Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ci
January 30, 2002 - February 04, 2002
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Here goes my opinion, but maybe I am COMPLETLY wrong.
I think that you do not need a stop in the trottle,
maybe with the correct combination of diameter and
pitch might work at the correct RPMS...
I think this was the way the inverted V8 engine in the
Tailwind was used, with direct drive...
I say There is a big posibility that I am wrong,
because I have never ben close to this engine, but I
researched the Tailwind a lot in the early 90's...
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> Wayne
>
> I'm just considering using the 3.3 engine I have
> and not chasing down some other. Somebody mentioned
> that the 150 hp is at high rpm or about 4500 rpm.
> That probably is right. In other words, if I only
> need 70 hp, I could put a stop on the throttle to
> prevent going over 2500 rpm and have all the
> horsepower I need. That means I could also go
> straight drive off the crank like a VW without a
> need for reduction gear. Sounds good to me. What
> is wrong with this scenario?
>
>
> On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Wayne McIntosh" wrote:
>
> >
> McIntosh"
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden
> planes
> >
> > Fisherman, Cy, and others,
> > First there was a question about the Chrysler
> 3.3 engine in the
> > Chrysler/Dodge minivan. It has an iron block and
> some versions have iron
> > heads others have aluminum heads. There was also
> mention of a Mitsubichi
> > engine which Chrysler used in their minivan and
> that was a 3 liter with iron
> > block and aluminum heads. The 3.3 engine gives
> good service and seems to be
> > generally trouble free, the 3 liter mitsu engine
> is no longer sold in the US
> > but parts are still readily available. The 3 litre
> Mitsu seemed to have
> > trouble with head gaskets although that may have
> been a maintainance
> > problem. Of the 2 the 3.3 is in my opinioin the
> better engine. Both are port
> > fuel injected and you would have to devise a way
> to trick the computer into
> > thinking the transmission was in high gear and the
> vehicle was driving at
> > high speed. This can be done electronically but if
> weight and balance makes
> > your eyes gloss over tricking the computer may do
> that too. Neither of these
> > engines were ever sold in the US without FI and a
> computer. I have never
> > heard of either being used in a plane but I do not
> see why they would not
> > work. Both of these engines weigh more than a
> Corvair engine or a model A
> > engine with aluminim head as I have seen in a
> Piet. By the way I have fixed
> > cars for a living for more than 30 years.
> > Now back on the subject of hardware store
> stuff in an airplane. First
> > and foremost weight in an airplane is bad period.
> Weight gets in an airplane
> > a half ounce at a time. If you can find something
> in a hardware store that
> > is just as strong that will be just as dependable
> and is just as light as
> > aircraft grade stuff then that is what should be
> used. If hardware store
> > stuff is more heavy but just as strong you will
> pay the price when you fly
> > your plane that has a poor climb rate, longer
> takeoff and landing roll, less
> > range( gotta leave the throttle wide open longer
> to get to altitude), higher
> > stall speed, less payload and I could go on and
> on. I have a few friends
> > that have 2 seat homebuilts that never carry a
> passenger because thair
> > planes are so heavy, on a hot day a passenger is
> not possible. Now I hope
> > we can agree that we would not use something that
> we knew was not as strong
> > as the part specified in the plans. Now we have
> how long will it last? I
> > mean why would you go to all of the trouble and
> time that it takes to build
> > a plane if you thought it was not going to last
> you at least 20 years or
> > more?
> > Now here is my experience with some hardware
> store aircraft parts.
