It was a design
>driven by
>economics, and approved by the PFA.
>Cheers,
>~Warren
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Listers,
Below are some of the comments I've received just this week alone from
members along with their Contributions to support the Lists! What can I
say? Wow. I really appreciate the kind words and extremely positive
feedback and I would encourage you to read over a few of comments below. I
think they really say a mouthful...
The last couple of days have seen a huge increase in support!! Thank you
to all that have Contributed and to those that have rallied support for the
Lists! Since the response has been so wonderful recently, I plan to delay
the posting of the 2001 List of Contributors a few days to assure that
everyone will be included!
Won't you make your Contribution today to support the Lists?
------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
The US Mail Address:
Matronics Email Lists
c/o Matt Dralle
PO Box 347
Livermore, CA 94550-7227
------------------------------------------
Thank you to everyone for the kind words and support!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
======== Some Great Comments on What The Lists Mean to its Members ==========
...great source of information, education,
relaxation, frustration, and socialization.
- John H.
Can't imagine what it would be like building
with out the Lists...
- Steven E.
Look forward to the list every day.
- Parker T.
I really enjoy reading the banter...
- Wesley H.
...enjoy the patter on construction tips and
possible problem areas.
- Richard N.
Couldn't have built my RV-4 without the List
and archives!!
- Warren M.
I have found the list to be a great help,
especially for a first time builder.
- Peter D.
I thoroughly enjoy the List.
- Larry B.
The List is a great resource.
- Dennis K.
The list is great entertainment.
- Gary Z.
Can't say enough about the good information
that I have received from reading the List.
- Robert C.
...it's the best!
- Steve F.
I'm addicted to the List!
- Rodney B.
The list has been a wonderful resource of
knowledge.
- Doug B.
As a first time builder, the lists have
been my most important source of information.
- James V.
It [read the List] is the first thing I do
every day is see what's new.
- Billie F.
The information available through the List
has made my flying safer...
- Dave R.
I get much more information about my plane
from this List than from all of my aviation
magazines combined.
- Roger H.
I love the list!!!!
- Ken L.
Much better value than a magazine subscription.
- Ted M.
...found it very useful.
- Allan J.
...this list has been a great service to me.
- Peter F.
I cannot express just how USEFUL the Lists are.
- Geoff T.
...a tremendous help to my RV-8 project and
a way to meet some of the best people going.
- Steve G.
The List is invaluable, and the best I've
ever seen.
- Ed C.
Like another family for many of us.
- John H.
The lists have saved a bunch of calls to
Van's for guidance.
- James V.
I think I'm addicted...
- Terry C.
Love it!
- David W.
The information really helps...
- Jim P.
...I find [it] very informative.
- Real D.
...List keeps me motivated... - Cliff M.
The exchange of information is really helpful...
- M.N.
Lots of great info on the List.
- Larry D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | airfoil analysis |
Chris wrote:
>The problem begins when we must have airfoil data to determine the
>chordwise load distribution at various angles of attack.
>As Bernard Pietenpol designed the airfoil by trial and error, a
>wind tunnel determined set of data has never been made available
>We need plots of Coefficients of Lift, Drag, pitching moments, etc
Well... by BHP's own admission, his airfoil ended up looking remarkably like
the Eiffel. I believe there is data on that one (or a family), and that
would probably be in the ballpark for our purposes.
When the AS50xx series of airfoils were being developed for the KR, we
hooked up with some folks at the UIUC to get our models tested in their wind
tunnel. The graduate student who ran the analysis is an EAAer (now a PhD),
and the work was part of his doctoral dissertation. Anyway, there might be
a possibility of getting models of the Pietenpol airfoil into the wind
tunnel, but it's a lot of work to make wing models of the required quality
and specification. I'd bet there might even be historical interest in doing
this, given the popularity of the design and its longevity. Maybe even a
sponsor? Not suggesting we go there, just saying that it can be done if
there is enough interest. But I would start by using the Eiffel plots and
wouldn't feel too bad about it.
Just finished a big plate of pecan pancakes. I'm over gross this morning,
but it sure was good ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | alternative spars |
John writes:
>wonder if we have been concentrating too much on the strength of
>the spar itself and forgetting to figure in the terminals (fittings)
>struts, and of course the jury struts
>Comments?
Yes, comments. My thought was this: we have a design that is tried and
true, hundreds of examples are flying, the mission profile for the airplane
is known. No need to analyze anything beyond the scope of the element that
we are interested in; the rest of the design and construction methods work
fine! So when we think about substituting for one element of that known
assembly, we look at that one element, not the entire assembly. It's one
thing to analyze the airplane, and another to analyze just the spars. If we
design an alternative spar that performs equivalent to the base design,
we're there.
Not to be overly simplistic, but if we provide for the same attach points
and load transfer points with the alternative design, we need not look
beyond that unless we just want to go ahead and analyze the whole enchilada
to determine things that BHP never bothered to determine, like C/L plots,
chordwise and spanwise lift distributions, whatever.
Oops- now you got me started on enchiladas. If you're ever in San Antonio,
you have to have the "enchiladas verdes" (green sauce) at Mi Tierra in the
old marketplace in downtown San Antonio. Mmmm, good!
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative spars |
I see the point. Just replace the two beams with those of equal or greater
strength. Makes sense to me but I see that you guys will soon have me in over
my head mathwise.
I looked in Rhode's book for a quick look at differences between capstrip and
wood beam spars. One example spar was 116lb in solid spruce and 88lb in
capstrip. Not to say Piet spars are that heavy, but it appears to me that one
could gain strength and lighten the design at the same time.
It sounds as though a couple of folks are contemplating a project, but if anyone
did draw up some plans, how to make them available without liability? The usual
sales and disclaimer route would work, but if one wanted to just make them
available what then? I suppose that they could mysteriously appear, unsigned on
the list server ;-)
Larry
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> John writes:
>
> >wonder if we have been concentrating too much on the strength of
> >the spar itself and forgetting to figure in the terminals (fittings)
> >struts, and of course the jury struts
> >Comments?
>
> Yes, comments. My thought was this: we have a design that is tried and
> true, hundreds of examples are flying, the mission profile for the airplane
> is known. No need to analyze anything beyond the scope of the element that
> we are interested in; the rest of the design and construction methods work
> fine! So when we think about substituting for one element of that known
> assembly, we look at that one element, not the entire assembly. It's one
> thing to analyze the airplane, and another to analyze just the spars. If we
> design an alternative spar that performs equivalent to the base design,
> we're there.
>
> Not to be overly simplistic, but if we provide for the same attach points
> and load transfer points with the alternative design, we need not look
> beyond that unless we just want to go ahead and analyze the whole enchilada
> to determine things that BHP never bothered to determine, like C/L plots,
> chordwise and spanwise lift distributions, whatever.
>
> Oops- now you got me started on enchiladas. If you're ever in San Antonio,
> you have to have the "enchiladas verdes" (green sauce) at Mi Tierra in the
> old marketplace in downtown San Antonio. Mmmm, good!
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, Oregon
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alternative spars |
Here is an updated correction for the British PFA approved capstrip type spars.
"The front spar comprises top and bottom spar caps each 1 1/4" X 7/8" Spruce,
with a 1/8" ply web. Spruce fillers and ply doublers are positioned at each rib.
Longer spruce blocks and ply doublers are also used at the root and lift strut
points. The rear spar is built the same way, but the caps are lighter --7/8" X
3/4"
with 1/8" ply web."
Got to:
http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/shentonprog2.htm
and scroll down 5 pictures to see a photo of a full set of left and right spars.
Cheers,
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Alternative spars |
Dear Oscar,
Your comments about leaving well enough alone with the design are well taken
IF nothing else is changed but the spars. The history of Pietenpol
certainly substantiates this.
However, many of us have raised the empty weight of the airframe by using
larger engines, electrical systems, more fuel for the larger engine, brakes,
tailwheels and so on. This has resulted in a heavier gross weight of as
much as as 1250 pounds, more than 200 pounds heavier than the original
design. I believe there was an informal weight and balance exercise at
Brodhead several years ago with the results published in the BPA newletter.
It was amazing how the planes varied from the original design in regard to
weight and balance. Most were much heavier than originally designed.
This indicates to me that the design has a strong and forgiving airframe,
but I don't wish to find out where the limits are. I would prefer to look
at all those parts which may be impacted by any changes in the weight or
design and that would also include how the spars are attached to the rest of
the plane. I would appreciate hearing more from you on the subject.
Cordially, John Dilatush, Salida CO.
dilatush(at)amigo.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Alternative spars |
John wrote:
>many of us have raised the empty weight of the airframe by using
>larger engines, electrical systems, more fuel for the larger engine,
>brakes, tailwheels and so on.
>there was an informal weight and balance exercise at Brodhead
>Most were much heavier than originally designed.
>I would prefer to look at all those parts which may be impacted
>by any changes in the weight or design and that would also include
>how the spars are attached to the rest of the plane.
Well, my opinion is just that: an opinion. All I have is a set of plans and
a keen interest in learning all I can about the Piet before I start
building. But what I see is what happens with almost every homebuilt: the
prototype is the lightest, simplest one of its type. All those following
are usually heavier and more complex. Yes, they often are far nicer than
the prototype, but isn't that the purpose of the first one, anyway? We see
a great new design at an airshow or in a write-up, we get excited, and we
start building. And improving. Tremendous value in getting more hands,
eyes, and minds in on it- as we see by the many tips and tricks, and elegant
improvements in this grand old design. So the question is, what happens
when we start making changes outside of the envelope that the designer
allowed for? We're experimenters; we experiment!
In my opinion, it is far more beneficial to build in lightness (to quote
BHP) than to re-design things to handle additional weight. The 3-piece wing
adds weight, but solves the problem of building space. I hope not to have
the space problem when I get started, so I'll build a one-piece wing.
Brakes and tailwheel add weight, but solve the problem of operating off of
hard surface runways and in crosswinds. I will have to live with this.
More fuel adds weight, but solves the problem of only being able to go for
short hops. This, too, is a necessity for me; I plan to go to fly-ins and
have fun in the airplane and not have to stop every 90 minutes for fuel. An
electrical system adds weight, but provides power for strobes, radios,
instruments, and other nice items. I don't think the Pietenpol needs an
electrical system, so I won't have one.
So one reason why we voluntarily add weight is to add features, whether they
are necessary for expanding the capabilities of the airplane or just "nice
to have".
The other big factor is money, since obviously that is a huge factor in why
many of us are homebuilders: we simply can't afford the shrink-wrap kits or
the factory jobs (or even the beat-up old certified aircraft out there).
When it comes to money, we get creative, we start really thinking, and
ingenuity kicks into high gear. The alternative spars fall into that area,
in my opinion.
Box spars, or I-section spars, don't have to be heavier than solid wood
spars. On the contrary, properly engineered and constructed, they can be
equivalent in weight; perhaps even lighter. The important thing to many of
us is that they can be made at far less cost than the stock, solid items.
If we're talking about analyzing the Pietenpol so that we can re-design the
weak points in search of a safe increase in max gross, that's a whole
'nother issue, and it starts with a person who has the fire in their belly
to start that ball rolling. That's not me. I like the design and simply
want to be able to build it affordably. That being the case, it seems far
easier to me to build in lightness, do without the bells, whistles, gauges,
and fancy paint- and enjoy leisurely cruise speeds but decent climb
performance, always with the ability to put someone in the front seat and
still fly safely. Upping the empty weight works against all of those
things. Beefing up fittings and structure without analyzing things
("eyeball engineering", or TLAR- "that looks about right") tends to increase
empty weight. It is for that reason that I'm interested in re-engineering
anything that will (1) simplify the construction, (2) make it lighter with
equivalent strength, or (3) lower the cost... but I'm really not out to
create a "fat Piet" when a skinny one will do.
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
I can't remember who the famous aircraft designer was that said this,
but I like it.
"Simplificate and add lightness."
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "allen smith" <allenfarleysmith(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternative spars |
Well spoken Oscar. I agree whole heartedly. That's been my philosophy as
well. I once sat in the front seat of a 1940 J-3 cub and flew over the
flower fields of Lompoc California watching the little cork float fuel gage
and felt great comfort in the simplicity and beauty of it all.
I'm still game for laser cutting and will be glad to help if/when I can.
Allen Smith
>From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: dilatush(at)amigo.net
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Alternative spars
>Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 23:59:10
>
>
>
>John wrote:
>
> >many of us have raised the empty weight of the airframe by using
> >larger engines, electrical systems, more fuel for the larger engine,
> >brakes, tailwheels and so on.
> >there was an informal weight and balance exercise at Brodhead
> >Most were much heavier than originally designed.
> >I would prefer to look at all those parts which may be impacted
> >by any changes in the weight or design and that would also include
> >how the spars are attached to the rest of the plane.
>
>Well, my opinion is just that: an opinion. All I have is a set of plans
>and
>a keen interest in learning all I can about the Piet before I start
>building. But what I see is what happens with almost every homebuilt: the
>prototype is the lightest, simplest one of its type. All those following
>are usually heavier and more complex. Yes, they often are far nicer than
>the prototype, but isn't that the purpose of the first one, anyway? We see
>a great new design at an airshow or in a write-up, we get excited, and we
>start building. And improving. Tremendous value in getting more hands,
>eyes, and minds in on it- as we see by the many tips and tricks, and
>elegant
>improvements in this grand old design. So the question is, what happens
>when we start making changes outside of the envelope that the designer
>allowed for? We're experimenters; we experiment!
>
>In my opinion, it is far more beneficial to build in lightness (to quote
>BHP) than to re-design things to handle additional weight. The 3-piece
>wing
>adds weight, but solves the problem of building space. I hope not to have
>the space problem when I get started, so I'll build a one-piece wing.
>Brakes and tailwheel add weight, but solve the problem of operating off of
>hard surface runways and in crosswinds. I will have to live with this.
>More fuel adds weight, but solves the problem of only being able to go for
>short hops. This, too, is a necessity for me; I plan to go to fly-ins and
>have fun in the airplane and not have to stop every 90 minutes for fuel.
>An
>electrical system adds weight, but provides power for strobes, radios,
>instruments, and other nice items. I don't think the Pietenpol needs an
>electrical system, so I won't have one.
>
>So one reason why we voluntarily add weight is to add features, whether
>they
>are necessary for expanding the capabilities of the airplane or just "nice
>to have".
>
>The other big factor is money, since obviously that is a huge factor in why
>many of us are homebuilders: we simply can't afford the shrink-wrap kits or
>the factory jobs (or even the beat-up old certified aircraft out there).
>When it comes to money, we get creative, we start really thinking, and
>ingenuity kicks into high gear. The alternative spars fall into that area,
>in my opinion.
>
>Box spars, or I-section spars, don't have to be heavier than solid wood
>spars. On the contrary, properly engineered and constructed, they can be
>equivalent in weight; perhaps even lighter. The important thing to many of
>us is that they can be made at far less cost than the stock, solid items.
>
>If we're talking about analyzing the Pietenpol so that we can re-design the
>weak points in search of a safe increase in max gross, that's a whole
>'nother issue, and it starts with a person who has the fire in their belly
>to start that ball rolling. That's not me. I like the design and simply
>want to be able to build it affordably. That being the case, it seems far
>easier to me to build in lightness, do without the bells, whistles, gauges,
>and fancy paint- and enjoy leisurely cruise speeds but decent climb
>performance, always with the ability to put someone in the front seat and
>still fly safely. Upping the empty weight works against all of those
>things. Beefing up fittings and structure without analyzing things
>("eyeball engineering", or TLAR- "that looks about right") tends to
>increase
>empty weight. It is for that reason that I'm interested in re-engineering
>anything that will (1) simplify the construction, (2) make it lighter with
>equivalent strength, or (3) lower the cost... but I'm really not out to
>create a "fat Piet" when a skinny one will do.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>Medford, Oregon
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Malley <jgmalley(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
Amazing how one set of plans has spawned so many different iterations.
Anyhow, from one completed Piet:
Detail #1: Though I used nylon pulleys, they're a lot of work and
certainly not necessary, a guide or roller would have done just as well.
Detail #2: I put in a total of 4 degrees of downthrust (2 in the
firewall and 2 more in the engine mount when I thought that the original
two would not be enough). Just like the pulleys, building in downthrust
is more work and not necessary, but it makes flying more balanced and
occasionally hands free. Two to three degrees would have been sufficient
for my Ford Fiesta. Additionally, Two degrees of side thrust allows a
straight fin and feet on the floor at least some of the time.
Detail #3: With your light engine, you can easily go with 1/4 in.
firewall and .025 sheathing, but 1/8 in. and .010 would be enough. No
need for flanging, though mine is flanged forward; it helps collect oil
and grime which can be wiped off every so often before it has a chance
to dirty up the fuselage.
Jim Malley
Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Pieters,
> I think I will not ever brag about the beautiful La weather again. It turned
> foul the moment I sent that letter and it remains, so I'm confined to the
> shop with details before me.
> Detail #1. For those completed Piets, did you install pulleys under the seat
> for rudder cables? Seems that using the holes in plywood sets up a vibration
> which is resonated by the wooden box fuselage. Probably wouldn't hear it in
> flight any way. I would like my controls more sensitive. Would those two part
> round plastic fairleads work in this capacity or is the angle too acute?
> Detail # 2. I have asked this question many times on this net without
> receiving any satisfactory answer. What is the DOWN incident in degrees of
> the crankshaft in relation to the top longeron when using an A-65? ( I may
> have to order some additional washers.)
> Detail # 3. I have a 1/4 in plywood firewall now installed (temporarily). I
> have a sheet of stainless steel, .025, ready to install. Being a
> simple-minded person I intend to face the plywood. No flanging. Any comments?
>
> If this goes well today I should be able to remount the 65 tomorrow and
> weather permitting, hitch the fuse to the T model and choggie on out to the
> airport for naked assembly Saturday. Call the FAA man, write a construction
> log creatively, and wait for the stuff to hit the fan.
> Corky in La where you wouldn't want to be today. They are even predicting
> sleet brrrr
> Anyone remember our Independence (Snow) Bowl last year?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: changing the Piet |
Dear Oscar,
Thanks for your comments to my remarks about the weights of Pietenpols.
When I started my Piet, (about 6 years ago), I too had the vision of making
the lightest possible airframe, strictly according to the original plans.
But of course my situation was a little different than Bernie's Pietenpol.
First, I live at over 7,000' in a valley surrounded by mountains on the west
of over 14,000' (the continental divide) and on the north and east of over
11,000'. The only way down is to go down the Arkansas Valley south and then
southeast. So of course, I needed more power than a Model A engine would
put out at this altitude;
Second, contemporary airports that I fly into have a lot of concrete so I
need brakes, to keep from running into that Gulfstream on the ramp. Maybe
run under it? And of course a steerable tailwheel to try and remain
straight during rollout on landing.
Third, the FAA requires a ELT and this requires the unit, batteries, wiring,
mounting bracket etc.
Fourth, due to building space and transportation limitations, gotta go with
the three piece wing.
And it goes on and on, get the picture?
So I decided to use an EA82 turbocharged and fuel injected engine to get off
the ground here and over the 14,000' mountains in case I decide to go to
Utah. But this requires a prop reduction unit, however no one has made one
for this particular version of a Subaru engine. Now I got to design and
make one. Opps -- I can't afford to have the sprockets made out of
aluminum, better go with the stock steel one. Ouch! 70 pounds added to the
engine. Oh well, the Piet is known as a tail heavy design anyway, it will
not be a problem. Now everyone knows that it is dangerous to hand start a
geared engine, need a starter now, better also get the alternator to keep
the battery charged. Holy Moses, I forgot that the fuel burn will be higher
and range reduced, better plan on another fuel tank too!
So you see, Oscar, that it is a little like eating peanuts, you just can't
stop at one.
Realizing that things were getting out of hand, I made up a simple
spreadsheet program to keep track of weights and weight and balance
throughout the construction, and carefully weighed each component before and
during installation. Those that I didn't have on hand were estimated--how
many square feet of aluminum will I use for the cowl, etc.
In spite of my best efforts, my empty weight has come out at 790 pounds.
The saving grace is that the plane will have about the same performance as a
super cub. I calculated the rate of climb at 9,000' to be better than 1200
ft/min. at gross and the center of gravity is at within limits.