> > Hinges, my Rag-A-Muffin plans specified steel
> hardware store hinges for the
> > rudder and elevator, I got mine at Ace but the
> pins had to be replaced
> > because they were aliminum pins in steel hinges,
> they work fine. I could not
> > find good aluminum piano hinge for my ailerons at
> thr hardware store so I
> > got aircraft piano hinge. Aluminum tube, I live in
> Lafayette Indiana home of
> > the worlds largest aluminum extrusion plant,
> Alcoa. They wouldn't sell to
> > me, the local metal supplier did not stock the
> sizes I needed and would not
> > order unless I bought an amount that was way more
> than I needed, same for
> > steel tube. I bought my tubing from an aircraft
> supplier. Pullys, I looked
> > at boat stuff, garage door stuff, looked in
> industrial supply catalogs and
> > finally bit the bullet and bought aircraft pullys
> thay are light, strong,
> > smooth and expensive. Cable, I could have used 7x7
> hardware cable for my
> > rudder cables and flying wires but I could not
> find 7x19 cable in a hardware
> > store. I needed the more flexable 7x19 for the
> ailerons to run over the
> > expensive pulleys. So I bought all 7x19 for 18
> cents a foot from Wicks. Nuts
> > and bolts. Most nut and bolt applications on a
> wood airplane do not need the
> > strength of aircraft bolts. But most automotive
> and hardware bolts have 2
> > problems. First is corrosion resistance, in the
> few places that I used
> > hardware bolts they have already started to rust,
> none of the AN bolts have
> > a speck of rust on them. AN bolts will rust as I
> have seen on old planes but
> > they seem to hold up better as far as corrosion
> resistance. Stainless
> > hardware bolts cost as much as AN bolts. Second
> automotive and hardware
> > bolts come with half or more of the bolt threaded
> and come in 1/2"
> > increments of length. AN bolts have the last
> 1/2" or so threaded and come
> > in 1/8" length increments. Airplanes are made out
> of small sticks and thin
> > plywood when you bolt something to the wood you do
> not want any threads in
> > the hole so you get a good bearing area. If you
> have threads in the hole you
> > do not have good bearing area and vibration tends
> to wallow out the hole.If
> > you use automotive bolts then you will have either
> threads in the hole
> > (wallow) or a lot of thread sticking out and a lot
> of washers (weight).
> > Glue, You can get Weldwood Resorcinol glue at the
> hardware store and I
> > understand it is good stuff and is aircraft grade.
> I tried Excel
> > Polyurethane glue and it is good also but by my
> tests T88 was better. You
> > can't get T-88 in my Ace store. Plywood, none of
> the lumberyards in my town
> > stock plywood better than AB, smallest thickness
> is 1/4". I could special
> > order Marine plywood at a local lumber yard but I
> had to get 4x8 sheets and
> > the thinnest sheet was 3 ply 1/8". I did find a
> cabnet shop that sold Baltic
> > Birch plywood thinnest sheet was 1/8" and they
> said it was interior grade. I
> > bought aircraft Plywood from Harbor Marine in
> Baltimore. Yes I used latex
> > paint to paint my plane I do not know how long it
> will last and I know it is
> > heavier than Polytone. I used all Douglas fir
> lumber from the local yard. My
> > plane is about 15% heavier than it should have
> been and and I did save some
> > money on the paint and lumber but I pay for it
> when I fly it. If I decide to
> > build a Piet I will spend the extra money and save
> a half ounce every place
> > I can. Wood A Spacewalker 2 seat plane had a wing
> come off in flight in
> > Conroe Texas in 1999. It had Basswood Spars and
> the spar broke. The NTSB
> > thinks that basswood is unsuitable for spars and
> caused the fatal crash.
> > Now Cy, tell me about this alloy that is
> better and cheaper than 4130
> > and where I can get it.
> > Fisherman, I know a young guy that has a Kolb
> Firefly ultralight with a
> > 53 horsepower engine on it that is definately not
> underpowered.
> >
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Inclinometers |
No is not alcohol, but I do not know the name in
english, is like liquid vaselin... it has the texture
of automatic transmision oil but clear, this way the
ball bearing will not move fast inside the clear tube,
in fact years ago Aircraft Spruce used to sell a "kit"
so you could build one. We bought the first and as
they were so easy to build, just keep making the ones
we needed.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Joe. Will make it instead, it looks like.
> Alchohol as the liquid. I think I saw one for sale
> someplace for $9, would buy one at that price, but
> cannot find the place again.
>
>
> On Tue, 29 January 2002, "Joe Krzes" wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > >From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
> > > Was looking at inclinometers, turn and banks
> in the catalogues. They
> > >run around $35 or so. Can't I just use a ball
> bearing and plastic tube
> > >with wooden plugs in the end? Or a six inch
> carpenters level? For $3.
> >
>
>--------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Funny you should ask. I saw this on the minimax
> builder's list a week or so
> > ago.
> >
> >
>
<http://www.inscorp.com/cgiaj/bbs/discuss.cgi?read=10655>
> >
> > Joe
> > Spring, TX
> >
> >
> > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN
> Hotmail.
> > http://www.hotmail.com
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
>
> 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: | "Larry Ragan" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
Skip, Larry, et al,
I too have been interested in how to cover the 'vair and have not seen a good example.
I live about 1 1/2 hrs. north of W. Wynne. Maybe I should go down and
look at his. I would prefer to go the pressure cowl route, although I don't understand
all I know about the air flow, pressure and cooling effects on a installation
like that. Matter of fact, I don't know anything about it. I just know
you don't just throw a fiberglass cowl on and hope for the best. Is there a
good place that explains the considerations to be taken?
My brother is an expert at custom fiberglass making and molds. Maybe I can get
him interested.
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
Caye
I will send you off list 2 photos of the HM 380, no
photos can be sent to te list.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
> My first choice of buildng my first plane, was the
> Flying Flea. But there were no plans available that
> I trusted for a two place. So, I went Pietenpol.
>
> But they are now building for the French Military
> a host of Flying Flea larger craft. If someone ever
> comes out with some plans, I would be interested.
>
>
> On Tue, 29 January 2002, Dmott9(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> Dmott9(at)aol.com
> >
> > In a message dated 1/29/02 12:25:44 AM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
> >
> > <<
> > http://www.flyingflea.org/ This is a USA page.
> >
> > FIRST take look to (in the left) "HM-1100" the
> > ultimate machine. THEN read the tranlation of
> Mignet
> > diary of 1936 in HM-14. I am sure you all will
> enjoy
> > it. THIRD go to Dunnes 2001 (the equivalent to
> the
> > Piet gadering) once a year event with Flying
> Fleas in
> > France.
> >
> > Then Gene, you can say IF is worth a D****d.
> >
> > Sorry for being so rude Gene, I sincerely
> apologize,
> > but is sad to hear a pilot talk (write) against
> an
> > airplane, without knowing what he says, like
> women
> > talking about the neighbors in the corner store.
> >
> > If you keep your interest, Maybe you will fall in
> love
> > of the Flying Flea the same way Don Campbel, Phyl
> > Howell, Jack McWorther (USA), myself (Mexico) and
> lots
> > of other pilots and builders around the world.
> > >>
> > Very well said, and thank you for bringing this
> little plane to my attention.
> > I am glad you are on this list, and happy you
> contribute.
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
>
> 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 Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
Subject: | Re: Cleaning house... |
Hi All!
Had some vacation time to "kill" -- so I took a "snow day" (justified --
since Tues. noon, we have had 1/2" ice, 2+" sleet & expecting 3" to 6"
snow -- Leon! got enough wood stacked on the porch?? ;-) and have been doing
some cleaning & etc.
In the process, I found a bunch of papers & handouts from when I took my A&P
classes at Okla. State Univ. (early 70's ;-) -- found stuff on things to
check on "pre-cover" -- it did mention that before covering, you should
protect all varnished surfaces that would come in contact (with the
covering ) with aluminum or cellophane tape (good old 3-M!) -- there are now
some pretty tough packing tapes that sure do the job & it would be a whole
lot easier than even a epoxy coat on the rib tops (bet B.H. would have done
it that way!! ;-)
Back to the cleaning & some work on my rib jig!
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS (where winter have finally arrived -- it was 65 F last
Sat!)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
--- KenGailGriff wrote:
>
>
Like all airplanes, the CG has to be in a correct
range, there are 100's examples of two seaters HM 380
and Criquets in France with more than 10 years as
trainers with no problem.
The Flying Flea is very light constructed, the problem
with wooden aircraft (all over the world) is that if
the builder "feels that it will brake apart" he might
add a few 1/8"s to each piece of wood, or the next
size of plywood "to make it more safe" untill it is
overweight, and never will fly as it should be, is
easy to happen in any wooden project, has happened a
lot in our great Piet.
As you cut the wood, and see how "thin" it comes out,
is dificult to resist to cut it a "little more wider,
just for the safety sake", not knowing that this will
make it a more unsafe aircraft, because of the gross
and the Center of Gravity that moves...
This aplys to all aircraft, I am not writing in favor
of the Flying Flea, and I know is not a plane for
everyone, but is the safest plane you can built,
correctly built and powered of course.
Saludos
Gary Gower
PS Who says that the pilot was not "showing off" and
you think that it was the plane's fault? almost any
design of two seater airplane (or ultralight
"trainer" ) had suffer of this type of accidents.
One homebuilt
> HM -380 had been flying great for four years --
> until he took a heavy
> passenger for a ride. Both the pilot and passenger
> were killed.
>
> A gorgeous example was featured in Sport Aviation a
> couple of years ago. The
> article said it came out heavy and usually flies as
> a single place.
>
> I concluded that the design needs refinement. I am
> not experienced enough to
> take on a project like that.
>
> Ken Chambers
> In the early stages
> Austin, Texas
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying
> Flea.
>
>
> Caye
>
> >
> >
> > My first choice of buildng my first plane, was
> the Flying Flea. But
> there were no plans available that I trusted for a
> two place. So, I went
> Pietenpol.