Now the point that I'm making is that in spite of our best efforts, we will
end up building the Pietenpol to fit our own needs and the contemporary
flight environment with which we have to live. If weight is added to meet
these conditions, then we must look at the strength of the entire machine
to be safe. Not only struts, and wing fittings, but landing gear, seats,
tailwheel assembly and so on. I don't think that it is possible to count on
what has been done in the past as a reliable indicator of the future.
Cordially,
John Dilatush, NX114D, only have the prop to go, now making a duplicator to
use a great pattern I got from Duane Woolsey.
I am in Salida Colorado (look it up on the map and you will see what I mean)
stop in if you are in the neighborhood!
dilatush(at)amigo.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Updated Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
An Update to the Email List Photo Share below is available:
Subject: Aircamper
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/mb-albany@worldnet.att.net/index.html
---------------------------------
EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | alternative spars- UK |
Warren wrote:
>Go to:
>http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/shentonprog2.htm
>and scroll down 5 pictures to see a photo of a full set of left
>and right spars.
Well worth the look-see. I downloaded the photo so I could bring it into a
paintshop program and zoom in for more detail. Notice that the builder is
using the cam-block technique to hold things in place. You cut circles out
of wood (or use pieces left over from cutting holes in wood), drill mounting
holes a little off-center, and screw them to your building table. The cam
action lets you twist in to hold a part, then twist out to release it.
Quick and easy.
And while looking at the picture, I started seeing some similarities between
these spars and some composite spars I'm designing for my Flying Squirrel.
Take a look, at http://www.flysquirrel.net/spar02.jpg
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | alternate spars- UK |
Hello, Pietniks-
Sorry to whip this horse to death, but there is one more thing I wanted to
mention about the alternative spar design that I cooked up for the airplane
I'm building (per my previous post). The stock spars as designed and built
in the prototype are solid; the main spars are 3/4" thick, 7" deep; the aft
spars are 1/2" thick, about 3-1/2" deep. The spars are all 11 ft. long, and
the cabin is 2 ft. wide, so it's quite similar to the Pietenpol in that
respect. The alternative composite spars with foam cores and fiberglass
faces (for shear and torsional stiffness) calc out to 9 lbs. less weight
than solid (non-routed) spars of the same dimensions. I have not yet built
them so I can't verify that weight savings, but it's there on paper. I
don't know what the built-up UK Piet spars weigh v.s. stock, but I'd bet
there is at least 10 lbs. difference there. Is that worth fooling with?
You decide...
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Larry,
It was Bill Stout of Ford Trimotor fame whose "lifelong doctrine was
'simplicate and add lightness.' "
Ref. THE SPEED SEEKERS Thomas G. Foxworth, 1974, page 83.
(ISBN 0 - 385 - 06050 - 5)
This is a terrific book covering the quest for speed with the emphasis
on the period 1919 to 1926. It provides much information about racing
airplanes and the development of airframes and powerplants, plus the
hair-raising adventures of some famous people. During this time, air
racing provided the main impetus for this development. Tom Foxworth
has a knack for spinning a tale, and his book is an excellent and infor-
mative account.
Unfortunately, Pietenpols are not mentioned. However, their technology
level is similar to that of the early part of the period dealt with in this
fine
book.
Check your library, but be prepared to forsake work on your Pietenpol
until you have finished reading it!
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks Graham, look for your commission check, you just sold a book! - Larry
Graham Hansen wrote:
>
> Larry,
>
> It was Bill Stout of Ford Trimotor fame whose "lifelong doctrine was
>
> 'simplicate and add lightness.' "
>
> Ref. THE SPEED SEEKERS Thomas G. Foxworth, 1974, page 83.
> (ISBN 0 - 385 - 06050 - 5)
>
> This is a terrific book covering the quest for speed with the emphasis
> on the period 1919 to 1926. It provides much information about racing
> airplanes and the development of airframes and powerplants, plus the
> hair-raising adventures of some famous people. During this time, air
> racing provided the main impetus for this development. Tom Foxworth
> has a knack for spinning a tale, and his book is an excellent and infor-
> mative account.
>
> Unfortunately, Pietenpols are not mentioned. However, their technology
> level is similar to that of the early part of the period dealt with in this
> fine
> book.
>
> Check your library, but be prepared to forsake work on your Pietenpol
> until you have finished reading it!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham Hansen
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | photo share- Mr. Sam |
The list owner posted:
>An Update to the Email List Photo Share below is available:
>Subject: Aircamper
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/mb-albany@worldnet.att.net/index.html
I knew there was something funny here. I went to take a peek at "Mr. Sam"
Piet (nice job on the cowling, sir). Caption said it was 0-200 powered. So
what does the engine close-up show? A water-cooled 0-200 with all 4 exhaust
stacks out one side ;o)
I note that the tailwheel on "Mr. Sam" looks to be the original Piet
spring-type skid but with a tailwheel adapted to it. Is that correct? If
so, is it the typical "shopping cart" type of resilient wheel?
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
| Subject: | Chris - Wood Book |
Chris,
I received my EAA Wood Book Saturday. Thanks! There is so much
information in this one book, that you just can't find elsewhere.
I have spent lots of time on the internet trying to gather wood
info, visiting all types of sites, just to find that everything a Piet
builder needs to know about wood is right here in this book. Having this
info assembled and at my fingertips will save me much time over the years of
building. For example, the diagrams are very clear and easy to interpret,
and I found out more about the different types of wood spars than I ever
thought was possible.
To anyone else building now, take advantage of this book, it has too
much knowledge to be ignored. Check with your EAA chapter and see if they
have one for sale, or get one from the EAA site. I have noticed some for
sale on the E-bay site, at slightly inflated prices.
Kent
Starting rib jig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chris - Wood Book |
Do not forget that these books will be available again during next year's
book sale (no profits to me or anyone else - just a service to the Pietenpol
community throught the educationally oriented EAA Chapter 25). The book
sale should start in the late spring and books will be delivered by early
july, if not sooner.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chris - Wood Book
>
> Chris,
> I received my EAA Wood Book Saturday. Thanks! There is so much
> information in this one book, that you just can't find elsewhere.
>
> I have spent lots of time on the internet trying to gather wood
> info, visiting all types of sites, just to find that everything a Piet
> builder needs to know about wood is right here in this book. Having this
> info assembled and at my fingertips will save me much time over the years
of
> building. For example, the diagrams are very clear and easy to interpret,
> and I found out more about the different types of wood spars than I ever
> thought was possible.
>
> To anyone else building now, take advantage of this book, it has
too
> much knowledge to be ignored. Check with your EAA chapter and see if they
> have one for sale, or get one from the EAA site. I have noticed some for
> sale on the E-bay site, at slightly inflated prices.
>
> Kent
> Starting rib jig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Hey gang, I got my hands on a 65 continental and I plan on selling it on
ebay.
It has complete logs and TT is 1750, SMOH is 750. If anyone would be
interested
in this, asking price is $4000. I wanted to give the list a chance on it
before I put it
up on auction. If no one is interested, I'll post it to ebay Tuesday
night.
I might have a C-200 later this week. It has all the logs to.
Carl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Dumb questions |
>Chris B. wrote:
>In other words, the question is what is the point of rotation about which
>you rotate the crankshaft down? Is it the rear end of the crank? The
>engine mounting bosses on the motor mount?
Good question Chris because it really does make a difference on where you
rotate from-----as best I can see from Don Pietenpol's A-65 motor mount plans
for the Pietenpol the point of rotation or pivot is the engine mounting bosses
on the motor mount. I've got very little downthrust the way things worked out
and she flies just fine. I didn't want the look of too much downthrust
anyway,
but I imagine they might even fly better with some. I'd have to dig out
the plans
to see how much downthrust is in there-----I think it's given in degrees.
From memory I think he just made the two top mounting boss points longer than
the two bottom mounting boss points.
>Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | 1/2 " web spars work just fine....... |
Rod---You are correct. I made my spars of a 1/2" spruce web
with two 1"x1" U-shaped channels of spruce capping top and bottom.
I would NOT do this again as it's a waste of time routing out the U portion
of those caps. What I would do is glue on four strips of 1/4" x 3/4" or 1"
of spruce on all four faces of the spar and be done with it. Super easy
and even stronger than the Aeronca Champ spar which I believe is only
1/2" thick all the way down----and nothing else. (Cy---please correct this
if wrong....but I was surprised to see a Champs spars during a re-cover
one day out at the airport.)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: 1/2 " web spars work just fine....... |
I believe that the Aeronca Spars are 3/4" stock for the main spar.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 1/2 " web spars work just fine.......
Rod---You are correct. I made my spars of a 1/2" spruce web
with two 1"x1" U-shaped channels of spruce capping top and bottom.
I would NOT do this again as it's a waste of time routing out the U portion
of those caps. What I would do is glue on four strips of 1/4" x 3/4" or 1"
of spruce on all four faces of the spar and be done with it. Super easy
and even stronger than the Aeronca Champ spar which I believe is only
1/2" thick all the way down----and nothing else. (Cy---please correct this
if wrong....but I was surprised to see a Champs spars during a re-cover
one day out at the airport.)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1/2 " web spars work just fine....... |
Yes, my 7ECA has 3/4" solid spars. - Larry
Cy Galley wrote:
>
> I believe that the Aeronca Spars are 3/4" stock for the main spar.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: 1/2 " web spars work just fine.......
>
>
>
> Rod---You are correct. I made my spars of a 1/2" spruce web
> with two 1"x1" U-shaped channels of spruce capping top and bottom.
> I would NOT do this again as it's a waste of time routing out the U portion
> of those caps. What I would do is glue on four strips of 1/4" x 3/4" or 1"
> of spruce on all four faces of the spar and be done with it. Super easy
> and even stronger than the Aeronca Champ spar which I believe is only
> 1/2" thick all the way down----and nothing else. (Cy---please correct this
> if wrong....but I was surprised to see a Champs spars during a re-cover
> one day out at the airport.)
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
I knew there was something funny here. I went to take a peek at "Mr.
Sam"
Piet (nice job on the cowling, sir). Caption said it was 0-200
powered. So
what does the engine close-up show? A water-cooled 0-200 with all 4
exhaust
stacks out one side ;o)
I note that the tailwheel on "Mr. Sam" looks to be the original Piet
spring-type skid but with a tailwheel adapted to it. Is that correct?
If
so, is it the typical "shopping cart" type of resilient wheel?
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Right, the Ford engine was the original engine in Mr Sam. I flew it
for two years, then changed to an 0-200.
You are right about the tailwheel. It is the tail skid adapted for a
wheel. I tried a shopping cart wheel, didn't last long, changed to a two
inch wheel ( I think it is two inch ) bought from an outfit in Ca & it
has never failed.
I will post a pic of the tailwheel soon.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
Carl
I am interested and have a few questions about the 65 Continental, Id like to
speak to you about it. Could you give me your tel no on the cite or
personally at borodent(at)aol.com - - or - - I should be in tonight from 8:30 pm
EST, you could call collect at 631 423 2949- thanks Henry Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Bought a sheet of Alclad 2024-T3 .020. Is this thick enough for Piet
cowlings? The price was right.
Corky in La working hard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Bought a sheet of Alclad 2024-T3 .020. Is this thick enough for Piet
cowlings? The price was right.
Corky in La working hard.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
What was/is the difference in cruise speed of your Piet of the two engines?
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com> |
Corky,
I used 2024T3 at .025 and it worked fine.
DickG.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cowlings
>
> Pieters,
> Bought a sheet of Alclad 2024-T3 .020. Is this thick enough for Piet
> cowlings? The price was right.
> Corky in La working hard.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Good,
Mr Harvey sold me this sheet today for $25. Enough for all my cowlings. It
says in print .020 but it miced out about .027. Plenty strong. Doug, how far
along are you? Will you be able to fly to Abbeville with Ted next year for
the 1st annual Pietenpol Louisiana Shrimp eating fly-in? Oysters too.
Corky in La pulling those heads as fast as I can.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
What was/is the difference in cruise speed of your Piet of the two
engines?
Corky in La
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not much, I run the 0-200 at 2200-2250 rpm & get 75-80 mph. The Ford,
maybe 70 ( that was 12 years ago).
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
What was/is the difference in cruise speed of your Piet of the two
engines?
Corky in La
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not much, I run the 0-200 about 2250 rpm & get 75 - 80 mph. The Ford
engine I got around 70 mph.
Mike B Piet N687MB (Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
In a message dated 12/3/01 8:48:54 AM Eastern Standard Time,
taildrags(at)hotmail.com writes:
<< The list owner posted:
>An Update to the Email List Photo Share below is available:
>Subject: Aircamper
>http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/mb-albany@worldnet.att.net/index.html
I knew there was something funny here. I went to take a peek at "Mr. Sam"
Piet (nice job on the cowling, sir). Caption said it was 0-200 powered. So
what does the engine close-up show? A water-cooled 0-200 with all 4 exhaust
stacks out one side ;o)
>>
Looks like a Model A engine, along with Radiator.
I noticed the Carb Heat on first exhaust stack. Wonder how warm the air
coming off that short stack, in the front of the engine, puts out ?
Is it enough? Only the CARB knows !
-dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
I've never heard Mike Cuy mention speed with his A-65. Really, this is a
subject that Piet people should never discuss as nothing much could change
that drag.
Thanks for your answer
Corky in La where they sent those carpetbaggers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
The only time we can talk of speed and the Pietenpol is when we talk of how
SLOW we get places. To talk of speed in any other context is just plain bad
manners.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
>
> I've never heard Mike Cuy mention speed with his A-65. Really, this is a
> subject that Piet people should never discuss as nothing much could change
> that drag.
> Thanks for your answer
> Corky in La where they sent those carpetbaggers
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
Manners be damned!
My goal is to be able to scramble, out-climb and intercept intruding Piper J-3's
in their own element!
I have the skills and resources to bring this to fruition with existing 1928
technology and intend to demonstrate this capability within the next few years.
Certainly by 2006...
Later I will announce a match against the pernicious "Upwind Gravel Truck" and
by continued work at the anvil, along with a diligent phsy-ops campaign, will
convince truckers to return to mid 70's speed limits. ;-)
Larry
(The slower you go, the more good people you meet.)
------------------
Christian Bobka wrote:
>
> The only time we can talk of speed and the Pietenpol is when we talk of how
> SLOW we get places. To talk of speed in any other context is just plain bad
> manners.
>
> Chris Bobka
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
>
> >
> > I've never heard Mike Cuy mention speed with his A-65. Really, this is a
> > subject that Piet people should never discuss as nothing much could change
> > that drag.
> > Thanks for your answer
> > Corky in La where they sent those carpetbaggers
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
I think those are fine goals!! And I will have fun chasing cattle and
skimming the Oklahoma wheat fields!
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Neal [mailto:llneal2(at)earthlink.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 12:43 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners
>
>
>
>
> Manners be damned!
>
> My goal is to be able to scramble, out-climb and intercept
> intruding Piper J-3's
> in their own element!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
Pieters
My sincere apology to the list for bringing up such a verbotin subject, (
speed of a Piet.)
I will in the future try to ration my comments to more enlightened subjects
such as nuts, bolts, cables, dacron, spruce, 4130, engines and anything else
pertaining to a flying machine.
Someone in the South
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
The old pilots say around here: The speed is given by
the airplane (drag) the climb is given by the
engine... This is always a comment when someone (most
cases, a new builder or ultralight owner) wants a "hot
rod" airplane just for improving the engine power.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
> Isablcorky(at)aol.com
>
> I've never heard Mike Cuy mention speed with his
> A-65. Really, this is a
> subject that Piet people should never discuss as
> nothing much could change
> that drag.
> Thanks for your answer
> Corky in La where they sent those carpetbaggers
>
>
>
> Month!
> Thank you for your
>
[###########------------------20.6%----------------------------]
>
>
> Forum -
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | speed challenged |
Corky----Let's just say that with a good headwind up over
Wisconsin I got passed by a school bus and have pics to
prove it.
I've got no problem telling my Piets speed. It's about 72 mph
in cruise. 2150 rpm with a 72-42 wood prop on an A-65.
Also there is a huge difference in the way a Ford feels on the
controls and a Cont./Corvair job. Take your 65 Cont. Piet and
throttle back to about 1700 rpm and that's what a Ford feels like.
Sluggish on all the controls too. Ed Snyder's Ford Piet said 55 mph
in cruise when I flew it and it felt like 55. Oh and you get that nice
hot air from the radiator in your face with some exhaust fumes to boot
on a hot day. (it's still great)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: speed challenged |
Thanks for the update. I think I might have opened another can of worms. I'll
be swinging a metal McCauley 71-48. Don't have any idea what to expect on
performance, Just hope it slow flies nicely at 1700 with reasonably good feel
and control not mushie. Am cutting my fuse cowls today.I used to like to make
power on landings, nose up at around 1700 in the L-16 (Aeronca 7AC). In a
good Texas afternoon wind I might not roll more than 10 or 15 feet.Memories,
memories.
Corky in La thinking about his past in Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi Gang:
I recall a conversation at Bhead once when a fellow said his Piet was
kinda slow. I aksed him what he meant by slow. He said " well, I passed
over a farm on the way and the kids were playing ball; I watched 2 1/2
innings."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Broadhead Flyin |
Has the date for Broadhead 2002 been set yet- I'd like to pencil it in
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Rebuild |
I would appreciate opinions from the gang. Im considering getting a used
0200 - I believe it was pulled from a cessna in good-ok-?- flying condition.
I think I would want to get it inspected-rebuilt by an A&E. What do you
would be a fair proice for this engine, and more importantly what kind of
expences might I incur at the rebuild.
Henry Williams finishing off fuselage wood.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Fuselage Building Notes |
It was tough getting details on building the fuselage, but after looking
at some notes by list members I worked up a method to solve some
problems that seem to come up. As usual, this is what I did and it
worked for me, your mileage may vary, please don't take it as gospel or
use it step by step.
First I ripped a 4X8' sheet of 1/4" ply lengthwise, bolted 2 pairs of
2X4 studs together to make 16 foot "rails" and screwed the ply on top of
them. I bought three plastic sawhorses to put it on cuz I'm lazy.
Marked the centerline and various 90 degree stations in red ink and then
laid out lines for the top & bottom longerons and uprights in blue.
Made 1/2" X 3" X 2" blocks to locate all sticks and screwed to the table
with phillips head deck screws.
I went through conniption fits on how to orient the longeron grain, but
after lots of email on the list Don Pietenpol and my longtime A&P said
it doesn't matter much. I do favor the vertical grain method for
bending reasons though and have also concluded that the orientation is
meaningless on all the uprights.
Next, I built the left side using wax paper under joints and then
covered with outside ply and gussets, being careful not to glue anything
to the locating blocks. I used 1/2" galvanized nails on 3/4" to 1 1/2"
centers for all plywood depending on clamping pressure needed.. Best
damn little clamps I ever bought!
I removed the left side and built the right, but this time only (of
course) put in inside gussets. Next I pulled right side, removed the
locating blocks and put the inside gussets in the left side and only the
tail outside gussets on the right. I then put both sides on table
upright, but upside down and located everything square using clamps on
table and longerons to hold alignment. Two metal tri-squares were
clamped to each other and to the sides to maintain a square cross
section as I moved down the fuselage.
Cross strut notes:
You will also want to sand or cut about a 12 degree angle in both the
front and rear seat top cross members to fit your particular seat
angle. I moved my rear seat back to a more comfortable angle, so it
will differ. You end up with an open angle between the front seat back
and the rear ash strut. I just filled it in with a spruce wedge. A
similar angle to these also occurs on the bottom firewall cross strut
where the attachment to the sloping bottom ply "rotates" the strut a few
degrees. I set the angle for these struts into the table on my B&D disk
sander, from there I sanded until the wide side of the strut approached
the wheel, then stopped, very easy after one try. A belt sander is the
hot ticket for tapering the ends of the ash struts. When gluing struts
put wax paper over some scrap strut material, clamp to the longeron to
be used as a "shelf" to hold the cross strut until the glue cures.
After cross struts are cut and fitted, mark the centerline and use a
good plumb bob to check against the centerline on the table. When
gluing, check with a square to make sure the strut bottoms are even with
the longeron bottoms or you'll get a glue gap later, but minor misses
can be cured with sanding.
Long fuselage notes:
Remember if you're building the long fuselage, there is a 2" addition to
the first section where the engine tray goes and a 3" addition to the
rear pilot compartment. A lot of measurements for the cross struts and
ash struts change with this so work it out and measure twice. Also on
all plans, be sure to understand the 27 1/2" relationship between the
ash struts to meet the gear struts properly. I measured the plan
location of the rear ash strut and located the front ash strut forward
27 1/2" from this.