> >
> > But they are now building for the French
> Military a host of Flying Flea
> larger craft. If someone ever comes out with some
> plans, I would be
> interested.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 29 January 2002, Dmott9(at)aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >
> Dmott9(at)aol.com
> > >
> > > In a message dated 1/29/02 12:25:44 AM Eastern
> Standard Time,
> > > ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
> > >
> > > <<
> > > http://www.flyingflea.org/ This is a USA
> page.
> > >
> > > FIRST take look to (in the left) "HM-1100" the
> > > ultimate machine. THEN read the tranlation of
> Mignet
> > > diary of 1936 in HM-14. I am sure you all will
> enjoy
> > > it. THIRD go to Dunnes 2001 (the equivalent to
> the
> > > Piet gadering) once a year event with Flying
> Fleas in
> > > France.
> > >
> > > Then Gene, you can say IF is worth a D****d.
> > >
> > > Sorry for being so rude Gene, I sincerely
> apologize,
> > > but is sad to hear a pilot talk (write) against
> an
> > > airplane, without knowing what he says, like
> women
> > > talking about the neighbors in the corner
> store.
> > >
> > > If you keep your interest, Maybe you will fall
> in love
> > > of the Flying Flea the same way Don Campbel,
> Phyl
> > > Howell, Jack McWorther (USA), myself (Mexico)
> and lots
> > > of other pilots and builders around the world.
> > > >>
> > > Very well said, and thank you for bringing this
> little plane to my
> attention.
> > > I am glad you are on this list, and happy you
> contribute.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > http://mail.Justice.com
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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: | "Alan Swanson" <swans071(at)tc.umn.edu> |
Subject: | Cleaning house... |
Mike,
I was talking with the Polyfiber distributor here, he is also quite well
known as an aircraft restorer and covering specialist. I was asking him
about epoxy varnish. He advised me to use a thinned spar varnish as a seal
coat, and then a top coat of epoxy varnish for protection from the solvents
from the Stitz process. He also said that he has seen where the solvent
vapors get to a high enough concentration in a wing or tail to where the
spar varnish on interior parts that have only a spar varnish coat will get
soft. He recommends that epoxy be used on all parts. The seal coat will
reduce the amount of epoxy you need, saving some money.
Al Swanson
Hi All!
Had some vacation time to "kill" -- so I took a "snow day" (justified --
since Tues. noon, we have had 1/2" ice, 2+" sleet & expecting 3" to 6"
snow -- Leon! got enough wood stacked on the porch?? ;-) and have been doing
some cleaning & etc.
In the process, I found a bunch of papers & handouts from when I took my A&P
classes at Okla. State Univ. (early 70's ;-) -- found stuff on things to
check on "pre-cover" -- it did mention that before covering, you should
protect all varnished surfaces that would come in contact (with the
covering ) with aluminum or cellophane tape (good old 3-M!) -- there are now
some pretty tough packing tapes that sure do the job & it would be a whole
lot easier than even a epoxy coat on the rib tops (bet B.H. would have done
it that way!! ;-)
Back to the cleaning & some work on my rib jig!
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS (where winter have finally arrived -- it was 65 F last
Sat!)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Subject: | Cleaning house- 3.3 engine |
Hi Mike: No wood stacked on the porch, Its all in the living room
setting on saw horses. I'm fighting the urge to throw another Pietenpol
on the fire. I know about the 2 in. of ice. I pulled 2 trailers 436
miles on it last night and I am full of nervous tension. (road rage) It
looks like I'm going to do it again tonight. I'll be in the loony bin by
the time this wx system moves east. Enjoy your snow day.
Mr. Caye: Your idea is sound. Don Sauser does the very same thing on
his 82% P6-E with an HO 350 Chev. It puts out big hp. at 4500 rpm. He
turns it 2800 rpm. where it's still putting out 190 hp. Direct drive.
Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Got the heads up today about the sport pilot thing, and just passing it
along.
Bye, Bye, Third class medical!!!
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Alexander" <gtalexander(at)att.net>
; "Joan & Joe Riccardi" ; "Rich
Kirk" ; "Walter B. Evans" ;
"Sam Briseno" ; "Alfonse Leonardis"
; "Alex" ; "J. Rick Sims"
Subject: Sport Pilot
> Fellow Flyers:
> The NPRM is about to be published. The preliminary is out
> at:
> http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sports013002.htm
> George
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Fw: Sport Pilot |
Here is the Proposal
http://www.faa.gov/avr/arm/sports013002.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Hi Larry
Yes I did mount the bowl to the engine.
I'm going to add chafing material to the lip of the lid.
Dale Mpls,MN.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
PS Who says that the pilot was not "showing off" and
> you think that it was the plane's fault? almost any
> design of two seater airplane (or ultralight
> "trainer" ) had suffer of this type of accidents.
Hey Gary
I agree that it's a fascinating aircraft. Beautiful in a unique way. And it
is quite possible there were other factors involved in the accident I
mentioned.
Another factor in my decision was ground handling. The c of g is of course
much farther aft in a flea. Some pilots claim this makes it more difficult
to taxi and land. I have very little tail wheel experience at this point, so
extra complications did not appeal to me.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying Flea.
>
>
> --- KenGailGriff wrote:
> >
> >
> Like all airplanes, the CG has to be in a correct
> range, there are 100's examples of two seaters HM 380
> and Criquets in France with more than 10 years as
> trainers with no problem.
>
> The Flying Flea is very light constructed, the problem
> with wooden aircraft (all over the world) is that if
> the builder "feels that it will brake apart" he might
> add a few 1/8"s to each piece of wood, or the next
> size of plywood "to make it more safe" untill it is
> overweight, and never will fly as it should be, is
> easy to happen in any wooden project, has happened a
> lot in our great Piet.
>
> As you cut the wood, and see how "thin" it comes out,
> is dificult to resist to cut it a "little more wider,
> just for the safety sake", not knowing that this will
> make it a more unsafe aircraft, because of the gross
> and the Center of Gravity that moves...
>
> This aplys to all aircraft, I am not writing in favor
> of the Flying Flea, and I know is not a plane for
> everyone, but is the safest plane you can built,
> correctly built and powered of course.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
>
> PS Who says that the pilot was not "showing off" and
> you think that it was the plane's fault? almost any
> design of two seater airplane (or ultralight
> "trainer" ) had suffer of this type of accidents.
>
>
> One homebuilt
> > HM -380 had been flying great for four years --
> > until he took a heavy
> > passenger for a ride. Both the pilot and passenger
> > were killed.
> >
> > A gorgeous example was featured in Sport Aviation a
> > couple of years ago. The
> > article said it came out heavy and usually flies as
> > a single place.
> >
> > I concluded that the design needs refinement. I am
> > not experienced enough to
> > take on a project like that.
> >
> > Ken Chambers
> > In the early stages
> > Austin, Texas
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying
> > Flea.
> >
> >
> > Caye
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > My first choice of buildng my first plane, was
> > the Flying Flea. But
> > there were no plans available that I trusted for a
> > two place. So, I went
> > Pietenpol.
> > >
> > > But they are now building for the French
> > Military a host of Flying Flea
> > larger craft. If someone ever comes out with some
> > plans, I would be
> > interested.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 January 2002, Dmott9(at)aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > Dmott9(at)aol.com
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 1/29/02 12:25:44 AM Eastern
> > Standard Time,
> > > > ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > <<
> > > > http://www.flyingflea.org/ This is a USA
> > page.
> > > >
> > > > FIRST take look to (in the left) "HM-1100" the
> > > > ultimate machine. THEN read the tranlation of
> > Mignet
> > > > diary of 1936 in HM-14. I am sure you all will
> > enjoy
> > > > it. THIRD go to Dunnes 2001 (the equivalent to
> > the
> > > > Piet gadering) once a year event with Flying
> > Fleas in
> > > > France.
> > > >
> > > > Then Gene, you can say IF is worth a D****d.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for being so rude Gene, I sincerely
> > apologize,
> > > > but is sad to hear a pilot talk (write) against
> > an
> > > > airplane, without knowing what he says, like
> > women
> > > > talking about the neighbors in the corner
> > store.
> > > >
> > > > If you keep your interest, Maybe you will fall
> > in love
> > > > of the Flying Flea the same way Don Campbel,
> > Phyl
> > > > Howell, Jack McWorther (USA), myself (Mexico)
> > and lots
> > > > of other pilots and builders around the world.
> > > > >>
> > > > Very well said, and thank you for bringing this
> > little plane to my
> > attention.
> > > > I am glad you are on this list, and happy you
> > contribute.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > > http://mail.Justice.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
I just had an interesting thought...
How much air do you think the Corvair motor's cooling fan could push?
Not now, but maybe later with the spare motor, it would be interesting
to see I could build a supercharger.
Larry
(Hanging around the house with WAY too much time on my hands.)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Cleaning house- 3.3 engine |
Mike
Thankyou for that verification. I did receive several missives that told me
otherwise, but logic tells me this would work. Still, the Corvair sellers have
my interest and will sooner or later take a look at the junkyards for a $50
to $100 Corvair engine.