I started forward and put in the bottom cross struts and ash bearers all
the way back to last full 24" section, being careful to align so floor
ply would later fit flat. With wax paper under assembly put in top
cross struts firewall to last full 24" section (see note on front seat
top strut below). Checked for square again and installed 1/8 ply
firewall, making sure to extend bottom to extend over 1/4 floor later.
Moved the metal tri-squares back, squared and installed front seat.
Once cured the fuselage was turned upright, using boards and clamps to
hold the tailpieces (separated by 24" at this point) in alignment with
the rest without stressing the joints. Squared, installed top cross
struts, top ply and cross pieces over ply.
Turned fuselage again (now upside down) and blocked up the length to
match the projecting ply and 1/2 struts up front. After alignment
clamped the front and middle to the table and carefully pulled
tailpieces together an equal amount to allow for installation of the
rear seat top strut and rear seat. These are the first cross members
that start moving toward center from the constant 24" width up front.
The plans show the dimensions to meet, note they include outside ply.
Once the rear seat was cured, pulled the tail pieces together and marked
a line to the the bench centerline. I used a belt sander to remove wood
and a piece of sandpaper wrapped around 1/8 ply to clean up. Put
bungees around the aft fuselage for a bit of pressure and the sandpaper
will cut evenly and give you a straight edge. Checked alignment again
and glued tail together.
Cut and glued rear bottom cross struts. I'm building the long fuselage,
so the widths differ from original plans and are not listed on the
supplemental. Just keep the curve going back without undue stress
anywhere and it works out. Install bottom rear angle struts, be sure
that these struts terminate on the longerons and not the cross struts.
Check with square to make sure gussets will lie flat, though the ends of
the forward 1X5/8 cross strut will need to stick up slightly and then be
sanded level later for good glue-up.
Now I'm ready to cut slots for the bottom engine mounts. This way it's
easy to do and very accurate.
I measured for the metal mount dimensions and used a regular saw which
left a slot close enough to the 14 gauge (.080) steel to clean up with
sandpaper on a thin steel strip. These slots start at the inner ply and
go from the bottom of the lower longeron up (down actually as the
fuselage is inverted) to the height of the motor mount. Yes the bottom
and later top firewall cross struts are cut, but that's okay. After
mounts are in I'll put a short wedge from longeron to front cross
struts.
The 1/4 ply bottom goes on now and you don't have to guess, just lay it
on, mark off from the edge of the left fuselage ply and allow 1/8
overhang to cover the right side ply when it goes on. I just added 1/4"
and I'll use the belt sander on it later. Rear bottom gussets on and
again we turn her over, upright this time.
Installed top cross struts, diagonal struts and ply gussets and cut the
slots for the top engine mounts as described for the lowers. (I don't
need and engine tray, so the firewall goes all the way up to the top
longeron.) Next finished off the seats, being careful to test a steel
straightedge between right seat sides and longerons, you'll want this to
fit nicely for when you glue the right side on.
I will be putting in rear rudder pedals rather than the bar and levers
for mechanical heel brakes. Thin steel will go under all heel wear
points. All exposed struts and longerons will get radius sanded and
glue drips and any projecting ply will be sanded as well. I'll later
build up the tail attach area once I've found a tail wheel.
Now I've got a fuselage that started out true and square and still
measures out within 1/16th of true. I'm very happy about that but to be
honest I don't think it matters too much. Hell, it will probably move
around some the next time it rains anyway ;-). But it appears though
that the lack of the right side does not matter in keeping everything in
line.
The result to all this is that there were never any tricky points to
deal with and that with the right side ply off, I can just reach in and
bolt in the "goodies". Everything is easier to get too and I can still
install stuff like the throttle and my fuel valve rod to the left side
wall. The "varnish-sand-varnish" job will be easier and I can actually
see what I'm doing from here on out.
Hope this helps someone, keep on building and flying...
Larry
(Plane Crazy in Dallas)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
A Piet flies slow enough to steer around the hawks!
Sure is good to hear some one in the south is building again and sharing his
good southern humour with us all.
Someone in the cold True North
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners
>
> Pieters
> My sincere apology to the list for bringing up such a verbotin subject, (
> speed of a Piet.)
> I will in the future try to ration my comments to more enlightened
subjects
> such as nuts, bolts, cables, dacron, spruce, 4130, engines and anything
else
> pertaining to a flying machine.
> Someone in the South
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi henry,
I put an O-200 in my 1947 Cessna 140 two years ago. It had 1300 SMOH on it
and I paid $2500 for the engine, then put a new (used) carb on it and
replaced one jug with a used jug to get it in flying shape. I have since
put another 200 hours on it and it probably is good for another 100 or so
before I will have to overhaul it. Overhauls on an O-200 at a quality shop
like Mattituck START at $12,000 and go up from there. You can probably
overhaul it yourself for a lot less, depending on what's wrong with it.
I have an A-65 for my Pietenpol which I am in the process of rebuilding. I
paid $1500 for the engine, but when I got into it I found that all the
cylinders were right at the service limit. I thought about sending them off
to El Reno or Gibson to be reconditioned, but I found that costs over $500
per jug. I bought a set of new Millenium cylindes at SNF this spring for
$800 apiece, but that includes new pistons, new valves, new piston pins, new
piston rings, and all gaskets. I had the crankshaft overhauled, ground
undersized .020" and magnafluxed, and the connecting rods and rocker arms
overhauled and yellow-tagged at an aviation engine shop for $900. I still
need to have the crankcase overhauled ($575), new bearings ($100) and a new
camshaft ($225). So I will have a total of $6500 in the engine (assuming
the carburetor and the mags are OK), but it will be essentially a brand new
engine and should be good for at least 1500 hours. I would guess you could
do the same for an O-200 for around $7,500 if you did it yourself.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Borodent(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engine Rebuild
I would appreciate opinions from the gang. Im considering getting a used
0200 - I believe it was pulled from a cessna in good-ok-?- flying condition.
I think I would want to get it inspected-rebuilt by an A&E. What do you
would be a fair proice for this engine, and more importantly what kind of
expences might I incur at the rebuild.
Henry Williams finishing off fuselage wood.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Henry,
For what it's worth, the prices Jack goes over in his reply to you were the
precise reason I decided to go with a Corvair. You can buy a rebuildable
core just about anywhere in the US for $100 (yes, only 2 zeros!) and you
will be hard pressed to spend more than $3-4000 to completely rebuild it
with all new parts (people have done it for as little as $1500). If you use
William Wynne's conversion plans, you wind up with an engine that has
weight & performance characteristics very similar to the O-200, and will be
good for 1000hrs+, with a built-in electrical system, and an electric
starter if you want it, to boot! If you are mechanically inclined at all,
the conversion project won't be a big deal & if you really feel that you
need professional help, William holds a 4-day rebuild workshop at his shop
in FL every Memorial Day weekend. If you go ready to work & with all your
parts, you could get 95% of the work done there under William's guidance (I
believe Mark McKellar, who has been on this list, did this last year - I
hope to go this year or next).
Good luck on your project!
Kip Gardner (who is about to 'get married' by buying a partial project down
Cincinnati way).
>
>
>Hi henry,
>
>I put an O-200 in my 1947 Cessna 140 two years ago. It had 1300 SMOH on it
>and I paid $2500 for the engine, then put a new (used) carb on it and
>replaced one jug with a used jug to get it in flying shape. I have since
>put another 200 hours on it and it probably is good for another 100 or so
>before I will have to overhaul it. Overhauls on an O-200 at a quality shop
>like Mattituck START at $12,000 and go up from there. You can probably
>overhaul it yourself for a lot less, depending on what's wrong with it.
>
>I have an A-65 for my Pietenpol which I am in the process of rebuilding. I
>paid $1500 for the engine, but when I got into it I found that all the
>cylinders were right at the service limit. I thought about sending them off
>to El Reno or Gibson to be reconditioned, but I found that costs over $500
>per jug. I bought a set of new Millenium cylindes at SNF this spring for
>$800 apiece, but that includes new pistons, new valves, new piston pins, new
>piston rings, and all gaskets. I had the crankshaft overhauled, ground
>undersized .020" and magnafluxed, and the connecting rods and rocker arms
>overhauled and yellow-tagged at an aviation engine shop for $900. I still
>need to have the crankcase overhauled ($575), new bearings ($100) and a new
>camshaft ($225). So I will have a total of $6500 in the engine (assuming
>the carburetor and the mags are OK), but it will be essentially a brand new
>engine and should be good for at least 1500 hours. I would guess you could
>do the same for an O-200 for around $7,500 if you did it yourself.
>
>Jack Phillips
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Rebuild |
Jack Phillips and Kip Gardener, thanks for the input on engine rebuild costs-
much appreciated -- Henry Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Denny <peterthepilot_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Project School Flight |
G'Day all Pietenpol builders and drivers.
My name is Peter Denny and I teach with Fred Nauer Aviation subjects here at Washburn
High School, Minneapolis.
www.mpls.k12.mn.us/washburn/ click on people, teachers then Industrial Tech.
We have two great projects that will be commenced during the 2002 school year.
Firstly the restoration of a "Gusty MK1" for displaying in the Oshkosh Museum.
This airplane was originally built and flown by Gus Limbach. Chapter 25 is our
supporting body.
The second project (which will interest you guys, is a Ford Powered Pietenpol.
And if I have it my way, will be on floats!....then again I may not ...sigh!
Fred is a wheel person. I told him to get a life and obtain the float endorsement.
I would like you all to spread this message about these great projects to any school,
youth groups, Cadet Units, alternative schools who have an interest in
aviation or is considering such a venture.
While I was living and teaching in the colonies, (Australia) I was the Sport Aircraft
Association of Australia's Education Director. Where I assisted a number
of schools and Cadet Units in the building of aircraft.
I commend you all to explore the EAA's "School Flight" Program and promote this
vital program in your neigboring schools.
Peter Denny
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine Rebuild |
Our flying club did three of them when I was involved. Prices ranged
from $C 15,000 to $C 18,000. (They already owned the engines, and had
a good in with a rebuilder that used them as fill ins. ie there was no
rush.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
| Subject: | Glue quantity to buy |
Hey builders!
How much T-88 will it take for a Piet? Starting with my ribs first,
then tail. I don't want to buy so much the shelf life expires, and I don't
want to buy every month either.
Pint , quart, half-gallon?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbloud" <gbloud(at)msn.com> |
Kent,
Unless your deadset on using T-88, you could use WELDWOOD. This is an
FAA approved glue, and it is available at Home Depot. I had the
unfortunate opportunity to test the strength of this glue when I had to
break apart my tailposts to reposition them. Best of all, its cheap
(about 5 or 6 bucks for a 1lb. tub) and no hazmat shipping charges! And
if you run out, you can just run down to H.D. and get some more.
Jody in Tulsa.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Glue quantity to buy |
A quart kit is about enough to do two sets of ribs.
Hope that helps...
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kent
Hallsten
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glue quantity to buy
Hey builders!
How much T-88 will it take for a Piet? Starting with my ribs first,
then tail. I don't want to buy so much the shelf life expires, and I don't
want to buy every month either.
Pint , quart, half-gallon?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
I'll check it out. I saw some on the shelf last weekend and knew some guys
use it. I'll go over my glue notes and decide.
Thanks!
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gbloud [mailto:gbloud(at)msn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:00 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glue
>
>
>
> Kent,
> Unless your deadset on using T-88, you could use WELDWOOD. This is an
> FAA approved glue, and it is available at Home Depot. I had the
> unfortunate opportunity to test the strength of this glue
> when I had to
> break apart my tailposts to reposition them. Best of all, its cheap
> (about 5 or 6 bucks for a 1lb. tub) and no hazmat shipping
> charges! And
> if you run out, you can just run down to H.D. and get some more.
> Jody in Tulsa.
>
>
> ============
> ===========
> ===========
> ===========
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/pietenpol-list
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
| Subject: | Glue quantity to buy |
Two sets of ribs, Steve? One set for one airplane is all I care to build.
:)
Then I guess a quart should be enough for the ribs and tail parts. I might
buy some of that weldwood at HD and check it out. The part I don't like is
precise cuts/joints, high clamp pressure, 24 hours at 70 degrees. My cuts
may not be the best, don't know yet, haven't cut anything but a steak
lately. Keeping my garage at 70 degrees overnight for the gluing process
requires a bunch of kerosene for my heater! Maybe I need to build some
kind of small hotbox to put the ribs in after gluing. Is that needed?
Talking about ribs, the wood list mentions 500 ft of capstrip. Do you
specify a certain length, or take what they send you and just splice strips
when you need it?
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Eldredge [mailto:steve(at)byu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:20 PM
> To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glue quantity to buy
>
>
>
> A quart kit is about enough to do two sets of ribs.
>
> Hope that helps...
>
> Steve E.
>
> ===========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
When I ordered capstrip I specified 500 feet cut to 62 inch lengths. No splicing
required.
Greg
>>> Kent Hallsten 12/06 3:01 PM >>>
Two sets of ribs, Steve? One set for one airplane is all I care to build.
:)
Then I guess a quart should be enough for the ribs and tail parts. I might
buy some of that weldwood at HD and check it out. The part I don't like is
precise cuts/joints, high clamp pressure, 24 hours at 70 degrees. My cuts
may not be the best, don't know yet, haven't cut anything but a steak
lately. Keeping my garage at 70 degrees overnight for the gluing process
requires a bunch of kerosene for my heater! Maybe I need to build some
kind of small hotbox to put the ribs in after gluing. Is that needed?
Talking about ribs, the wood list mentions 500 ft of capstrip. Do you
specify a certain length, or take what they send you and just splice strips
when you need it?
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Eldredge [mailto:steve(at)byu.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 2:20 PM
> To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glue quantity to buy
>
>
>
> A quart kit is about enough to do two sets of ribs.
>
> Hope that helps...
>
> Steve E.
>
> ===========
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
Pint doesn't sound like much, but it will keep you busy and do all of the
tail and lots of ribs (or all of the ribs and some tail). Should be around
$16.95
>From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
> How much T-88 will it take for a Piet? Starting with my ribs
>first,
>then tail. I don't want to buy so much the shelf life expires, and I don't
>want to buy every month either.
>
>Pint , quart, half-gallon?
>
>Kent
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
gbloud advised:
> Unless your deadset on using T-88, you could use WELDWOOD. This is an
> FAA approved glue...
Which WELDWOOD are we talking about here? I'd buy their
resorcinol any day, but it's around $18 for a two-pint package,
at least in this area. Other than that, I'm not so sure. The only
glue unreservedly endorsed by AC43.13b (other than the heat-
cured phenol-formaldehyde glue used in plywood) is resorcinol.
Epoxy gets a nod, but with strong reservations about its sensitivity
to mixing ratios and possible loss of strength in high temperatures.
Urea-formaldehyde glues and, of course, casein glues are
described as obsolete. Beyond that, FAA passes the buck to
the Mil Spec, AMS, and TSO standards.
A friend built significant parts of his all-wood ultralight using
standard WELDWOOD contact adhesive, which he described
as being "good enough." It was the first evidence that he was
not quite the craftsman I'd imagined him to be. This has since
been confirmed by other deficiencies and misdeeds.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
According to Kern Hendricks of System Three, the makers of T-88, the shelf life
of T-88 is indefinite. Occasionally it will go on sale at the local woodworking
store for half price.
To your question, a pint will make a LOT of ribs.
One observation I made the hard way is that it is very easy to use too much.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Kent Hallsten 12/06 1:05 PM >>>
Hey builders!
How much T-88 will it take for a Piet? Starting with my ribs first,
then tail. I don't want to buy so much the shelf life expires, and I don't
want to buy every month either.
Pint , quart, half-gallon?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
| From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
writes:
>
> Talking about ribs, the wood list mentions 500 ft of capstrip. Do
> you
> specify a certain length, or take what they send you and just splice
> strips
> when you need it?
Kent,
I ordered mine from Wicks and asked for capstrips 1/4" by 1/2", each 60
inches long. With a wing of 5 foot cord, but a nose cap and about 1-2"
short at the back end, that worked out just right . I think I ordered
exactly 60 of them, and made most of the short pieces from the grab bags
bought.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
Just my addition to this,,, I basically finished all of the wood work. Just
one wing left to cover.
I had bought my second Qt. Kit, and thats half gone. That means 1 1/2 qt.
kits for the whole plane. ( This is my second project, and nothing ever
flew off of the first)
I think the worst thing to do in using T-88 is to make too much. The
discussion has been to use plastic cups to mix the glue. Only once did I
ever use a cup to mix that much glue at one time. That was when I glued the
ply sides to the fuse sides. Everything was layed out and marked, and had to
put alot of glue on alot of ply with a brush before setting the sides.
My opinion on glues are...I only mix T-88 on a saucer, and make two equal
lines of equal thickness. When you're done , wipe the saucer with a paper
towel, and let it dry for the next days ribs.
Quantity of glue to buy=one qt kit, and when that gets low, get another.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glue quantity to buy
>
> According to Kern Hendricks of System Three, the makers of T-88, the shelf
life of T-88 is indefinite. Occasionally it will go on sale at the local
woodworking store for half price.
> To your question, a pint will make a LOT of ribs.
> One observation I made the hard way is that it is very easy to use too
much.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> Kent Hallsten 12/06 1:05 PM >>>
>
>
> Hey builders!
> How much T-88 will it take for a Piet? Starting with my ribs
first,
> then tail. I don't want to buy so much the shelf life expires, and I
don't
> want to buy every month either.
>
> Pint , quart, half-gallon?
>
> Kent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy---and T88 information. |
Greg Cardinal & Group,
I was relieved to find that T88 has an indefinite shelf life be-
cause I have had a couple of plastic bottles of it for a long,
long time. I had been reluctant to use it for aircraft work, and
have restricted its use to other applications.
I understand that the word "indefinite" means "unlimited". Is
this the case?
One thing I have noticed, however, is that the lighter colored
component (the bottles are not handy as I write this, so I don't
know which component it is) tends to granulate over time, par-
ticularly when kept in a cool place. Immersing the container
in hot (about the temperature it comes from the tap) water will
restore it to a molasses-like consistency, which seems to be
normal. The other component, which has a brown color, does
not tend to change over time, although placing both containers
in moderately-hot water makes mixing the components a lot
easier.
I bought this T88 from Wicks about 15 years ago and it still
works well on anything I stick together. I haven't used it on any
aircraft stuff for at least ten years because I always thought it
must have a shelf life---although there are no dates on the la-
bels I have. A lot of adhesives do have a definite shelf life and
this led me to believe T88 would, too.
Thanks for this information.
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbloud" <gbloud(at)msn.com> |
Yes, this is the two part glue which I refer to. It is the same stuff
you can get from AS&S. I checked with them first, but decided not to
order because of the 30 plus dollar hazmat charge. CONTACT CEMENT WILL
NOT WORK!!!
Jody in Tulsa.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
A Pietenpol should use a calender for an air speed indicator.
>
>Pieters
>My sincere apology to the list for bringing up such a verbotin subject, (
>speed of a Piet.)
>I will in the future try to ration my comments to more enlightened subjects
>such as nuts, bolts, cables, dacron, spruce, 4130, engines and anything else
>pertaining to a flying machine.
>Someone in the South
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Michael Brusilow ] : Updated Email List Photo Share |
Available!
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
An Update to the Email List Photo Share below is available:
Subject: Aircamper
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/mb-albany@worldnet.att.net/index.html
---------------------------------
EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy---and T88 information. |
Graham,
I had the granulation problem of the clear T-88 component and Greg told me
to let the bottle sit in a pot of very hot water (change it from time to
time to keep it hot) and the grains will dissolve away. My bottle was rock
hard at the start and an hour later it was as good as new. I thought
originally that I had gotten the caps mixed up and a little resin cross-
contatminated the hardener but that was not the case.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glue quantity to buy---and T88 information.
<grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
> Greg Cardinal & Group,
>
> I was relieved to find that T88 has an indefinite shelf life be-
> cause I have had a couple of plastic bottles of it for a long,
> long time. I had been reluctant to use it for aircraft work, and
> have restricted its use to other applications.
>
> I understand that the word "indefinite" means "unlimited". Is
> this the case?