I did not find any local Corsa organization. There is one someplace called Orange
Park in Florida, but this is a very long state. I have no idea where that
may be? But it is sure to be more than 30 miles away from Opa Locka where
I live. But I am not quite ready yet. Got some work on the elevator done today.
That is a light thing? Should finish it tomorrow, I hope? As my buddy
Sam says, " you don't want to hit a tree". There would be matchwood and kindling
all over the place.
Am talking over with Sam about the landing gear. We are puzzling over pipes
and welding and other things that have to be done. As a side issue for the next
few weeks. Probably busy with elevator, stabilizer and rudder for a while.
Then maybe the landing gear? Sam is doing the ribs and is anxious to get at
least one wing up and done. Soon maybe! Just to keep my free worker happy!
On Wed, 30 January 2002, Leon Stefan wrote:
>
>
> Hi Mike: No wood stacked on the porch, Its all in the living room
> setting on saw horses. I'm fighting the urge to throw another Pietenpol
> on the fire. I know about the 2 in. of ice. I pulled 2 trailers 436
> miles on it last night and I am full of nervous tension. (road rage) It
> looks like I'm going to do it again tonight. I'll be in the loony bin by
> the time this wx system moves east. Enjoy your snow day.
> Mr. Caye: Your idea is sound. Don Sauser does the very same thing on
> his 82% P6-E with an HO 350 Chev. It puts out big hp. at 4500 rpm. He
> turns it 2800 rpm. where it's still putting out 190 hp. Direct drive.
> Leon S.
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Fisherman,
First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more than
150 pounds I do not know how much it weighs but my guess is 400 pounds +or-.
It is too heavy for a Piet but I think it would make a nice airplane engine.
They have flown planes with the 3.8 Ford and the 4.3 Chevrolet. But not in
Piets that I know of. You do not want to limit the throttle opening, you
want to run wide open on takeoff and reduce to some economical power
setting for cruise. The reason you want to run wide open for takeoff is that
you want the lightest engine that will give you the power to accelerate from
a stop and get into a safe climb. If you limited the throttle opening you
would have a bigger engine than you needed and would be carrying the excess
weight of the big engine. Also you would not be adding weight 1/2 ounce at a
time but 100 pounds at a time. Also you must consider the engine weight that
the plane is designed for. The 3.3 will give you all kinds of W&B problems
that will either bust your saw horse or make your eyes gloss over. Then you
have the gross weight problem, I saw your picture on your web page and we
both wear the same size pants. Fat guys do not need heavy airplanes, I found
that out the hard way. I understand that BHP was not as fat as me, Ed Heath
never weighed more than 140# in his life, Roger Mann who designed my
Rag-A-Muffin weighs 160#. I noticed at Oshkosh that the War Bird pilots are
built like us. The 3.3 needs to be in a plane that needs 150-170 HP and
needs a reduction drive so it can run at it's power range for takeoff. If I
build a Piet it will have a Corvair engine or a 65-85HP airplane engine if I
can find a good one that I can afford. The Subaru also looks good to me and
I know someone who is flying with one that I could ask advice from. You
gotta always think light. I even lost 10 pounds last spring so I could fly
better, but that 10 pounds is back now.
Wayne McIntosh Lafayette, IN 204#
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
> Wayne
>
> I'm just considering using the 3.3 engine I have and not chasing down
some other. Somebody mentioned that the 150 hp is at high rpm or about 4500
rpm. That probably is right. In other words, if I only need 70 hp, I could
put a stop on the throttle to prevent going over 2500 rpm and have all the
horsepower I need. That means I could also go straight drive off the crank
like a VW without a need for reduction gear. Sounds good to me. What is
wrong with this scenario?
>
>
> On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Wayne McIntosh" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> >
> > Fisherman, Cy, and others,
> > First there was a question about the Chrysler 3.3 engine in the
> > Chrysler/Dodge minivan. It has an iron block and some versions have iron
> > heads others have aluminum heads. There was also mention of a Mitsubichi
> > engine which Chrysler used in their minivan and that was a 3 liter with
iron
> > block and aluminum heads. The 3.3 engine gives good service and seems to
be
> > generally trouble free, the 3 liter mitsu engine is no longer sold in
the US
> > but parts are still readily available. The 3 litre Mitsu seemed to have
> > trouble with head gaskets although that may have been a maintainance
> > problem. Of the 2 the 3.3 is in my opinioin the better engine. Both are
port
> > fuel injected and you would have to devise a way to trick the computer
into
> > thinking the transmission was in high gear and the vehicle was driving
at
> > high speed. This can be done electronically but if weight and balance
makes
> > your eyes gloss over tricking the computer may do that too. Neither of
these
> > engines were ever sold in the US without FI and a computer. I have never
> > heard of either being used in a plane but I do not see why they would
not
> > work. Both of these engines weigh more than a Corvair engine or a model
A
> > engine with aluminim head as I have seen in a Piet. By the way I have
fixed
> > cars for a living for more than 30 years.