>
> One thing I have noticed, however, is that the lighter colored
> component (the bottles are not handy as I write this, so I don't
> know which component it is) tends to granulate over time, par-
> ticularly when kept in a cool place. Immersing the container
> in hot (about the temperature it comes from the tap) water will
> restore it to a molasses-like consistency, which seems to be
> normal. The other component, which has a brown color, does
> not tend to change over time, although placing both containers
> in moderately-hot water makes mixing the components a lot
> easier.
>
> I bought this T88 from Wicks about 15 years ago and it still
> works well on anything I stick together. I haven't used it on any
> aircraft stuff for at least ten years because I always thought it
> must have a shelf life---although there are no dates on the la-
> bels I have. A lot of adhesives do have a definite shelf life and
> this led me to believe T88 would, too.
>
> Thanks for this information.
>
> Graham Hansen
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
If my glue is 15 years old, I would replace it for the peace of
mind. New wood, new airplane, might as well use new glue. I still have
my wings to assemble and have used only 1 1/3 qt's. I'm using Aeropoxy.
I'm sure it's about the same as T88. At $30 per qt. kit, the cost isn't
too bad. If you have a good joint you'd be surprised how little glue
you need. with a very thin coat on each glue surface, I still had glue
squish out when I stapled gussets on. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
"Pietenpol-List Digest List"
| Subject: | Glue quantity to buy |
Boy, there are sure a lot of questions about glue.
I went through a quart kit of T-88 on the ribs alone but I think that's
because I mixed too much and wasted a little every time. I've got more
dixie cups with a popcicle stick stuck in them... My method for mixing is
to draw equal circles in the bottom of the cup. It's similar to the equal
lines method but the cup allows me to still up the stuff "real good" (said
with Southern Illinois accent). Just make sure the holes cut in the bottles
are the same size.
My suggestions:
1. Glue is cheap (relative to what it's holding together).
2. Don't skimp on the glue.
3. Using more glue than you need is much less an evil than using not enough
glue (oh no! the tail just fell off!)
4. If you don't have confidence in old glue, use it to fix things on the
honey-do list or throw it away (see #1)
Robert Haines
Murphysboro, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
I like the idea of stapling gussets. I went to Sun 'n Fun this year and saw
a guy make ribs for a Piet, using an office stapler like we all have at home
or work. He removed the base part and just went whack-whack whack! He had
a rib stapled in less than 30 seconds. I asked if he had to remove staples
penetrate the gusset and wood, something I'll need to try.
I figure an office stapler can be used on the gussets on the fuselage and
tail.
By the way, this site www.2wings.com is not about Piets, but a Pitts 12.
They have wood wings too. Check the menus/ wings. Lots of thumbnails of the
Pitts wing with close-ups. Might show something someone needs. Check also
Cory's pics-rib jig. A real nice, solid looking set up. Read FAQ files-
wings. Discuss T-88 and System 3 there. Another section called "cover paint
rig" talks about Covering methods. Check the 3rd quarter2000 area, and look
at his work bench. He used some kind of special Timberstrand joist to make a
bench level to something like .003" !! I'd like to find some of that stuff.
Has anyone here used something different than 2x4, 2x6's for their bench?
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lshutks(at)webtv.net [mailto:lshutks(at)webtv.net]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 8:02 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glue
> If you have a good joint you'd be surprised how little glue
> you need. with a very thin coat on each glue surface, I
> still had glue
> squish out when I stapled gussets on. Leon S.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
I deleted too much :)
> a rib stapled in less than 30 seconds. I asked if he had to
> remove staples .... I LEFT SOMETHING OUT HERE..
"HE SAID NO"
aND HERE TOO. " I never knew regular staples could"
> penetrate the gusset and wood, something I'll need to try.
>
> I figure an office stapler can be used on the gussets on the
> fuselage and
> tail.
>
> (snip)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Older bottles of T-88 tend to start looking like old honey-----they crystallize
a bit. All you do is put the bottle in the microwave (without it's tip cap)
and heat it for 15 seconds or so. Beware that it heats up the plastic
bottle too----watch your tootsies.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com> |
Hi,
I have been lurking on the list for some time now. I build small sailing
boats and Pirogues. I use lumber yard materials and Titebond II glue. I
have had tremendous results. There is an ultralight called the
"Legal-Eagle". It was built about 50 miles from my house. I visited the
designer / builder last winter. The airframe is steel tubing and the wing
is wood - similar to a Minimax. He glued the wing with Titebond II. It has
done very well in its 4 year existance.
I later ran into a Minimax builder that stated that Titebond II was not a
good glue, because the glue would not tolerate vibration. I have checked
with some other builders and no one has heard of a "viabration standard"
for wood glues.
My question to this group is: "Is there a viabration standard? and / or Are
the other glues mentioned by various builders certified as viabration proof?"
I also wonder if the Minimax driver / builder knew what he was talking about?
back to lurk mode,
Tim - Spring, Tx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com> |
Hi,
I spent several hours watching a person build Piet ribs at Sun'N'Fun this
past April. He was using T-88 (I think) and was also stapling the gussets
to the joints with an "office stapler". He had removed the "anvil" portion
of the stapler. The process was to glue on all the gussets and then go
around all of them with the stapler. He did not remove the staples. He also
cut the gussets with a cutter - similar to "tin snips". He also said that
he had multiple rib jigs and make Piet ribs for others. Think he had 5 jigs
and could make 1 rib per jig per day. I know that the man is well known, I
just cannot remember his name!
Next year I take the "Hi-8" so I can document some of these processes
better!!!!!!
Tim - Spring, TX
> > a rib stapled in less than 30 seconds. I asked if he had to
> > remove staples .... I LEFT SOMETHING OUT HERE..
>
>"HE SAID NO"
>
>aND HERE TOO. " I never knew regular staples could"
>
> > penetrate the gusset and wood, something I'll need to try.
> >
> > I figure an office stapler can be used on the gussets on the
> > fuselage and
> > tail.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Ditto,
I love T-88, I can do ANYTHING with T-88!
But a tight joint is the the absolute best thing you can do. I have also
tested ten year old glue stored in extremely hot conditions and found that it
took a long time to set up. Obviously this is due to a chemical change. I
suggest getting new glue for peace of mind if nothing else.
I've pretty much got fuselage and all wind ribs built using 1 quart.
Larry
Leon Stefan wrote:
>
> If my glue is 15 years old, I would replace it for the peace of
> mind. New wood, new airplane, might as well use new glue. I still have
> my wings to assemble and have used only 1 1/3 qt's. I'm using Aeropoxy.
> I'm sure it's about the same as T88. At $30 per qt. kit, the cost isn't
> too bad. If you have a good joint you'd be surprised how little glue
> you need. with a very thin coat on each glue surface, I still had glue
> squish out when I stapled gussets on. Leon S.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Bell" <mikebell(at)sc.rr.com> |
In response to Kent Halsten regarding spar design:
I could never get my engineer friend to take time to go over my calcs.
Later I spent a little time simplifying what I had. A box beam as opposed
to an I-beam requires two web layers instead of one and it also provides a
place for condensation. The C-beam is even simpler than the I-beam. I
backed into a design that was almost the same as the description below that
I think Warren included recently. This design is stronger than the
original spar design and it is lighter. It is very much less expensive than
spar grade spruce. (This is very much different than when Bernard made the
original design) I personally like it more because it is a composite so
that if there should there be any hidden defects, they will be a small part
of the overall strength of the spar. This is what I will build soon for a
three piece wing.
Mike Bell
Gaston Airplane Factory
Gaston, SC
Description provided by Warren? for Brit approved spar for Piets follows:
Here is an updated correction for the British PFA approved capstrip type
spars.
"The front spar comprises top and bottom spar caps each 1 1/4" X 7/8"
Spruce,
with a 1/8" ply web. Spruce fillers and ply doublers are positioned at each
rib.
Longer spruce blocks and ply doublers are also used at the root and lift
strut
points. The rear spar is built the same way, but the caps are
lighter --7/8" X 3/4"
with 1/8" ply web."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> |
Gang, one good way of dispensing T-88 is to use the Redi-mix glue gun. The
twin cartridges hold the two glues and the mixing tube mixes them precisely
when you squeeze the gun. When you're done, just throw away the mixing tube
and put a new one on when it's time for the next glue job. There is very
little waste, just the residual in the mixing tube. no fuss, no muss. I got
mine from Aircraft Spruce. The mixing tubes only cost about $1.50 each.
Jeff in beautiful warm Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
I'm trying to imagine this spar, (at work now, no plans here). A couple
questions, as I don't have my reference books or notes. But I have seen
pictures similar to this spar in the GREAT EAA WOOD BOOK I GOT FROM CHRIS!!
The plywood seems thin, at 1/8". But if British PFA says ok, I guess it
is. This spar IS flying in Piets over there, right?
Is the plywood 90 degree or 45 degree?
Obviously the plywood needs to be scarfed, only being 8' max. Do you know
offhand where that joint falls on the wing? Will the scarf joint fall far
enough away from the strut fittings, or would you need more than one scarf
joint for the plywood? Two scarfs on one side, plus doublers, adds weight
and another place for failure.
What's the opinion on how wide the spruce fillers and ply doublers need to
be at the rib locations? Just as wide as the rib? 1/2" ? Wider? Same
question for the root and strut fitting area.
Thanks for the response Mike!
Kent
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Bell [mailto:mikebell(at)sc.rr.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:21 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com; KHallsten(at)governair.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spar design
>
>
>
> In response to Kent Hallsten regarding spar design:
>
(Good stuff snipped)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
The plywood again. Any call on the species, Mahogany, birch, basswood,
okume?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
Are the cartridges re fillable? I've been thinking of liberating the
Weight Watchers scale from SWMBO, (she doesn't use it, why can't I?) and
weighing the T-88 in grams. Should get pretty darn close. I think the
ratio by weight is something like 1: .83 .
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Hill [mailto:jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 07, 2001 10:31 AM
> To: pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88
>
>
>
>
> Gang, one good way of dispensing T-88 is to use the Redi-mix
> glue gun. The
> twin cartridges hold the two glues and the mixing tube mixes
> them precisely
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
I still have a stain on the wall where a "microwave preheat" bottle of epoxy
burst... Glad I was wearing long sleeves. I second the the tip of removing
the cap...
Sheepish grin.
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: Pietenpol-List: honey
Older bottles of T-88 tend to start looking like old honey-----they
crystallize
a bit. All you do is put the bottle in the microwave (without it's tip cap)
and heat it for 15 seconds or so. Beware that it heats up the plastic
bottle too----watch your tootsies.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Safety tip:
I made the mistake of moving t-88 to the pantry (on the warm dryer). Did you
know that if you really squeeze hard on the smaller bottles, you can blow the
screw cap right off?
Also, the resin is almost unnoticeable on your shoes until it begins to collect
dirt on the white carpet.
This became a real safety hazard, about the time the Missus got home!!
Larry
Ditto sheepish grin.
--------------------
Steve Eldredge wrote:
>
> I still have a stain on the wall where a "microwave preheat" bottle of epoxy
> burst... Glad I was wearing long sleeves. I second the the tip of removing
> the cap...
>
> Sheepish grin.
>
> 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
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: honey
>
>
>
> Older bottles of T-88 tend to start looking like old honey-----they
> crystallize
> a bit. All you do is put the bottle in the microwave (without it's tip cap)
> and heat it for 15 seconds or so. Beware that it heats up the plastic
> bottle too----watch your tootsies.
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lou Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib Stapling |
Tim:
The rib maker you note at S-n-F is Charlie Rubeck from Terre haute IN. He
has been making sets of ribs for years and always has some for sale at S-n-F
and Brodhead. He makes most of his ribs out of red cedar.
Lou Larsen (Note we are going to be in Spring , soon.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim" <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib Stapling
>
> Hi,
>
> I spent several hours watching a person build Piet ribs at Sun'N'Fun this
> past April. He was using T-88 (I think) and was also stapling the gussets
> to the joints with an "office stapler". He had removed the "anvil" portion
> of the stapler. The process was to glue on all the gussets and then go
> around all of them with the stapler. He did not remove the staples. He
also
> cut the gussets with a cutter - similar to "tin snips". He also said that
> he had multiple rib jigs and make Piet ribs for others. Think he had 5
jigs
> and could make 1 rib per jig per day. I know that the man is well known, I
> just cannot remember his name!
>
> Next year I take the "Hi-8" so I can document some of these processes
> better!!!!!!
>
> Tim - Spring, TX
>
>
> > > a rib stapled in less than 30 seconds. I asked if he had to
> > > remove staples .... I LEFT SOMETHING OUT HERE..
> >
> >"HE SAID NO"
> >
> >aND HERE TOO. " I never knew regular staples could"
> >
> > > penetrate the gusset and wood, something I'll need to try.
> > >
> > > I figure an office stapler can be used on the gussets on the
> > > fuselage and
> > > tail.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Here is another tip with T-88.
I have built over 200 ribs with T-88 and (for Wittman Tailwind builders) and
have found the the easiest way for me to mix and dispense the stuff is to
buy a bunch of 60ml syringes. They are graduated by 1ml increments. Meter
in each half of the epoxy by volume from the bottles and then mix thouroghly
with a stick inside the syringe. Put in the plunger and invert to let the
air to the tip. Squeeze out the material stuck in the tip and discard,
since it isnt mixed. Now you dont have to spread the glue, just point and
shoot. I usually mix 15ml resin and 15ml hardener putting in the thinner of
the two first to ease mixing.
The best trick of all is cleanup. Vinegar really works great! keep a cup
handy and you can clean the syringe by pumping vinegar in and out for a bit
and store it in the cup. I have reused the same syringe several times
before it wears out.
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry
Neal
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: honey
Safety tip:
I made the mistake of moving t-88 to the pantry (on the warm dryer). Did
you
know that if you really squeeze hard on the smaller bottles, you can blow
the
screw cap right off?
Also, the resin is almost unnoticeable on your shoes until it begins to
collect
dirt on the white carpet.
This became a real safety hazard, about the time the Missus got home!!
Larry
Ditto sheepish grin.
--------------------
Steve Eldredge wrote:
>
> I still have a stain on the wall where a "microwave preheat" bottle of
epoxy
> burst... Glad I was wearing long sleeves. I second the the tip of
removing
> the cap...
>
> Sheepish grin.
>
> 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
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: honey
>
>
>
> Older bottles of T-88 tend to start looking like old honey-----they
> crystallize
> a bit. All you do is put the bottle in the microwave (without it's tip
cap)
> and heat it for 15 seconds or so. Beware that it heats up the plastic
> bottle too----watch your tootsies.
>
> Mike C.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Leaving staples in your wood is a bad idea, unless someone makes
aircraft quality staples which I've never heard of. Staples are plain
steel which will rust away inside your wood weakening your wood/glue
joint. I have a 12 oz. can full of removed staples that must weigh 3
lbs.Removing them is kind of a pain, but it's something you can do in
your easy chair with a pocket knife as you watch tv. CAUTION Place an
old magazine over the family jewels when you do this. Leon
S....sheepish grin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net> |
Steve,
Where do you get the syringes?
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
Retsof, NY where they think syringe = druggie
>
>
>Here is another tip with T-88.
>
>I have built over 200 ribs with T-88 and (for Wittman Tailwind builders) and
>have found the the easiest way for me to mix and dispense the stuff is to
>buy a bunch of 60ml syringes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib Stapling |
Charlies ribs doesn't have staples usually, but maybe
he was putting them in at the show so he could keep
making them. I have a set of charlies ribs, very nice.
but I think he was slowing down making them
Del
--- Lou Larsen wrote:
>
>
> Tim:
>
> The rib maker you note at S-n-F is Charlie Rubeck
> from Terre haute IN. He
> has been making sets of ribs for years and always
> has some for sale at S-n-F
> and Brodhead. He makes most of his ribs out of red
> cedar.
>
> Lou Larsen (Note we are going to be in Spring ,
> soon.)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim" <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib Stapling
>
>
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I spent several hours watching a person build Piet
> ribs at Sun'N'Fun this
> > past April. He was using T-88 (I think) and was
> also stapling the gussets
> > to the joints with an "office stapler". He had
> removed the "anvil" portion
> > of the stapler. The process was to glue on all the
> gussets and then go
> > around all of them with the stapler. He did not
> remove the staples. He
> also
> > cut the gussets with a cutter - similar to "tin
> snips". He also said that
> > he had multiple rib jigs and make Piet ribs for
> others. Think he had 5
> jigs
> > and could make 1 rib per jig per day. I know that
> the man is well known, I
> > just cannot remember his name!
> >
> > Next year I take the "Hi-8" so I can document some
> of these processes
> > better!!!!!!
> >
> > Tim - Spring, TX
> >
> >
> > > > a rib stapled in less than 30 seconds. I
> asked if he had to
> > > > remove staples .... I LEFT SOMETHING OUT
> HERE..
> > >
> > >"HE SAID NO"
> > >
> > >aND HERE TOO. " I never knew regular staples
> could"
> > >
> > > > penetrate the gusset and wood, something I'll
> need to try.
> > > >
> > > > I figure an office stapler can be used on the
> gussets on the
> > > > fuselage and
> > > > tail.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Forum -
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Medical supply house, Tell them you don't need the needles and they should
be willing
Also hospital supply places, veteranarian supply, chemestry supply places.
Good luck!
Steve E.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dave and
Connie
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: honey
Steve,
Where do you get the syringes?
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
Retsof, NY where they think syringe = druggie
>
>
>Here is another tip with T-88.
>
>I have built over 200 ribs with T-88 and (for Wittman Tailwind builders)
and
>have found the the easiest way for me to mix and dispense the stuff is to
>buy a bunch of 60ml syringes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
If you are worried about the possibility of the joint being weakened by a
rusty staple; one that rusts under a good coat of varnish then buy stainless
staples. Most large building supply stores carry them. They are about 5 to
8 times the cost of regular staples.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glue
Leaving staples in your wood is a bad idea, unless someone makes
aircraft quality staples which I've never heard of. Staples are plain
steel which will rust away inside your wood weakening your wood/glue
joint. I have a 12 oz. can full of removed staples that must weigh 3
lbs.Removing them is kind of a pain, but it's something you can do in
your easy chair with a pocket knife as you watch tv. CAUTION Place an
old magazine over the family jewels when you do this. Leon
S....sheepish grin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Farm supply store in the veterinarian supply section.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave and Connie" <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: honey
Steve,
Where do you get the syringes?
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
Retsof, NY where they think syringe = druggie
>
>
>Here is another tip with T-88.
>
>I have built over 200 ribs with T-88 and (for Wittman Tailwind builders)
and
>have found the the easiest way for me to mix and dispense the stuff is to
>buy a bunch of 60ml syringes.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)home.com> |
The biggest problem with staples is that once they rust, and they will, they
leave an easy route for moisture to enter the wood. Best to take the
staples out then you can varnish over the rib and the varnish fills any
holes sealing the wood surface. Don't leave the staples in there. (My most
humble opinion)
Also, yep, that was probably Charlie Rubeck at Sun N Fun - I think Charlie
actually builds his ribs without stapling at all - it really only takes
moderate pressure (ie, just mash down on the gussetts with your thumbs and
give it firm pressure to mash out any air) The T-88 will take over and do
the rest.
It also may have been Bill Cameron, Naples FL, - he has built a ton of ribs
over the years at SNF. He uses a stapler as I recall. I can put you guys
in touch with either of these guys if you have questions... E-Mail me.
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glue
>
> Leaving staples in your wood is a bad idea, unless someone makes
> aircraft quality staples which I've never heard of. Staples are plain
> steel which will rust away inside your wood weakening your wood/glue
> joint. I have a 12 oz. can full of removed staples that must weigh 3
> lbs.Removing them is kind of a pain, but it's something you can do in
> your easy chair with a pocket knife as you watch tv. CAUTION Place an
> old magazine over the family jewels when you do this. Leon
> S....sheepish grin.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/7/01 5:37:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:
<< Leaving staples in your wood is a bad idea, unless someone makes
aircraft quality staples which I've never heard of. Staples are plain
steel which will rust away inside your wood weakening your wood/glue
joint. >>
I can tell you from first hand experience, that if you don't remove the
stapes (and varnish the holes) you end up with rusty staples, and rust will
seep or soak into the wood. Aircraft inspectors will tell you than any rust
that has soaked into the wood is a no-no, and wood must be replaced. I used
a Tackler staple gun, worked great.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Hardaway <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue and Staples |
If you use staples to hold glue joints until they set, be sure to avoid a
problem I found.
I bought a piet project that had a completed fuselage and about 25 ribs
completed. The rib builder had used an Arrow T-50 staple gun in order to get
good pressure on the gusset joints. Unlike a thin-wire office staple, a T-50 is
made from a band about a millimeter wide. When the staple drives into a thin
wooden piece and is oriented across the grain, a good percentage of the wood
fibers are cut and the piece is weakened. Some of the ribs I bought had to be
completely rebuilt because of broken cross-pieces and stringers.
Considering how many thousands of 1/4" aircraft nails fit in a pound, all of my
future wood ribs will be built with non-splitting, non-rusting, and
non-removeable, high-quality aircraft nails.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Leon Stefan & Group,
Leon, I have no intention of using my 15 year old T88 on my
airplanes. Instead, I use it for a multitude of other purposes,
such as fixing chairs, but am pleased to learn that it has an
"indefinite" shelf life.
At the same time, I would not hesitate to use it for repairs on
my Pietenpol because even 15 year old T88 has to be vastly
superior to the casein glue we used to use, or the 30+ year
old Aerolite still holding my plane together. (I never use any-
thing but T88 or a good quality epoxy for re-bonding old glue
joints because Aerolite and a lot of other adhesives aren't
very good for making a reliable joint the second time around.)
Many years ago, about 1949 while at technical school, we re-
moved the fabric cover from a set of Avro Avian (similar to a
DH Gypsy Moth) wings and a lot of rib capstrips came off with
the fabric because the casein glue joints in the ribs had failed
completely (Ugh!). For years and years casein glue was the
"approved" aircraft glue, and somehow the airplanes held to-
gether---most of the time. Just about any glue available today
has to be superior to the casein kind---even my 15 year old
T88!
But you are right in saying one should use new glue with new
wood for a new airplane. The cost of glue is not great when one
figures it into the total cost of a new Pietenpol. I used new glue
and new wood for mine when I built it long ago. T88 and similar
adhesives did not exist. Aerolite and Weldwood Resorcinol
were widely used then and I chose Aerolite. Today, I would go
for T88 (fresh stock, of course).
Just my opinion, for what it's worth.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
I am curious. Where in AC 43.13-1b is this "rust" prohibition?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
http://www.eaa.org for latest flying rules
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dmott9(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glue
In a message dated 12/7/01 5:37:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:
<< Leaving staples in your wood is a bad idea, unless someone makes
aircraft quality staples which I've never heard of. Staples are plain
steel which will rust away inside your wood weakening your wood/glue
joint. >>
I can tell you from first hand experience, that if you don't remove the
stapes (and varnish the holes) you end up with rusty staples, and rust will
seep or soak into the wood. Aircraft inspectors will tell you than any rust
that has soaked into the wood is a no-no, and wood must be replaced. I used
a Tackler staple gun, worked great.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue and Staples |
If you're talking about quality and the right way to
do it, and if you've read tony bingelis books and
listened to the guys that make hundreds of them. USE
NO NAILS or staples. T88 requires no compression for
setup, nails are only to hold the pieces in place
until the glue sets up, plus the problems that you've
all been talking about. make three matching jigs,
every morning and every night set three new ribs in
and take three out, mix a batch of t88 and put gussets
on 6 rib sides. thats a set of 30 ribs done in a week
on only an hour a day. providing that you've precut
all of your rib parts and have them organised to just
pull out and put them in your jig.
Del
--- Mike Hardaway wrote:
>
>
> If you use staples to hold glue joints until they
> set, be sure to avoid a
> problem I found.
> I bought a piet project that had a completed
> fuselage and about 25 ribs
> completed. The rib builder had used an Arrow T-50
> staple gun in order to get
> good pressure on the gusset joints. Unlike a
> thin-wire office staple, a T-50 is
> made from a band about a millimeter wide. When the
> staple drives into a thin
> wooden piece and is oriented across the grain, a
> good percentage of the wood
> fibers are cut and the piece is weakened. Some of
> the ribs I bought had to be
> completely rebuilt because of broken cross-pieces
> and stringers.
> Considering how many thousands of 1/4" aircraft
> nails fit in a pound, all of my
> future wood ribs will be built with non-splitting,
> non-rusting, and
> non-removeable, high-quality aircraft nails.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Forum -
> Contributions of
> any other form
>
> latest messages.
> other List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/search
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/8/01 8:46:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, cgalley(at)qcbc.org
writes:
<< I am curious. Where in AC 43.13-1b is this "rust" prohibition?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
http://www.eaa.org for latest flying rules
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
>>
I don't have AC 43.13-1b handy. I do remember very clearly our Aircraft
Mechanic Instructor telling us that any wood that has rust imbedded into the
wood, probably has had water damage as well. Testing the piece of wood that
has this water / rust damage would be the only way to know if it really was
"weaker" where the rust was.
Just like previous posts, if your building a new airplane, no need to put
questionable parts into a perfectly good airplane. After 30 years I would
imagine the rust damage would eventually lead to replacing said parts, upon a
rebuild.
-dennis in Tenn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Bell" <mikebell(at)sc.rr.com> |
Kent,
The 1/8 inch ply serves a couple of purposes:
1) it separates the top and bottom of the spar. The top and bottom carry
the tension and compression load
2) it adds the additional strength of the plywood to the spruce (or douglas
fir or other carefully selected wood) in carrying tension and compression
loads
3) it carries the shear load, which is concentrated in the center of the
spar. Plywood is excellent for this.
I don't know if the Brit spec requires 45 degree plywood. 90 degree more
than the required shear strength as well as more than the shear strength of
a solid spruce spar that has been routed out. 45 degree costs about 4 times
as much as 90 degree.
The plywood is too thin to provide much protection from twisting. The
spruce fillers at ever rib strengthen the spar to provide this while at the
same giving us a conveniently fitted attachment point for the ribs.
Scarfs must not fall at structural attachment points, ie. where the struts
or wing attachments are located. See AC 43.13, chapter one for all of the
restrictions on scarfs and reccomended widths of scarf joints and doublers.
If you don't have the book, you can find it on-line at
http://www.moneypit.net/~pratt/ac43/ . In fact, no one has this book. This
is the latest version. It is available now in PDF format only and you can
download it from this site.
Your building with wood book also has additional information on built up
spars. I think it reccomends doublers at wing and strut attachment points,
which I intend to follow.
I am not an engineer. My analysis consists of assuming that the originally
designed spar for the Pietenpol is equal to the task and that the substitute
built up spar materials provide equal or greater strength in the role that
each plays in the spar.
Being such an important structural member, scarf joints in a built up spar
must meet the highest standards of cleanliness and scrupulously follow
clamping, fitting, mixing and temperature standards of the materials
involved.
............................................................................
.....
I'm trying to imagine this spar, (at work now, no plans here). A couple
questions, as I don't have my reference books or notes. But I have seen
pictures similar to this spar in the GREAT EAA WOOD BOOK I GOT FROM CHRIS!!
The plywood seems thin, at 1/8". But if British PFA says ok, I guess it
is. This spar IS flying in Piets over there, right?
Is the plywood 90 degree or 45 degree?
Obviously the plywood needs to be scarfed, only being 8' max. Do you know
offhand where that joint falls on the wing? Will the scarf joint fall far
enough away from the strut fittings, or would you need more than one scarf
joint for the plywood? Two scarfs on one side, plus doublers, adds weight
and another place for failure.
What's the opinion on how wide the spruce fillers and ply doublers need to
be at the rib locations? Just as wide as the rib? 1/2" ? Wider? Same
question for the root and strut fitting area.
Thanks for the response Mike!
Kent
>
> In response to Kent Halsten regarding spar design:
>
> I could never get my engineer friend to take time to go over my calcs.
> Later I spent a little time simplifying what I had. A box beam as opposed
> to an I-beam requires two web layers instead of one and it also provides a
> place for condensation. The C-beam is even simpler than the I-beam. I
> backed into a design that was almost the same as the description below
that
> I think Warren included recently. This design is stronger than the
> original spar design and it is lighter. It is very much less expensive
than
> spar grade spruce. (This is very much different than when Bernard made
the
> original design) I personally like it more because it is a composite so
> that if there should there be any hidden defects, they will be a small
part
> of the overall strength of the spar. This is what I will build soon for a
> three piece wing.
>
> Mike Bell
> Gaston Airplane Factory
> Gaston, SC
>
> Description provided by Warren? for Brit approved spar for Piets follows:
> Here is an updated correction for the British PFA approved capstrip type
> spars.
>
> "The front spar comprises top and bottom spar caps each 1 1/4" X 7/8"
> Spruce,
> with a 1/8" ply web. Spruce fillers and ply doublers are positioned at
each
> rib.
> Longer spruce blocks and ply doublers are also used at the root and lift
> strut
> points. The rear spar is built the same way, but the caps are
> lighter --7/8" X 3/4"
> with 1/8" ply web."
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
I can understand if that the rust might be an indicator of water damage
especially if it emanates from some plated AN hardware. I cannot see how the
amount of rust from a plated desk staple would create a structural problem.
I can see your point that if it was a varnished over staple and it rusted
that there could be water damage. On the other hand with out the rust as an
indicator, then how would one tell that there was water damage?
I do have AC 43.13-1b handy... The only reference I can find is ...
" (j)Also check for any cracks that indicate a bond line failure or
structural failure of the wood member. Any evidence of movement of fittings,
bushings, or fasteners should be cause for concern, and further inspection
is warranted. Splits in fabric covering the plywood, especially on upper
surfaces exposed to ultraviolet light and water, dictate that the mechanic
remove the fabric around the split so the underlying plywood may be
inspected for physical damage or decay. When removing metal fasteners from
wood, check for evidence of corrosion. Any corrosion present indicates the
presence of moisture and the strong probability of decay in the adjoining
wood structure."
This supports your instructor's warning, but it still doesn't say that the
corrosion (rust) has structurally damaged the wood. If you have installed
bolts in a wood structure, you will find minor corrosion after several
years, That is why you want to use a pipe cleaner and seal bolt holes with
varnish before installing the bolt. But even this is not perfect.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dmott9(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glue
In a message dated 12/8/01 8:46:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org
writes:
<< I am curious. Where in AC 43.13-1b is this "rust" prohibition?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
http://www.eaa.org for latest flying rules
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
>>
I don't have AC 43.13-1b handy. I do remember very clearly our Aircraft
Mechanic Instructor telling us that any wood that has rust imbedded into the
wood, probably has had water damage as well. Testing the piece of wood that
has this water / rust damage would be the only way to know if it really was
"weaker" where the rust was.
Just like previous posts, if your building a new airplane, no need to put
questionable parts into a perfectly good airplane. After 30 years I would
imagine the rust damage would eventually lead to replacing said parts, upon
a
rebuild.
-dennis in Tenn.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.) |
I asked Alan James of the UK the plywood question in an E-mail. He said
they use 90
degree, 6 ply, aircraft grade plywood in their spars. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K. and J. Hallsten" <hallstenokc(at)home.com> |
Mike,
When you wrote the description from Warren, how would you interpret
the part where he said
" spruce fillers and ply doublers are positoned at each rib " ?
I think I see the spar as C-shaped, (or what the EAA book calls Broad
U-Beam). The spruce filler fits between the spar caps, and the ply
doublers go .. where? At each spruce filler position, right ? The
plywood web is 1/8", the spar caps are 7/8", for 1" total. If a
doubler is added at each rib, then won't the spar width be wider than 1"
at each rib?
Asking only because that would affect the rib jig, which I'm starting
on.
I do have copies of AC 43.13 from the net.
Any and all opinions greatly welcomed from this new builder!
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
Ed or anyone. Is the '6 ply plywood' reference correct? I can't find
anything like 6 ply-1/8" plywood. all the 1/8" I find is 3 ply. The 1/8"
British Aircraft plywood in AS&S is only 3 ply.
Do the British have something we can't get?
I've ordered wood for the tail group and the wings minus the spars.
Probably won't get it till Jan. '02. I hate waiting once I've started.
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(soon to be Peit'. builder)
----- Original Message -----
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spar design
>
> I asked Alan James of the UK the plywood question in an E-mail. He said
> they use 90
> degree, 6 ply, aircraft grade plywood in their spars. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.) |
In an E-mail from Alan James of the UK
I was told that the plywood they use is British a/c ply specification
GL1..... 1/8" thick
with 6 laminations of birch the grain orientation of the center two
laminations being the same. You're right I have never seen 1/8" plywood
with more than 3 laminations it must be some really good stuff Ed
G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Humphrey" <philip.humphrey(at)belgacom.net> |
Hi all - I've just registered a UK Camper project. I'm temporarily resident
in Belgium so I won't be able to do too much on it until I return to UK in a
year or so - still, I can work on small stuff..
On the question of plywood, I think the "6-ply" may be a typo. If you think
about it, the face veneers of ply are always parallel so there can only ever
be an odd number of plies. Aircraft grade ply in UK (normally to UK 6V3
spec or the German GL1 spec) is 3-ply for the smaller thicknesses and then
5-ply or 7-ply for jumbo stuff. Normally only birch ply is used for
stressed parts.
Incidentally, the UK Piet spars and fittings have been stressed to normal
category (non-aerobatic) airworthiness requirements for a max gross weight
of 1200 lbs. I recall seeing statements that some US Campers are flying at
higher weights - would this be true?
Phil Humphrey
> Ed or anyone. Is the '6 ply plywood' reference correct? I can't find
> anything like 6 ply-1/8" plywood. all the 1/8" I find is 3 ply. The 1/8"
> British Aircraft plywood in AS&S is only 3 ply.
> Do the British have something we can't get?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/8/01 10:51:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
<< I can understand if that the rust might be an indicator of water damage
especially if it emanates from some plated AN hardware. I cannot see how the
amount of rust from a plated desk staple would create a structural problem.
I can see your point that if it was a varnished over staple and it rusted
that there could be water damage. On the other hand with out the rust as an
indicator, then how would one tell that there was water damage?
>>
Without the moisture, there would be little or no rust. Excessive rust
usually means excessive moisture. If rust has "bled" into the wood fibers,
then moisture is evident. This was the case in several ribs I had built,
using staples, and I had not varnished them. They hung on the garage wall for
at least a year. The ribs that I had pulled the staples from, even though not
varnished, appeared to be OK.
The metal staple also tents to "attract" moisture, especially with
temperature changes. So my advice is to "Pull the staples" and do it BEFORE
you varnish.
Just found a reference in AC43.1B, under Defects not permitted.
Says, "Mineral Streaks. Not acceptable if accompanied by decay"
as well as under decay " Decay - Examine all discolorations and stains
carefully to determine whether or not they are harmless, or are in a stage of
preliminary or advanced decay. All pieces must be free from rot, dote, red
heart, purple heart and all other forms of decay"
Apparently my instructor interpreted this to include rust.
Guess that depends on your judgement as to whether rusted staples weaken the
rib gusset or not. Pulling the staples and varnishing the wood certainly
would make me feel better about the over all airworthiness of the airplane.
The other thing about staples OR nails, as mentioned in the AC43.1B, is the
crushing and splintering effect of nails. This in itself may be a good reason
to apply gluing pressure by some other means, such as spring clamps.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Carl,
Got a blank E-Mail from you with an attachment, made the mistake of
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wayne Meier <mwmp(at)earthlink.net> |
Kent,
For the plywood web, I would recommend Sapele (African Mahogany) marine
grade, aircraft grade mahogany with a poplar core (Wicks/Acft Spruce) or
aircraft grade birch. The Okoume and basswood do not have the
strength needed unless you make them quite a bit thicker. There is a
formula in "The collected works of Stan Hall", I think, or maybe in
ANC-18 that allows for substitution of different strength woods as a
factor of thickness and weight to give the same effective strength.
As for the alignment of the grain, I have always read that the face
should be aligned at 45 degrees from perpendicular so that all plys
contribute to the strength of the spar. In doing so, the plywood
strength is usually degraded to 45 % of its normal value ..... so what
about 3 ply plywoods ? If the face veneers are aligned vertical,
wouldn't there be approximately a 66% contribution ?
Wayne
From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spar design
The plywood again. Any call on the species, Mahogany, birch,
basswood,
okume?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
Regarding the British PFA approved spar design...please take note of the
fact that this design has had engineering review 50 ways from Sunday by the
British authorities. On this side of the pond, we may have a point of view
regarding "approved aircraft grade products" and I must ever so gently point
out that as an insurance legal beagle, most of what you are paying for is a
stamp that has a liability insurance premium attached to it. Yes, there is an
experienced eye doing the grading...and it is nothing that you can't do with a
couple of EAA books in hand and following even a little common sense.
Take a look at
http://www.aitwood.com
and then go to their Ultra Thin Plywood and look at the 5 ply 1/8 birch
plywood. One sheet at $61.85 will do both spars if scarfed properly. If you
seriously have a problem with uncertified stuff, see if you can get a sample
of both, one from these guys and one from Wicks or AS&S. Personally, I will
use the Anderson stuff every time.
Just a personal point of view.
~Cheers,
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
I've not seen this URL passed around yet, so here it is.
http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/Default.htm
Our British friends have been busy and come up with quite a few
interesting ideas.
They may talk funny, eat weird food and drive on the wrong side of the
road, but the rascals do know a thing or two about flying!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Warren D. Shoun declared:
> Take a look at
> http://www.aitwood.com
> and then go to their Ultra Thin Plywood and look at the 5 ply 1/8 birch
> plywood. One sheet at $61.85 will do both spars if scarfed properly. If
you
> seriously have a problem with uncertified stuff, see if you can get a
sample
> of both, one from these guys and one from Wicks or AS&S. Personally, I
will
> use the Anderson stuff every time.
Sounds like nice stuff, but I'd be a lot happier if it said anything
about the glue used to make it. Waterproof? Water resistant?
Very uniform layers of library paste? Not a word on a subject
that is of serious concern for our purposes. At least the write-up
on their Australian hoop pine says it's useful for marine construction.
Not that I'd want to use the hoop pine for a spar without a lot more
details on its physical characteristics, but it does suggest that if the
ultra-thin ply could be trusted in a moist environment, they'd
at least mention it.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> |
From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: T-88
Are the cartridges re fillable? I've been thinking of liberating the
Weight Watchers scale from SWMBO, (she doesn't use it, why can't I?) and
weighing the T-88 in grams. Should get pretty darn close. I think the
ratio by weight is something like 1: .83 .
Kent, yes the cartridges are refillable ,but you need you need an air
compressor system in your shop to direct a blast of air back into them.
Fortunately, the cartridges hold a reasonable amount of glue (8 oz). It is a
bit of a pain but well worth the convenience if you have hp air.
Jeff in clear Texas where the 3 projects are coming along slowly
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tom richmond" <trich195(at)hotmail.com> |
this is my first email to this list ive been reading about this box spar
for awile can anybody tell me where i can get plans for one or pictures o.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
Mike,
What prop are you running on your 0-200?
Ted (working as fast he can to make the 1st annual LA Pietenpol shrimp
eating flyin)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 8:01 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
>
>
> What was/is the difference in cruise speed of your Piet of the two
> engines?
> Corky in La
>
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Not much, I run the 0-200 at 2200-2250 rpm & get 75-80 mph. The Ford,
> maybe 70 ( that was 12 years ago).
>
> Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners |
Now Corky, don't you go and do that. If you had perfect web etiquet all
along I wouldn't have 1) known where you live 2) known you had other
interests besides building a Piet 3) and now looking forward to meeting you
when we both finish our Piets.
Just think how dull this list would be. Well, not really. But it is that
much better for the added tidbits thrown it on the side. Keep it up Corky.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpols, Speed, and Good Manners
>
> Pieters
> My sincere apology to the list for bringing up such a verbotin subject, (
> speed of a Piet.)
> I will in the future try to ration my comments to more enlightened
subjects
> such as nuts, bolts, cables, dacron, spruce, 4130, engines and anything
else
> pertaining to a flying machine.
> Someone in the South
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue quantity to buy |
I can agree with that. I bought 4 gallons 25 years ago for a wood sail
boat. Sold the boat before I could use it. Have been using it for various
projects ever since. It still performs the way it did the day I got it.
Great stuff.
By the way. I have read a lot about how it might not stand up in humid
conditions. I don't know where that is coming from. I can't imagine a more
humid climate than here in SW Florida. And I have used the epoxy in
locations that are always under water on my boats. Never had any failures.