> > Now back on the subject of hardware store stuff in an airplane.
First
> > and foremost weight in an airplane is bad period. Weight gets in an
airplane
> > a half ounce at a time. If you can find something in a hardware store
that
> > is just as strong that will be just as dependable and is just as light
as
> > aircraft grade stuff then that is what should be used. If hardware store
> > stuff is more heavy but just as strong you will pay the price when you
fly
> > your plane that has a poor climb rate, longer takeoff and landing roll,
less
> > range( gotta leave the throttle wide open longer to get to altitude),
higher
> > stall speed, less payload and I could go on and on. I have a few friends
> > that have 2 seat homebuilts that never carry a passenger because thair
> > planes are so heavy, on a hot day a passenger is not possible. Now I
hope
> > we can agree that we would not use something that we knew was not as
strong
> > as the part specified in the plans. Now we have how long will it last? I
> > mean why would you go to all of the trouble and time that it takes to
build
> > a plane if you thought it was not going to last you at least 20 years or
> > more?
> > Now here is my experience with some hardware store aircraft parts.
> > Hinges, my Rag-A-Muffin plans specified steel hardware store hinges for
the
> > rudder and elevator, I got mine at Ace but the pins had to be replaced
> > because they were aliminum pins in steel hinges, they work fine. I could
not
> > find good aluminum piano hinge for my ailerons at thr hardware store so
I
> > got aircraft piano hinge. Aluminum tube, I live in Lafayette Indiana
home of
> > the worlds largest aluminum extrusion plant, Alcoa. They wouldn't sell
to
> > me, the local metal supplier did not stock the sizes I needed and would
not
> > order unless I bought an amount that was way more than I needed, same
for
> > steel tube. I bought my tubing from an aircraft supplier. Pullys, I
looked
> > at boat stuff, garage door stuff, looked in industrial supply catalogs
and
> > finally bit the bullet and bought aircraft pullys thay are light,
strong,
> > smooth and expensive. Cable, I could have used 7x7 hardware cable for my
> > rudder cables and flying wires but I could not find 7x19 cable in a
hardware
> > store. I needed the more flexable 7x19 for the ailerons to run over the
> > expensive pulleys. So I bought all 7x19 for 18 cents a foot from Wicks.
Nuts
> > and bolts. Most nut and bolt applications on a wood airplane do not need
the
> > strength of aircraft bolts. But most automotive and hardware bolts have
2
> > problems. First is corrosion resistance, in the few places that I used
> > hardware bolts they have already started to rust, none of the AN bolts
have
> > a speck of rust on them. AN bolts will rust as I have seen on old planes
but
> > they seem to hold up better as far as corrosion resistance. Stainless
> > hardware bolts cost as much as AN bolts. Second automotive and hardware
> > bolts come with half or more of the bolt threaded and come in 1/2"
> > increments of length. AN bolts have the last 1/2" or so threaded and
come
> > in 1/8" length increments. Airplanes are made out of small sticks and
thin
> > plywood when you bolt something to the wood you do not want any threads
in
> > the hole so you get a good bearing area. If you have threads in the hole
you
> > do not have good bearing area and vibration tends to wallow out the
hole.If
> > you use automotive bolts then you will have either threads in the hole
> > (wallow) or a lot of thread sticking out and a lot of washers (weight).
> > Glue, You can get Weldwood Resorcinol glue at the hardware store and I
> > understand it is good stuff and is aircraft grade. I tried Excel
> > Polyurethane glue and it is good also but by my tests T88 was better.
You
> > can't get T-88 in my Ace store. Plywood, none of the lumberyards in my
town
> > stock plywood better than AB, smallest thickness is 1/4". I could
special
> > order Marine plywood at a local lumber yard but I had to get 4x8 sheets
and
> > the thinnest sheet was 3 ply 1/8". I did find a cabnet shop that sold
Baltic
> > Birch plywood thinnest sheet was 1/8" and they said it was interior
grade. I
> > bought aircraft Plywood from Harbor Marine in Baltimore. Yes I used
latex
> > paint to paint my plane I do not know how long it will last and I know
it is
> > heavier than Polytone. I used all Douglas fir lumber from the local
yard. My
> > plane is about 15% heavier than it should have been and and I did save
some
> > money on the paint and lumber but I pay for it when I fly it. If I
decide to
> > build a Piet I will spend the extra money and save a half ounce every
place
> > I can. Wood A Spacewalker 2 seat plane had a wing come off in flight in
> > Conroe Texas in 1999. It had Basswood Spars and the spar broke. The NTSB
> > thinks that basswood is unsuitable for spars and caused the fatal crash.