Ted Brousseau
>
> According to Kern Hendricks of System Three, the makers of T-88, the shelf
life of T-88 is indefinite.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
"tom richmond" asked-
>ive been reading about this box spar for awile can anybody tell me
>where i can get plans for one or pictures
Check out http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/shentyprog2.htm for
a picture (not that clear, but you get the idea). Also a good photo of the
shoulder harness attach "bracket" for the front cockpit, as used by the UK
builders.
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Oscar,
Please give me your mailing address once more.
Corky in La on the way to the Post Office to mail you something
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
| Subject: | Wood grading stamps / Red Cedar |
I was cruising the web and went to www.wwpa.org This is the Western Wood
Products website, and on this site are many Acrobat .PDF files available
to download.
One file was TG-6 WWPA Grade Stamps. This file explains all the funny
looking stamps you see on the lumberyard wood. The mill that produced it,
the grade, THE SPECIES, and other good stuff. This can really come in handy
for the guys (girls too!) using locally available wood.
Now I know a little bit more than yesterday!
I found quite a few 12' Western Red Cedar boards at HD this weekend. I
think I may use WRC for my ribs. It wasn't a very big pile of cedar (12'
anyways) but lots of smaller sizes. I found about 5 boards in 15 minutes
that passed an initial eyeball inspection, but I didn't buy any, at that
time I wasn't sure if Red Cedar was OK to use. Now I re-read some posts
here, so I'm going back for another look. 12' boards were $5 and change.
A minimum of 4-5 boards will build the ribs, but at this price you can
certainly afford to buy more.
I haven't read of anyone using Cedar for other parts in a Piet. Not that I
want to start experimenting, but can anyone offer opinions about using it
in certain areas of the tail section?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Brousseau
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2001 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo share- Mr. Sam
Mike,
What prop are you running on your 0-200?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ted, my Piet is in Saratoga NY & I am in Lake Worth FL ( until Spring
) & would you believe I don"t remember. Anyway, it is the standard prop
used on 150's.
Mike B (Piet N687MB ) Mr Sam
PS; is that your Piet at the Naples airport?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: photo share- Mr. Sam |
Mike,
What prop are you running on your 0-200?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ted, my Piet is in Saratoga NY & I am in Lake Worth FL so I can't ck
the prop size. Anyway it is a standard 150 prop.
Who owns the Piet at the Naples arpt?
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood grading stamps / Red Cedar |
The turtle deck would be a good application for alternate woods.
The fairing strips along the fuselage come to mind also...
Greg Cardinal
>>> Kent Hallsten 12/10 11:53 AM >>>
I haven't read of anyone using Cedar for other parts in a Piet. Not that I
want to start experimenting, but can anyone offer opinions about using it
in certain areas of the tail section?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glue and Staples |
Becareful about making three jigs, that's exactly how I did it and I ended
up with three slightly different set of ribs. When I discovered the
problem, I destroyed two jigs and finished with only one.
Robert Haines
Murphysboro, Illinois
***
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
If you're talking about quality and the right way to
do it, and if you've read tony bingelis books and
listened to the guys that make hundreds of them. USE
NO NAILS or staples. T88 requires no compression for
setup, nails are only to hold the pieces in place
until the glue sets up, plus the problems that you've
all been talking about. make three matching jigs...
***
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
If you need other size syringes, go to a pharmicist and ask about the ones
for giving medicine to babies. They have sizes that might be appropriate.
Robert Haines
M'boro, IL
> From: "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: T88
> Kent, yes the cartridges are refillable ,but you need you need an air
> compressor system in your shop to direct a blast of air back into them.
> Fortunately, the cartridges hold a reasonable amount of glue (8 oz). It is
a
> bit of a pain but well worth the convenience if you have hp air.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
Here is the final tally on my list of material for covering/painting:
1. Polytak 2 qts
2. Polybrush 2 1/2 gal
3. Polyspray 2 gal
4. polytone 4 gal
5. Aerothane 2 qts (and 2 qts primer)
6. Fabric 38 yds
I haven't included reinforcing tapes, rib stitching, pinked tapes, inspection rings,
and other material that could vary widely from builder to builder.
Although I am not keeping records of every tiny detail, I did weigh a complete
wing on my bathroom scales and it came out at 52#. One of these days I'll total
all my invoices and post the cost of my Cherry Grove Missile for all to see.
The airport says my hangar will be finished before Christmas so I will finally
be able to put all the big pieces together for the first time and see how it looks.
Sure hope everything fits!!!
"Into the blue in 002"
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: covering/paint |
Larry, How many coats of brush, spray and tone does this represent?
I like that " into the blue in 002". May I join you.
Corky in La leaving for Nawlins in the morning to reunite with my WW II OCS
class of Fort Benning. Of 75 there remains 14. Lord how lucky I am
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the army |
Now we know that Corky was an OFFICER in the army. That changes things.
Now we will have to call him sir.
Thanks for serving for us, Corky, and have a good time.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: covering/paint
>
> Larry, How many coats of brush, spray and tone does this represent?
>
> I like that " into the blue in 002". May I join you.
>
> Corky in La leaving for Nawlins in the morning to reunite with my WW II
OCS
> class of Fort Benning. Of 75 there remains 14. Lord how lucky I am
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wood grading stamps / Red Cedar |
In a message dated 12/10/01 9:54:32 AM Pacific Standard Time,
KHallsten(at)governair.com writes:
> I found quite a few 12' Western Red Cedar boards at HD this weekend. I
> think I may use WRC for my ribs. It wasn't a very big pile of cedar (12'
> anyways) but lots of smaller sizes. I found about 5 boards in 15 minutes
> that passed an initial eyeball inspection, but I didn't buy any, at that
> time I wasn't sure if Red Cedar was OK to use. Now I re-read some posts
> here, so I'm going back for another look. 12' boards were $5 and change.
> A minimum of 4-5 boards will build the ribs, but at this price you can
> certainly afford to buy more.
>
> I haven't read of anyone using Cedar for other parts in a Piet. Not that I
> want to start experimenting, but can anyone offer opinions about using it
> in certain areas of the tail section?
>
> Kent
>
>
>
Kent,
I carefully select and use the dark red/brown cedar for ribs, leading edges,
trailing edges, tudledeck, side former, fill sticks. This is some really
fine material. I did a breakage test in comparison to sitka spruce. Some of
the lighter colored cedar was not good. Doug Bryant Wichita Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the army |
You're right Chris and remember when I says Eyes Right I wants to heer dem
eyeballs click.
SIR Corky in La polishing his bugle and boots
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"Re: Pietenpol-List: V*rus alert" (Dec 10, 2:09pm)
Hi Listers!
I don't normally like to use the List bandwidth for v*rus alerts, but
this is something that could be useful to everyone with regard to the
most recent rash. I have found that the string "X-Unsent:" is in the
header of every message that contains this v*rus. The string appears
to never appear in normal email.
Depending on your email client's capability, you should be able to
create a filter that will search the message headers for the text shown
above (without the double quotes around it) and do something other than
read them. I put a filter on the incoming List posts early last week
for this string and it has kept the bogus messages off the Lists. The
V*rus would have been stripped off anyway, but at least the message
text doesn't show up on the List. I also added a personal email filter
for the string above and have redirected 10 or 20 of them so far.
FYI
Matt
>--------------
>
>I have had the same problem with the v thing as Bob Haines but it came from
>Carl Loar.
>
>Chris Bobka
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: V*rus alert
>
>
>
>>
>> Several of you on this list have been passing around a email v*rus (I
>can't
>> spell it because Matt's software will stop this email). I have antiv*rus
>> software that has been detecting these messages and keeping me clean. The
>> v*rus passes itself by grabbing an old message subject and it sends them
>an
>> email using that subject. If you get an unexpected email from someone on
>> this list sent directly to you with a "RE:" and some familiar subject, it
>> could be the v*rus.
>>
>> If you are suspect of an email DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY! The v*rus
>> automatically downloads itself when you open the email, even if you don't
>> open the attachment! So far the people that have sent me this are:
>>
>> John Dilatush
>> Lou Larson
>>
>> Although, it may not be them sending the email, just someone with them and
>> myself in their address list.
>>
>> Robert Haines
>> Murphysboro, Illinois
>>
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: You will hear them click |
Corky,
You will hear them click as loud as two impulse equipped magnetos timed
together at 30 degrees BTDC as on your A-65.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the army
>
> You're right Chris and remember when I says Eyes Right I wants to heer dem
> eyeballs click.
>
> SIR Corky in La polishing his bugle and boots
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: You will hear them click |
Forgetting about the eyeballs, my mags have no impulse couplers and I believe
my Tech Advisor timed them at 28. I'll check it out. But it sure runs smooth
as is.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
I am looking for Terry Morgan. His E-mail address was Terry Morgan(at)qg.com
but that returns as no good.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Matt,
I have been having a different experience with the v things. I just killed
one a second ago that was attached to an incoming message. It had re: re:
Pietenpol-List: You will hear them click (the name Igave to an earlier
message to Corky). But the key was the two re: at the beginning. I am
Chris bobka
a list supporter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: V*rus alert
>
>
> Hi Listers!
>
> I don't normally like to use the List bandwidth for v*rus alerts, but
> this is something that could be useful to everyone with regard to the
> most recent rash. I have found that the string "X-Unsent:" is in the
> header of every message that contains this v*rus. The string appears
> to never appear in normal email.
>
> Depending on your email client's capability, you should be able to
> create a filter that will search the message headers for the text shown
> above (without the double quotes around it) and do something other than
> read them. I put a filter on the incoming List posts early last week
> for this string and it has kept the bogus messages off the Lists. The
> V*rus would have been stripped off anyway, but at least the message
> text doesn't show up on the List. I also added a personal email filter
> for the string above and have redirected 10 or 20 of them so far.
>
> FYI
>
> Matt
>
>
> >--------------
> >
> >I have had the same problem with the v thing as Bob Haines but it came
from
> >Carl Loar.
> >
> >Chris Bobka
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: V*rus alert
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Several of you on this list have been passing around a email v*rus (I
> >can't
> >> spell it because Matt's software will stop this email). I have
antiv*rus
> >> software that has been detecting these messages and keeping me clean.
The
> >> v*rus passes itself by grabbing an old message subject and it sends
them
> >an
> >> email using that subject. If you get an unexpected email from someone
on
> >> this list sent directly to you with a "RE:" and some familiar subject,
it
> >> could be the v*rus.
> >>
> >> If you are suspect of an email DELETE IT IMMEDIATELY! The v*rus
> >> automatically downloads itself when you open the email, even if you
don't
> >> open the attachment! So far the people that have sent me this are:
> >>
> >> John Dilatush
> >> Lou Larson
> >>
> >> Although, it may not be them sending the email, just someone with them
and
> >> myself in their address list.
> >>
> >> Robert Haines
> >> Murphysboro, Illinois
> >>
> >--------------
>
>
> --
>
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
> temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
>
> Benjamin Franklin
> Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: They should be 30 degrees but... |
Corky,
My manual says 30 degrees and I even went to check it out. The only thing I
could think as that your man wants 28 to make it have a little less advance
for less snap back without the impulse mags. Many do not know it but the
impulse mags also RETARD the ignition almost to O degrees BTDC to make for
no snap back starts.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: You will hear them click
>
> Corky,
>
> You will hear them click as loud as two impulse equipped magnetos timed
> together at 30 degrees BTDC as on your A-65.
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the army
>
>
> >
> > You're right Chris and remember when I says Eyes Right I wants to heer
dem
> > eyeballs click.
> >
> > SIR Corky in La polishing his bugle and boots
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I went back and reread the story |
Corky,
I went back and reread the story of you and the Round Rock Texas JP in 1943
and I thought you had bailed out three drunk lieutenants as an enlisted guy.
I did not figure YOU to be one of the lieutenants.
The questions you ask are much too intelligent to be that of an officer.
The army must have made a mistake.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: You will hear them click
>
> Corky,
>
> You will hear them click as loud as two impulse equipped magnetos timed
> together at 30 degrees BTDC as on your A-65.
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the army
>
>
> >
> > You're right Chris and remember when I says Eyes Right I wants to heer
dem
> > eyeballs click.
> >
> > SIR Corky in La polishing his bugle and boots
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | the viru* things on the pietenpol list |
Matt,
I want to make sure you get this note. I received numerous (maybe 6 or
7) emails with the attachments in the last few days exclusively over the
quarantine it but only after downloading it but prior to opening the
attachment. One was the You are fa* and the other was the sorry about
yesterda*. I received an email with said attachment moments after your
last note about the rash of viru*.
I never recall seeing a header of "X-unsen*".
If you need more details, let me know.
Chris bobka
a list supporter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: the viru* things on the pietenpol list |
Hi Chris,
Thanks for the heads up. The messages aren't really coming from the List,
but rather from people subscribed to the List. What happens is that when
ever someone posts to the List, the infected person's email client sends a
message directly back to the *poster* with the infected attachment. It
sort of seems like it comes from the List, but it isn't.
You'll have to turn on "verbose header viewing" in your email client to see
the "X-unsen*" header. In Eudora, the button is called "bla bla bla".
I sure wish I had some stock in Anti-V*rus programs right now. I think
that *everyone* should install one.
Matt
At 08:50 PM 12/10/2001 Monday, you wrote:
>Matt,
>
>I want to make sure you get this note. I received numerous (maybe 6 or 7)
>emails with the attachments in the last few days exclusively over the
>quarantine it but only after downloading it but prior to opening the
>attachment. One was the You are fa* and the other was the sorry about
>yesterda*. I received an email with said attachment moments after your
>last note about the rash of viru*.
>
>I never recall seeing a header of "X-unsen*".
>
>If you need more details, let me know.
>
>Chris bobka
>a list supporter
>
>
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | New Photo Share Main Index Page - The Detail You Asked |
For...
Hi Listers!
I've been noticing a lot of people having fun with the new Email List Photo
and File Share feature and I've seen a great many hits on the various
member pages.
A number of you wrote to say that some additional topic data on the Main
Photo Share Index page would certainly be helpful and I would have to agree.
It took a little programming, and it was a job retrofitting to all of the
older Shares, but I think you'll be pleased with the outcome! I've added
Poster Name, Photo Share Subject, and Target Email List data to the Main
Index. Clicking on a Subject text opens a new window with the Photo Share
and the thumbnails.
Have a look and feel free to submit your photos for sharing! The
instructions are at the top of the Main Photo Share Index Page.
The URL is:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
Enjoy!!
Matt Dralle
Email List Admin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
Wayne,
Nice to see you on the list.
To the rest of the list, Wayne Meier is very knowledgable about wood. He's been
a boatbuilder for many years.
He also does business as Midwest Marine Plywood near Minneapolis and St. Paul,
MN
He stocks marine and aircraft plywood and probably has good leads on lumber.
I don't believe he has a website. Contact him via e-mail.
I have no business interest in Midwest Marine Plywood, I have known Wayne for several
years and I have purchased plywood from him. He's my first contact for
wood.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
>>> Wayne Meier 12/08 7:18 PM >>>
Kent,
For the plywood web, I would recommend Sapele (African Mahogany) marine
grade, aircraft grade mahogany with a poplar core (Wicks/Acft Spruce) or
aircraft grade birch. The Okoume and basswood do not have the
strength needed unless you make them quite a bit thicker. There is a
formula in "The collected works of Stan Hall", I think, or maybe in
ANC-18 that allows for substitution of different strength woods as a
factor of thickness and weight to give the same effective strength.
As for the alignment of the grain, I have always read that the face
should be aligned at 45 degrees from perpendicular so that all plys
contribute to the strength of the spar. In doing so, the plywood
strength is usually degraded to 45 % of its normal value ..... so what
about 3 ply plywoods ? If the face veneers are aligned vertical,
wouldn't there be approximately a 66% contribution ?
Wayne
From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spar design
The plywood again. Any call on the species, Mahogany, birch,
basswood,
okume?
Kent
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Spar design and orientation of plywood in the web |
There three stresses that exist in a spar. A spar in a Pietenpol, and the
entire wing structure, for that matter, can be considered a continuous beam
(talking about the original one piece wing here) with a cantilevered
overhang at each end. With a normal positive loading on the wing (ie in
normal flight) the upper half of the spar is undergoing compressive
stresses. The top of the tip is trying to move toward the centerline of the
aircraft. Wood is quite strong in compression. The compression stress is
greatest along the upper surface of the spar and decreases to zero at about
the point halfway down the spar. The point where it is zero is called the
neutral line.
The lower half of the spar is under a tensile load. It is trying to
stretch. The bottom of the spar above your head in the cockpit is trying to
move out to the tip. The greatest tensile stresses are on the lower surface
of the spar. Wood is nowhere near as strong in tension as it is in
compression. As you move up the spar from its bottom surface, the tensile
stress becomes less and less until you get to zero which is at the neutral
line, the same line as you found when you came down from the top of the
spar.
The wood above the line is trying to compress and the wood below the line is
trying to stretch. This sets up a horizontal shear along the entire length
of the spar right at the neutral line. In normal positive G flight, the
upper half of the spar is trying to move toward the centerline of the
aircraft while the lower half is trying to move toward the wing tips.
Another type of stress in a spar is vertical shear. This is very obvious to
all of us as we visualize the wing trying to pull up and the wing struts
trying to pull down. We can visualize the outer half of an understrength
wing spar tearing straight up at the wing struts due to more weight than the
spar can handle.
We have introduced the three types of stresses in a spar and have defined
two subtypes:
1) Compression stress
2) Tensile stress
3) Shearing stresses
3a) Vertical shear
3b) Horizontal shear
We normally orient our solid spars so that we can take advantage of the
grain orientation to maximize the resistance to vertical shear. We
typically size the spar so that the lower half of the spar which is normally
in tension, does not fail due to over stretching. We rarely think of the
horizontal shear load since the other three stresses (1, 2, and 3a) usually
cause the spar to be robust enough that horizontal shear is really no longer
a major consideration.
That is until we are designing for minimum weight with minimum required
material. In this case, grain orientation of a plywood web can have a
distinct advantage. A solid piece of wood (not plywood) has a drawback in
that it cannot handle horizontal shear very well because the wood can split
along the longitudinally oriented grain. If you were to use a router on a
solid spar to give it an I beam section, you would aggravate the situation
by providing very little cross section to resit the horizontal shear.
You can immediately imagine the advantage of a thin solid piece of wood with
another thin solid piece of wood glued to it at a 90 degree angle. Doing
this would greatly increase the ability of the spar to resist the horizontal
shear stress. This is plywood and this is the main reason why it was
developed. A piece of plywood made of an even number plies of the same
thickness of the same wood would theoretically have the same strength from
both top to bottom and left to right although not as strong in one direction
as the nonply piece.
But plywood is made with an ODD number of plies so it has more strength one
way than another. If we were to use a three ply piece of plywood with the
two outer faces pointing left and right relative to the span of the spar, we
would have two plies resisting vertical shear but only one ply (the middle
vertical one) resisting horizontal shear. This may not be enough without
going up a few sizes. If we oriented the plies so that the two face plies
were up and down, we would have the two face plies resisting the horizontal
shear but that would leave only the center ply to resist the vertical shear.
Surely not enough strength without going up a few sizes.
To minimize the thickness of the plywood web, we have an option.
If we orient the odd number of ply plywood's grain 45 degrees to the span of
the spar, then we maximize the benefit of the plywood strength while
minimizing the amount of material used. Horizontal shear and vertical shear
stresses placed 45 degrees to the grain of the plies of the plywood web are
able to be handled much better. WIthout going into more detail, it is the
superior way to do it.
ANC-19 (help me Greg or Wayne) indicates that it is more desireable to have
the face grain of the plywood start at the bottom of the spar toward the
centerline of the aircraft and point toward the top of the spar and the tip.
This would mean that at the centerline of the aircraft, the grain on the web
would be scarfed together as to form a V in the face grains.
Comments, Cy?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spar design
>
> Wayne,
> Nice to see you on the list.
> To the rest of the list, Wayne Meier is very knowledgable about wood. He's
been a boatbuilder for many years.
> He also does business as Midwest Marine Plywood near Minneapolis and St.
Paul, MN
> He stocks marine and aircraft plywood and probably has good leads on
lumber.
> I don't believe he has a website. Contact him via e-mail.
> I have no business interest in Midwest Marine Plywood, I have known Wayne
for several years and I have purchased plywood from him. He's my first
contact for wood.
>
> Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
>
> >>> Wayne Meier 12/08 7:18 PM >>>
>
> Kent,
>
> For the plywood web, I would recommend Sapele (African Mahogany) marine
> grade, aircraft grade mahogany with a poplar core (Wicks/Acft Spruce) or
> aircraft grade birch. The Okoume and basswood do not have the
> strength needed unless you make them quite a bit thicker. There is a
> formula in "The collected works of Stan Hall", I think, or maybe in
> ANC-18 that allows for substitution of different strength woods as a
> factor of thickness and weight to give the same effective strength.
> As for the alignment of the grain, I have always read that the face
> should be aligned at 45 degrees from perpendicular so that all plys
> contribute to the strength of the spar. In doing so, the plywood
> strength is usually degraded to 45 % of its normal value ..... so what
> about 3 ply plywoods ? If the face veneers are aligned vertical,
> wouldn't there be approximately a 66% contribution ?
>
> Wayne
>
>
> From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Spar design
>
>
>
> The plywood again. Any call on the species, Mahogany, birch,
> basswood,
> okume?
>
> Kent
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar design and orientation of plywood in |
the web
>>> "Christian Bobka" 12/11 10:47 AM >>>
Lots of good stuff deleted for brevity...
ANC-19 (help me Greg or Wayne) indicates that it is more desireable to have
the face grain of the plywood start at the bottom of the spar toward the
centerline of the aircraft and point toward the top of the spar and the tip.
This would mean that at the centerline of the aircraft, the grain on the web
would be scarfed together as to form a V in the face grains.
Comments, Cy?
ANC-18 and 19 don't specify grain orientation in plywood spar webs. The only comment
made is that the 45 degree face plies should be oriented to resist normal
buckling deformations. Under normal, positive loads these deformations will
be oriented from lower inboard to upper outboard. You can see this by grasping
the edges of a sheet of paper. Your hands will be simulating the spar caps and
the paper is simulating the web. While maintaining tension on the sheet of paper,
move your hands in opposite directions to simulate horizontal shear. You
will notice the deformation buckling. Face plies should be oriented opposite
of this.
However, I've seen face plies oriented both ways so the "quest for truth" continues......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spar design
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Terry Morgan |
His e-mail address is Terry.Morgan(at)qg.com
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(soon to be Peit'. builder)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Mosher" <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Terry Morgan
>
> I am looking for Terry Morgan. His E-mail address was Terry Morgan(at)qg.com
> but that returns as no good.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Michael D Cuy ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Subject: Various Pietenpol Photos
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.12.11.2001/index.html
--------------------------------------------
o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE
Share your files and photos with other List members simply by
emailing the files to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text
Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos.
o Main Photo Share Index:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
--------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar design and orientation of plywood in the web |
Let me humbly add a little to the mix here. What you stated about the
forces on the wing is correct for a one piece wing attached only at the
center, a cantilevered wing, or cantilevered wingtips. What was not taken
into consideration is the wing struts and what they do the the compressive
and tensile loads on the spar.
Most wingstruts are attaced at the center of lift of a wing (This usually
happens slightly inboard of the center due to the fact that the wingtip is
less efficient at producing lift). If they are placed in the exact center
of lift, the wingstruts will support the entire lifting load. The wing
attachments at the centerline of the aircraft will have no vertical load.
If these struts are oriented at an angle of 45 degrees exactly, for every
pound of lift supported they would impose an equal pound of compression in
the section of spar between the strut attachment point and the center
attachment point. Usually, they are at less of an angle horizontally than
that so they actually produce more than a pound for a pound of lift.
Fortunately, there is a wing on the other side of the aircraft pushing
equally in the opposite direction.
What I mean to say is that between the wingstrut and the root there is an
additional compression force to be added. As I write this, I wonder if it's
large enough to be concidered, so forgive the mind numbing calculations that
are to follow...
Assume a 14' wing with 750lbs lifting load (half of the total 1500lbs). The
outboard cantlevered section of the wing would support half of that, 375lbs,
in 7' of wing. Assume that the center of lift for this section is at it's
midpoint, this would produce 1313ft.lbs. of moment (1/2 of 7' x 375) at the
strut attachment point. Assume that this strut is 6" x 1" (0.5' x 0.083')
at the cross section and half of that moment would be taken by compression
in the top half and tension in the bottom half. So the compression force,
which I'll assume is at the center point of the top half, is 2625lbs(1/2 of
1313ft.lbs. divided by 1/2 of 0.5'). So there is 2625lbs of compression and
2625 of tension in the upper and lower halfs of the spar, respectively. The
inboard section of wing would have the same resultant forces witht the
exception that the compression of the wing strut is added. Assume that the
horizontal load imposed by this strut is 1000lbs, the inboard section of
spar would see 3125lbs of compression and 2125lbs of tension.
So it's a force to be considered but its only a fraction (20% in this case).
So just outboard of the wing strut, the spar would see 126000psi of
compression in the top, 126000psi of tension in the bottom, and 18000psi of
vertical shear. The horizontal shear would simplistically calculated to
4500psi (2625lbs in 1" x 7' of spar horizontal cross-section) but would
require a calculus equasion due to the elastic deformation along that large
length. It would surely be much larger than that at that point.
Regardless, this leads me to believe that a failure in the wing would most
likely happen at the wingstrut where the combination of the largest forces
occur.
Robert Haines
Murphysboro, Illinois
P.S. - I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, just trying to keep the
conversation going.
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar design and orientation of plywood in the web
>
>
> There three stresses that exist in a spar. A spar in a Pietenpol, and the
> entire wing structure, for that matter, can be considered a continuous
beam
> (talking about the original one piece wing here) with a cantilevered
> overhang at each end. With a normal positive loading on the wing (ie in
> normal flight) the upper half of the spar is undergoing compressive
> stresses. The top of the tip is trying to move toward the centerline of
the
> aircraft. Wood is quite strong in compression. The compression stress is
> greatest along the upper surface of the spar and decreases to zero at
about
> the point halfway down the spar. The point where it is zero is called the
> neutral line.
>
> The lower half of the spar is under a tensile load. It is trying to
> stretch. The bottom of the spar above your head in the cockpit is trying
to
> move out to the tip. The greatest tensile stresses are on the lower
surface
> of the spar. Wood is nowhere near as strong in tension as it is in
> compression. As you move up the spar from its bottom surface, the tensile
> stress becomes less and less until you get to zero which is at the neutral
> line, the same line as you found when you came down from the top of the
> spar.
>
> The wood above the line is trying to compress and the wood below the line
is
> trying to stretch. This sets up a horizontal shear along the entire
length
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar design revisited |
Yes, Robert, I do agree. I did use the word continuous beam and I meant to
expound on that term. I will save it for another day when I have more time
or when someone shows interest. I see their eyes are glazing over.
With ships such as the Piet with strut braced wings and a cabane structure,
horizontal shear is approaching its minimum in the section of span from the
left wing strut attach point to the right wing strut attach point. Its
minimum would be inthe area between the two cabanes. However, as you said,
for the cantilevered span portion outboard of the wing strut attach point,
horizontal shear will be at its maximum and my points are valid.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar design and orientation of plywood in the
web
>
> Let me humbly add a little to the mix here. What you stated about the
> forces on the wing is correct for a one piece wing attached only at the
> center, a cantilevered wing, or cantilevered wingtips. What was not taken
> into consideration is the wing struts and what they do the the compressive
> and tensile loads on the spar.
>
> Most wingstruts are attaced at the center of lift of a wing (This usually
> happens slightly inboard of the center due to the fact that the wingtip is
> less efficient at producing lift). If they are placed in the exact center
> of lift, the wingstruts will support the entire lifting load. The wing
> attachments at the centerline of the aircraft will have no vertical load.
> If these struts are oriented at an angle of 45 degrees exactly, for every
> pound of lift supported they would impose an equal pound of compression in
> the section of spar between the strut attachment point and the center
> attachment point. Usually, they are at less of an angle horizontally than
> that so they actually produce more than a pound for a pound of lift.
> Fortunately, there is a wing on the other side of the aircraft pushing
> equally in the opposite direction.
>
> What I mean to say is that between the wingstrut and the root there is an
> additional compression force to be added. As I write this, I wonder if
it's
> large enough to be concidered, so forgive the mind numbing calculations
that
> are to follow...
>
> Assume a 14' wing with 750lbs lifting load (half of the total 1500lbs).
The
> outboard cantlevered section of the wing would support half of that,
375lbs,
> in 7' of wing. Assume that the center of lift for this section is at it's
> midpoint, this would produce 1313ft.lbs. of moment (1/2 of 7' x 375) at
the
> strut attachment point. Assume that this strut is 6" x 1" (0.5' x 0.083')
> at the cross section and half of that moment would be taken by compression
> in the top half and tension in the bottom half. So the compression force,
> which I'll assume is at the center point of the top half, is 2625lbs(1/2
of
> 1313ft.lbs. divided by 1/2 of 0.5'). So there is 2625lbs of compression
and
> 2625 of tension in the upper and lower halfs of the spar, respectively.
The
> inboard section of wing would have the same resultant forces witht the
> exception that the compression of the wing strut is added. Assume that
the
> horizontal load imposed by this strut is 1000lbs, the inboard section of
> spar would see 3125lbs of compression and 2125lbs of tension.
>
> So it's a force to be considered but its only a fraction (20% in this
case).
> So just outboard of the wing strut, the spar would see 126000psi of
> compression in the top, 126000psi of tension in the bottom, and 18000psi
of
> vertical shear. The horizontal shear would simplistically calculated to
> 4500psi (2625lbs in 1" x 7' of spar horizontal cross-section) but would
> require a calculus equasion due to the elastic deformation along that
large
> length. It would surely be much larger than that at that point.
> Regardless, this leads me to believe that a failure in the wing would most
> likely happen at the wingstrut where the combination of the largest forces
> occur.
>
> Robert Haines
> Murphysboro, Illinois
>
> P.S. - I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, just trying to keep the
> conversation going.
>
>
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spar design and orientation of plywood in the
web
> >
>
> >
> > There three stresses that exist in a spar. A spar in a Pietenpol, and
the
> > entire wing structure, for that matter, can be considered a continuous
> beam
> > (talking about the original one piece wing here) with a cantilevered
> > overhang at each end. With a normal positive loading on the wing (ie in
> > normal flight) the upper half of the spar is undergoing compressive
> > stresses. The top of the tip is trying to move toward the centerline of
> the
> > aircraft. Wood is quite strong in compression. The compression stress
is
> > greatest along the upper surface of the spar and decreases to zero at
> about
> > the point halfway down the spar. The point where it is zero is called
the
> > neutral line.
> >
> > The lower half of the spar is under a tensile load. It is trying to
> > stretch. The bottom of the spar above your head in the cockpit is
trying
> to
> > move out to the tip. The greatest tensile stresses are on the lower
> surface
> > of the spar. Wood is nowhere near as strong in tension as it is in
> > compression. As you move up the spar from its bottom surface, the
tensile
> > stress becomes less and less until you get to zero which is at the
neutral
> > line, the same line as you found when you came down from the top of the
> > spar.
> >
> > The wood above the line is trying to compress and the wood below the
line
> is
> > trying to stretch. This sets up a horizontal shear along the entire
> length
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | note for Mr. Blackburn |
Your books were sent last saturday. US Mail Media rate with delivery
confirmation to the PO Box you gave me.
Chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Maynard" <ken(at)polarcomm.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Project School Flight |
Peter
Always interested in a Piet project or any wood project for that matter.
Will be monitoring the Peit boards and waiting for more info on your
project.
Ken in North Dakota
--- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Denny" <peterthepilot_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Project School Flight
>
>
> G'Day all Pietenpol builders and drivers.
>
> My name is Peter Denny and I teach with Fred Nauer Aviation subjects here
at Washburn High School, Minneapolis.
>
> www.mpls.k12.mn.us/washburn/ click on people, teachers then Industrial
Tech.
>
> We have two great projects that will be commenced during the 2002 school
year. Firstly the restoration of a "Gusty MK1" for displaying in the
Oshkosh Museum. This airplane was originally built and flown by Gus Limbach.
Chapter 25 is our supporting body.
>
> The second project (which will interest you guys, is a Ford Powered
Pietenpol. And if I have it my way, will be on floats!....then again I may
not ...sigh! Fred is a wheel person. I told him to get a life and obtain
the float endorsement.
>
> I would like you all to spread this message about these great projects to
any school, youth groups, Cadet Units, alternative schools who have an
interest in aviation or is considering such a venture.
>
> While I was living and teaching in the colonies, (Australia) I was the
Sport Aircraft Association of Australia's Education Director. Where I
assisted a number of schools and Cadet Units in the building of aircraft.
>
> I commend you all to explore the EAA's "School Flight" Program and promote
this vital program in your neigboring schools.
>
> Peter Denny
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Denny <peterthepilot_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Project School Flight |
Thanks Ken,
Check out our school's website
www.mpls.k12.mn.us/washburn
Peter
Always interested in a Piet project or any wood project for that matter.
Will be monitoring the Peit boards and waiting for more info on your
project.
Ken in North Dakota
--- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Denny"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Project School Flight
>
>
> G'Day all Pietenpol builders and drivers.
>
> My name is Peter Denny and I teach with Fred Nauer Aviation subjects here
at Washburn High School, Minneapolis.
>
> www.mpls.k12.mn.us/washburn/ click on people, teachers then Industrial
Tech.
>
> We have two great projects that will be commenced during the 2002 school
year. Firstly the restoration of a "Gusty MK1" for displaying in the
Oshkosh Museum. This airplane was originally built and flown by Gus Limbach.
Chapter 25 is our supporting body.
>
> The second project (which will interest you guys, is a Ford Powered
Pietenpol. And if I have it my way, will be on floats!....then again I may
not ...sigh! Fred is a wheel person. I told him to get a life and obtain
the float endorsement.
>
> I would like you all to spread this message about these great projects to
any school, youth groups, Cadet Units, alternative schools who have an
interest in aviation or is considering such a venture.
>
> While I was living and teaching in the colonies, (Australia) I was the
Sport Aircraft Association of Australia's Education Director. Where I
assisted a number of schools and Cadet Units in the building of aircraft.
>
> I commend you all to explore the EAA's "School Flight" Program and promote
this vital program in your neigboring schools.
>
> Peter Denny
>
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Peter Denny <peterthepilot_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpols in Australia |
Hi Fellow Australians,
My name is Peter Denny an ex member of the Sport Aircraft Association of Australia.
Can I ask all you fellow Aussies to contact teachers Australia wide and see if
anyone down under is considering building a Pietenpol with students. I would dearly
love to set up a student program that would link our two wonderful countries.
I know that schools and cadet units are building planes like the "Super Pup" and
the Hughes Lightwing.
God it's exciting isn't it!!
Oh.. by the way.. the Pietenpol we are going to build isd going to be called...
wait for it!... "The Spirit of Washburn"
Peter Denny
Washburn High School
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpols in Australia |
Peter---Although possibly a far travel for you, Simon and Susan McCormack
of Tasmania, Australia have a yet-to-be-covered beautiful Ford A Pietenpol.
See photos of his plane on the photoshare portion of the Matronics web site.
(he built this plane alone without school involvement as far as I know)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | compass interference |
In laying out my panel I'm trying to keep my panel mounted compass as far
from anything electrical as I can. It ends up about 12" from the electronic
impulse type tach ( I haven't bought the tach yet so I could still go
mechanical but I really don't want the weight and expence of a bulky,heavy
cable and 90 degree adapter)and it ends up right next to the mag switch.Does
anyone know if 12" is far enough from the tach? Since the mag swith is an
open circuit when the engine is running I'm thinking there shouldn't be any
magnetism from the switch is this true?
I haven't mounted the switch yet so I could put it somewhere else. Thanks in
advance. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | compass interference |
In laying out my panel I'm trying to keep my panel mounted compass as far
from anything electrical as I can. It ends up about 12" from the electronic
impulse type tach ( I haven't bought the tach yet so I could still go
mechanical but I really don't want the weight and expence of a bulky,heavy
cable and 90 degree adapter)and it ends up right next to the mag switch.Does
anyone know if 12" is far enough from the tach? Since the mag swith is an
open circuit when the engine is running I'm thinking there shouldn't be any
magnetism from the switch is this true?
I haven't mounted the switch yet so I could put it somewhere else. Thanks in
advance. Ed G.
Ed, I would bet that the electronic impulse type of tach would cause far
less interference with your compass than the steel cables required for the
mechanical type. As long as you swing your compass with the engine running
it should not be a problem.
Speaking of swinging the compass, I learned something from one of Bob
Whittier's "Light Plane Heritage" articles in EAA's Experimenter magazine a
few months ago (actually I learn something from every article he writes.
His articles are always worth reading and quite frequently are the only
thing in Experimenter that I will bother to read - the rest being pretty
much cinfined to Ultralights.). In this article he pointed out that the old
Wacos used wooden joysticks to avoid messing up the compass. I tried moving
the steel tube stick in my Pietenpol around while holding the compass where
it will eventually reside and lo and behold - moving the stick around caused
as much as a 30 degree swing in the compass! Of course, if you are moving
your stick that much you wouldn't be able to read the compass anyway, but
the point is that there is a 30 degree difference in the compass reading
with the stick in level flight position and full down elevator (like it is
when the plane is at rest). The lesson from all this is to have the stick
held at the level flight attitude when you are swinging your compass, or it
may be off by quite a bit.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | compass interference |
Ed---- It might help to run stainless X aileron control cables there as
they will come in very close proximity to your compass. (but then again
our trusty IA told me to run stainless for bracing cable installations and
galvanized for pulley or bending applications. (Cy G. whaddya think......
sure respect your knowledge !)
My big WWII compass took a few turns to swing properly in flight and
it's still not perfect but it gives good enough reference. Tell you the truth
I really do not use it at all. Between charts and gps I basically pick out
a point on the horizon....water tower, landmark, etc. and keep the fuel
cork/wire
bullseye on it and 1/2 hour later or so you are there:))
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | compass interference |
Thanks for the input guys...the control stick thing was really interesting
Jack. I guess a compass doesn't have much of a chance with the control
stick, airleron cables, cabane struts, electric etc. I guess I'll just stick
it in the panel to make the FAA guys happy and buy a good GPS. Have a great
holiday season. Ed G.
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: compass interference
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:12:15 -0500
>
>
>
>Ed---- It might help to run stainless X aileron control cables there as
>they will come in very close proximity to your compass. (but then again
>our trusty IA told me to run stainless for bracing cable installations and
>galvanized for pulley or bending applications. (Cy G. whaddya think......
>sure respect your knowledge !)
>
>My big WWII compass took a few turns to swing properly in flight and
>it's still not perfect but it gives good enough reference. Tell you the
>truth
>I really do not use it at all. Between charts and gps I basically pick
>out
>a point on the horizon....water tower, landmark, etc. and keep the fuel
>cork/wire
>bullseye on it and 1/2 hour later or so you are there:))
>
>Mike C.
>
>
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hofmann" <jhofmann(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
Ed,
Ever thought of mounting it in the trailing edge of the wing? Viable option
in my humble opinion.
-john-
>
> Thanks for the input guys...the control stick thing was really
interesting
> Jack. I guess a compass doesn't have much of a chance with the control
> stick, airleron cables, cabane struts, electric etc. I guess I'll just
stick
> it in the panel to make the FAA guys happy and buy a good GPS. Have a
great
> holiday season. Ed G.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
Dale Johnson built a de-magnetizer. Maybe he could explain how to construct one.
Otherwise, you could consider struts and control sticks built out of wood.
Greg Cardinal
>>> "Jack Phillips" 12/13 9:49 AM >>>
Speaking of swinging the compass, I learned something from one of Bob
Whittier's "Light Plane Heritage" articles in EAA's Experimenter magazine a
few months ago (actually I learn something from every article he writes.
His articles are always worth reading and quite frequently are the only
thing in Experimenter that I will bother to read - the rest being pretty
much cinfined to Ultralights.). In this article he pointed out that the old
Wacos used wooden joysticks to avoid messing up the compass. I tried moving
the steel tube stick in my Pietenpol around while holding the compass where
it will eventually reside and lo and behold - moving the stick around caused
as much as a 30 degree swing in the compass! Of course, if you are moving
your stick that much you wouldn't be able to read the compass anyway, but
the point is that there is a 30 degree difference in the compass reading
with the stick in level flight position and full down elevator (like it is
when the plane is at rest). The lesson from all this is to have the stick
held at the level flight attitude when you are swinging your compass, or it
may be off by quite a bit.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
I think that as long as you keep the pulleys large the material of the cable
doesn't matter to the non-anal retentive. BTW, the SS control cables are
still working fine as they came from the factory in the 1948 Bellanca.
As to the SS being the preferred cable near a compass, here again I don't
think unless you are very close that it should affect the compass. Not all
SS is non-magnetic. My Bellanca has a drive chain for the ailerons which
isn't SS that goes across under the compass but below the aluminum
instrument panel cover. It works fine.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: compass interference
Ed---- It might help to run stainless X aileron control cables there as
they will come in very close proximity to your compass. (but then again
our trusty IA told me to run stainless for bracing cable installations and
galvanized for pulley or bending applications. (Cy G. whaddya think......
sure respect your knowledge !)
My big WWII compass took a few turns to swing properly in flight and
it's still not perfect but it gives good enough reference. Tell you the
truth
I really do not use it at all. Between charts and gps I basically pick out
a point on the horizon....water tower, landmark, etc. and keep the fuel
cork/wire
bullseye on it and 1/2 hour later or so you are there:))
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
I did think of mounting it in the trailing edge of the wing but to be
honest I've never even sat in a real live Piet and don't know if I could see
it up there ( my center section isn't done yet). I had also thought of
mounting my radio in the c/s cut out but don't know if you could see it or
reach it from sitting in the cockpit. I was going to try to wait until after
the c/s and cabanes were in place to try it because the radio that I would
"like" to use is too deep to fit in the panel ( around my area, under Tampa
class B, a radio is a must).
A DE-MAGNETIZER ??? I been to 27 County fairs and ain't never heard of
nothin' like that!!! I did notice that Allan Wise's Piet from Orlando Fl.
has a wooden stick and wooden cabane struts. I wonder if that is why???
Thanks for the responses Ed G.
>From: "John Hofmann" <jhofmann(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: compass interference
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 11:56:38 -0600
>
>
>Ed,
>Ever thought of mounting it in the trailing edge of the wing? Viable option
>in my humble opinion.
>
>-john-
>
>
> >
> > Thanks for the input guys...the control stick thing was really
>interesting
> > Jack. I guess a compass doesn't have much of a chance with the control
> > stick, airleron cables, cabane struts, electric etc. I guess I'll just
>stick
> > it in the panel to make the FAA guys happy and buy a good GPS. Have a
>great
> > holiday season. Ed G.
> >
>
>
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | mboynton(at)excite.com |
| Subject: | compass interference |
All,
What does it mean to "swing" a compass?
Mark Boynton
>
>
>
>
> In laying out my panel I'm trying to keep my panel mounted compass as
far
> from anything electrical as I can. It ends up about 12" from the
electronic
> impulse type tach ( I haven't bought the tach yet so I could still go
> mechanical but I really don't want the weight and expence of a
bulky,heavy
> cable and 90 degree adapter)and it ends up right next to the mag
switch.Does
> anyone know if 12" is far enough from the tach? Since the mag swith is an
> open circuit when the engine is running I'm thinking there shouldn't be
any
> magnetism from the switch is this true?
> I haven't mounted the switch yet so I could put it somewhere else. Thanks
in
> advance. Ed G.
>
> Ed, I would bet that the electronic impulse type of tach would cause far
> less interference with your compass than the steel cables required for
the
> mechanical type. As long as you swing your compass with the engine
running
> it should not be a problem.
>
> Speaking of swinging the compass, I learned something from one of Bob
> Whittier's "Light Plane Heritage" articles in EAA's Experimenter magazine
a
> few months ago (actually I learn something from every article he writes.
> His articles are always worth reading and quite frequently are the only
> thing in Experimenter that I will bother to read - the rest being pretty
> much cinfined to Ultralights.). In this article he pointed out that the
old
> Wacos used wooden joysticks to avoid messing up the compass. I tried
moving
> the steel tube stick in my Pietenpol around while holding the compass
where
> it will eventually reside and lo and behold - moving the stick around
caused
> as much as a 30 degree swing in the compass! Of course, if you are
moving
> your stick that much you wouldn't be able to read the compass anyway, but
> the point is that there is a 30 degree difference in the compass reading
> with the stick in level flight position and full down elevator (like it
is
> when the plane is at rest). The lesson from all this is to have the
stick
> held at the level flight attitude when you are swinging your compass, or
it
> may be off by quite a bit.
>
> Jack
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/pietenpol-list
>
>
>
>
Send a friend your Buddy Card and stay in contact always with Excite Messenger
http://messenger.excite.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Power tool advice |
Hi List,
Well, now that I've gone & 'got married' by running off with someone else's
partially complete project, I'm starting to think about getting my workshop
set up, something I thought I could put off until we were more settled in
the new house, but now has a little more urgency.
So, I'd like some advice about tools, mostly power tools; I have a good
selection of power & non-power hand tools & non-power woodworking tools.
Took a look at a few things at ye olde Home Depot today that got the brain
turning. I am assuming the following are helpful, if not essential, any
comments?
1.) A good vise for bending fittings, etc. - how big is big enough?
2.) Drill press - HD had a 10" Ryobi benchtop model with 1/2" chuck for
about $100.00 - big enough/good enough?
3.) Table saw - based on comments on the list in the past few weeks, sounds
like a real useful item. HD had a 10", 15amp Skil for about $200. Comments
on size or other considerations?
4.) Bandsaw - Again, sounds real useful. Anyone have any feelings about the
minimum useful throat height &/or other considerations? HD was selling a
Delta with 10" throat for $300.
Any other big-ticket tool items that people have found that they can't live
without?
Thanks one & All!
Kip Gardner (off to my first EAA chapter meeting since landing in OH)
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Hofmann" <jhofmann(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
Mark,
Most airports have a painted off area called the Compass Rose. It is
oriented to the clock positions of the compass and looks a lot like a shield
to ward off evil spirits as seen on barns out East or a multi-pointed star.
The short story is, one takes their plane to the rose to figure out your
compass deviation card. You orient the aircraft or "swing it" to the points
of the compass and read off the real value vs. what is shown on the compass
itself. Then using the compensator magnets on the compass and the deviation
card you can get an accurate compass reading. This is the short story and it
is really easier to do than to explain. Watch it once and you figure it out.
I used to do this quite a bit as a Gen Av mechanic but have not practiced it
in a few years. Anyone with a better explanation feel free to flame me :)
TakeCare,
-john-
> What does it mean to "swing" a compass?
>
> Mark Boynton
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Kip: The one tool I found most valuable was the 3X36 belt-6"disc bench
top combo sander. Cut your "sticks" close with he saw then sand to a
perfect shape with the disc. Bought mine at Sears for around 80 bucks on
sale. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Power tool advice |
So, I'd like some advice about tools, mostly power tools; I have a good
selection of power & non-power hand tools & non-power woodworking tools.
Took a look at a few things at ye olde Home Depot today that got the brain
turning. I am assuming the following are helpful, if not essential, any
comments?
1.) A good vise for bending fittings, etc. - how big is big enough?
2.) Drill press - HD had a 10" Ryobi benchtop model with 1/2" chuck for
about $100.00 - big enough/good enough?
3.) Table saw - based on comments on the list in the past few weeks, sounds
like a real useful item. HD had a 10", 15amp Skil for about $200. Comments
on size or other considerations?
4.) Bandsaw - Again, sounds real useful. Anyone have any feelings about the
minimum useful throat height &/or other considerations? HD was selling a
Delta with 10" throat for $300.
Any other big-ticket tool items that people have found that they can't live
without?
Thanks one & All!
Kip Gardner (off to my first EAA chapter meeting since landing in OH)
Kip, each to his own as they say, but I would have the following comments
about your list:
1. Vise - mine is 5" and has been big enough for everything except bending
the tailwheel spring. I broke it doing that (didn't know you could break a
vise).
2. Drill press - Buy the best you can afford, but don't go crazy with it. I
recommend the "Center-It" jig that Aircraft Spruce sells for accurately
drilling holes in the center of tubing
3. Table Saw - Here is where you need to spend as much as you can. Buy a
good brand, like Delta or Jet. Plan on spending at least $300, and the more
you spend the happier you will be. The happiest day I've had since I
divorced my ex-wife was the day I GAVE AWAY my old Sears table saw and
bought a Delta.
4. Bandsaw - mine has a 12" throat and there have been several times that it
has been too small. I think a 10" could work, but you will cuss it some.
5. Belt Sander with a sanding disc - Very useful. I would not consider
building a wooden plane without one.
6. Metal Cutting Bandsaw - Really nice for cutting out fittings. Again, I
would not consider building a wooden plane without one (it's amazing how
many metal parts there are in an all-wood airplane). I bought a cheap
Grizzly 6" bandsaw for about $200 and it has served me well. Again, the
throat is too small so you have to plan around that and sometimes waste a
bit of material. Beware of some saws advertised as "metal-cutting". If the
blade can't be slowed down to around 80 inches per minute it will be too
fast to cut chromoly steel. Buy the slowest one you can find, with the
largest number of teeth per inch on the blade. I find the Bimetallic blades
last about 10 times as long as regular blades, and only cost three times as
much.
Just my two cents worth.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Sncliffe(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 6 Msgs - 12/12/01 |
Dear All, Re. Wing Stresses,
Thanks for bringing some building topics back into the List. I'm about to
start building a Camper according to our strict UK PFA rules ( 18 signed-off
inspections during build - thank heavens for my, my passenger's & the
public's, safety ) and it's good to see some basic engineering being
discussed at last.
Go to Google, enter Pietenpol etc.and look at the UK sites, there's a lot
there that will surprise you.
Happy glueing & Seasons Greetings to you all, especially Matt for making this
all possible.
Nick Cliffe, High Wycombe ( former Home of Bomber Command & the 8th USAAF -
Glen Miller played his last date here......)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
| Subject: | Power tool advice |
Hi Kip,
Sounds like you're about to have a lot of fun!
Your list of tools sounds pretty good--I found that I used my bandsaw (20
year old Craftsman w/ 80 inch blade) the most of all, followed probably by
an inexpensive 4 inch belt sander. I used a small table saw like the one
you describe for ripping the rough leading edge shape, but not really very
much else. I also used a small (cheap) router with a variety of carbide
bits and shop-made fixtures to shape the trailing edge, cut the lightening
bays in the spars (1 inch spars), and to true up the leading and trailing
edges of the ribs. You may be beyond these tasks already if you bought a
project. I also have a pretty nice scroll saw, but haven't used it for much
on the project. The only things that I couldn't have done without it are
the holes for the control tube through the front seat.
As for making fittings, I have a six inch vise from Home Depot, probably one
of the same ones you're looking at. I replaced the jaws with a set of
shop-made smooth jaws (welded from two pieces of 1/4 x 1 mild steel) with
the edge of one jaw rounded to .090 radius, and the other to approximately
.063 radius. I also have the inexpensive Grizzly metal-cutting bandsaw,
permanently set up with a table for cutting fittings, and a (too small--5
inch I think) grinder. Someone said buy the biggest grinder you can find.
I didn't and I should have.
As always, your milage may vary. I don't mind collecting tools that I don't
use much bucause eventually become important.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Kip & Beth Gardner [mailto:kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Power tool advice
Hi List,
Well, now that I've gone & 'got married' by running off with someone else's
partially complete project, I'm starting to think about getting my workshop
set up, something I thought I could put off until we were more settled in
the new house, but now has a little more urgency.
So, I'd like some advice about tools, mostly power tools; I have a good
selection of power & non-power hand tools & non-power woodworking tools.
Took a look at a few things at ye olde Home Depot today that got the brain
turning. I am assuming the following are helpful, if not essential, any
comments?
1.) A good vise for bending fittings, etc. - how big is big enough?
2.) Drill press - HD had a 10" Ryobi benchtop model with 1/2" chuck for
about $100.00 - big enough/good enough?
3.) Table saw - based on comments on the list in the past few weeks, sounds
like a real useful item. HD had a 10", 15amp Skil for about $200. Comments
on size or other considerations?
4.) Bandsaw - Again, sounds real useful. Anyone have any feelings about the
minimum useful throat height &/or other considerations? HD was selling a
Delta with 10" throat for $300.
Any other big-ticket tool items that people have found that they can't live
without?
Thanks one & All!
Kip Gardner (off to my first EAA chapter meeting since landing in OH)
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Ed
Read Dec 2001 Experimenter page 36 top
I built a degausser using a large coil of copper wire with a ac plug on
it.
It works great.
We used this setup to demagnetize tv sets way back when.
Dale Mpls.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Malley <jgmalley(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
Good thing to consider before completing your panel. Originally put my
compass directly above the tach. The faster the engine revved the
further West I was going. Eventually hung the compass from the wing,
works well. Your 12" should be sufficient.
Jim Malley
Ed Grentzer wrote:
>
>
> In laying out my panel I'm trying to keep my panel mounted compass as far
> from anything electrical as I can. It ends up about 12" from the electronic
> impulse type tach ( I haven't bought the tach yet so I could still go
> mechanical but I really don't want the weight and expence of a bulky,heavy
> cable and 90 degree adapter)and it ends up right next to the mag switch.Does
> anyone know if 12" is far enough from the tach? Since the mag swith is an
> open circuit when the engine is running I'm thinking there shouldn't be any
> magnetism from the switch is this true?
> I haven't mounted the switch yet so I could put it somewhere else. Thanks in
> advance. Ed G.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.) |
| Subject: | Re: compass interference |
Interesting!! I've heard of a degausser but never knew what they
actually were. Will it actualy demagnatize ferrus metals?
If so that's pretty amazing. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: compass rose and the swing |
Also, engine must be running and if it is a taildragger, the aircraft should
be level.
This might be discussed by Bingelis in one of the books.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hofmann" <jhofmann(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: compass interference
>
> Mark,
>
> Most airports have a painted off area called the Compass Rose. It is
> oriented to the clock positions of the compass and looks a lot like a
shield
> to ward off evil spirits as seen on barns out East or a multi-pointed
star.
> The short story is, one takes their plane to the rose to figure out your
> compass deviation card. You orient the aircraft or "swing it" to the
points
> of the compass and read off the real value vs. what is shown on the
compass
> itself. Then using the compensator magnets on the compass and the
deviation
> card you can get an accurate compass reading. This is the short story and
it
> is really easier to do than to explain. Watch it once and you figure it
out.
> I used to do this quite a bit as a Gen Av mechanic but have not practiced
it
> in a few years. Anyone with a better explanation feel free to flame me :)
>
> TakeCare,
> -john-
>
> > What does it mean to "swing" a compass?
> >
> > Mark Boynton
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Power tool advice |
Well, now that I've gone & 'got married' by running off with someone else's
partially complete project......Kip did you find a woman who is pregnant by
someone else?
The drill press is way too small if it is a table top model. I had one and
if I put a vise on it with a piece chucked up. the drillwould be too long
to get it over the work. Harbor frieght usually has a 16 speed for about
269 dollars including free shipping. I have one and so does Greg Cardinal.
Not the best but does ok. Also, you need lots of speeds especially the slow
speeds. The Harbor Frieght one can turn about 170 RPM on the slow end which
is good enough for up to about 3/4" hole in steel.
Buy the biggest most powerful bench grinder you can afford. Make sure it is
metal not plastic. You do not want deflection. The tool rests are usually
lousy unless you find an old Rockwell/Delta. Try some garage sales or
auctions.
Table saw. I have a sears table saw. Ten inch and hate the think but cant
live without it. I also have two radial arm saws. One is a 220volt sears
12 incher that I got at a garagesale for 100 dollars with some extra stuff.
The other is a dewalt 10 incher that was at the dump gettting dropped off
when I was there. Both needed new tables made out of new wood. Probably
another 100 dollars to get each runnnin including a new 50 dollar blade.
Get good blades...Top of the line carbide for me Freud, Oldham, etc.
I also like the taiwan toolbox metal cutting bandsaw from Harbor Frieght.
About 169 dollars including the shipping. has demountable table and then
has a vise to hold tubes and the arm swings down to cut the tube of its own
wieght.
Chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Power tool advice
>
> Hi List,
>
> Well, now that I've gone & 'got married' by running off with someone
else's
> partially complete project, I'm starting to think about getting my
workshop
> set up, something I thought I could put off until we were more settled in
> the new house, but now has a little more urgency.
>
> So, I'd like some advice about tools, mostly power tools; I have a good
> selection of power & non-power hand tools & non-power woodworking tools.
> Took a look at a few things at ye olde Home Depot today that got the brain
> turning. I am assuming the following are helpful, if not essential, any
> comments?
>
> 1.) A good vise for bending fittings, etc. - how big is big enough?
>
> 2.) Drill press - HD had a 10" Ryobi benchtop model with 1/2" chuck for
> about $100.00 - big enough/good enough?
>
> 3.) Table saw - based on comments on the list in the past few weeks,
sounds
> like a real useful item. HD had a 10", 15amp Skil for about $200. Comments
> on size or other considerations?
>
> 4.) Bandsaw - Again, sounds real useful. Anyone have any feelings about
the
> minimum useful throat height &/or other considerations? HD was selling a
> Delta with 10" throat for $300.
>
> Any other big-ticket tool items that people have found that they can't
live
> without?
>
> Thanks one & All!
>
> Kip Gardner (off to my first EAA chapter meeting since landing in OH)
>
>
> 426 Schneider St. SE
> North Canton, OH 44720
> (330) 494-1775
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "K. and J. Hallsten" <hallstenokc(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re:Power tool advice |
Kip,
I have just bought a bunch of tools the last few months, and have
yet to really start using them yet. But that will soon change. I will
second Jack's comment about the Craftsman table saw, the quality is
second rate. I bought the 200 dollar table saw last month, and the blade
was quite a bit off parallel with the mitre slot. It took a call to
customer service to get shims for the mount assembly. Now it is dead
nuts on. But the table top itself is not very ... hmmm .. level or
smooth. A straight edge across the top shows light underneath at a few
spots. The mitre gage is crap. I expect to make my own jigs and fence
for it. With any table saw, no matter how good it is will need to be
"tuned up". Check rec.woodworking and read their FAQ's for a lot of
answers. I use Google Groups to get to it, as they have a good search
for the newsgroups to get your answers. If my Sears lasts thru the
Piet, I'll be very happy. I expected to cut,rip stock for the ribs, and
whatever. It's important to buy a GOOD blade for it. Some people at
rec. woodworking will tell you. The blade that comes with the cheaper
saws probably won't last long. A builder on the ragwing group suggests
a "hollow ground planer blade" for a table saw, whatever that is. I
think it is a thin blade that is not supposed to bind up in rips. He
said you can get cuts ready for glue up, no sanding required.
I have the $99 5 speed bench drill press from Sears that seems to be
OK, it has acceptable run out of .002". I think it's 9" swing. The
table itself is hard to get angles on, as the scale to read the angle is
at the top. Hard to see with the drill head right over it.
I'm happy with my Delta 4"x36" belt 6"disc sander. Heavy cast
iron, dust outlet, and the belt part can go vertical. Heavy duty, way
better quality than what I expected it to have. About 129.00 at HD.
I picked up a 6" bench grinder at a yard sale, 3 amps, 20 bucks
with hard wheel and wire brush wheel. Seems ok but I have not pushed it
hard with metal to it yet.
I have a 4" vise, probably too small but I'll find that out later.
I built the work island Tony Bingeles has in his books. Put the
drill press, belt sander, and grinder on it. It's easy to get to
everything, it rolls, and if you build one don't do what I did. I
enclosed the sides with plywood, and now realize all the space inside is
wasted storage. put a door on it. A good place to put a shop vac and
run some hose up to the tools on top.
I don't have a band saw yet. I saw a picture of a guy who mounted a
saber saw upside down, underneath a 3 sided box. The blade came thru
a hole in the box top. He could reach in the open side to turn it
on/off, and change blades. Real ingenuity. I'm thinking it's a cheap
substitute for a bandsaw. Since I have a saber saw now, guess what I'm
going to try? If it won't cut fittings I'll take them to work, we have
a bandsaw there.
Good luck !
Kent Hallsten
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More Power tool advice |
November 26, 2001 - December 13, 2001
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ce