> > Now Cy, tell me about this alloy that is better and cheaper than
4130
> > and where I can get it.
> > Fisherman, I know a young guy that has a Kolb Firefly ultralight
with a
> > 53 horsepower engine on it that is definately not underpowered.
> >
> > Wayne McIntosh Lafayette,IN
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
In a message dated 1/30/02 9:57:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov writes:
> Anyone got any thoughts on good looking cowlings
> for my long-nose Pietenpol? I'm thinking of pressure cowlings vs
> eyebrows vs cylinders-in-the-wind. Any comments would be appreciated.
> Larry
>
> Larry,
> I think it is still possible to get a Pietenpol/Corvair cowl.
> Dwayne Tauba, who up until last year brought his gray and black Corvair
> Piet
> to Brodhead every year for 10 or 12 years has Pietenpol's actual cement
> molds. He was selling cowls for $125.00 a couple years ago when I got mine.
> He was also selling cowls like the one on his Piet.
> The Pietenpol/Corvair cowl are like the cowl on the Last Original and the
> 2nd to last original which is
> http://www.russellw.com/museums/oshkosh/photo_enlargement.asp?PicID=13 at
> Pioneer field the Oshkosh museum.
> I am not running a blower on my Corvair but plan to use the above cowl as a
> pressure cowl.
> Skip
>
>
>
Guys,
I am now coming up with a set of original BHP style Corvair cowls to make
splash from. The splash will be heavy enough to be a mold. The Corvair
powered aircampers in this area plan to use this style cowling. Doug
Bryant Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
Well, I do not want to make you feel that I am
obstinated (sp?), but the ground handling is 100%
MORE easyer than the convetional airplanes!!
That is something I have tested HANDS ON.
Also I have see this myself: In my FLying Flea
ultralight, my partner Carlos with cero experience as
a pilot was able to taxi the Flea at 30 mph indicated
(wings with carboard inverted "T" pieces on top to
prevent it to fly), in his 4th run in the strip,
completely straight in the center, no pedals only
stick controled...
Ground handling (no cross winds of course) is a piece
of cake... The original idea and machine was designed
(in 1935) so the owner could teach himself to fly
it...
Is very stable in ground and in air. in fact, was the
first airplane in France (1935) (maybe in all the
world) to use a tail wheel instead of a tail skid...
(Note: were two wheels made from old metal soup dishes
riveted together in a center axle attached to the
rudder's spar, you moved the rudder and the wheel(s)
at the same time);
Just like a forklift with a joystick instead of
control wheel. Have you ever driven a forklift at
"high" speed? Just the same feeling that you are in
complete control.
Sorry all..., I know this is a Piet list, the problem
is that the Flying Flea list is in french... I use a
web translator back and fort...
Yes, If this is to much of no Piet talk, please feel
free to let me know, I will not feel bad, but if you
keep interested I can post until you want.
Other way I could recomend the interested guy(s) to
join and translate the messages, Is also a wood and
ply airplane from the same era...
Henri Mignet (189? - 1967, of cancer) is known in
France as the "Saint Patron of the Homebuilders"
Similar idea and same era as Mr. Pietenpol, the
"American Father of the Homebuilders"...
The two most important persons in homebuilding world
wide, before 1956... (Paul Poberensky) was next,
before any comment (or flame :o) you may not
understand the power of the EAA VS government rule
making, until you live in a country with nothing
similar :-(
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- KenGailGriff wrote:
>
>
> PS Who says that the pilot was not "showing off" and
> > you think that it was the plane's fault? almost
> any
> > design of two seater airplane (or ultralight
> > "trainer" ) had suffer of this type of accidents.
>
> Hey Gary
>
> I agree that it's a fascinating aircraft. Beautiful
> in a unique way. And it
> is quite possible there were other factors involved
> in the accident I
> mentioned.
>
> Another factor in my decision was ground handling.
> The c of g is of course
> much farther aft in a flea. Some pilots claim this
> makes it more difficult
> to taxi and land. I have very little tail wheel
> experience at this point, so
> extra complications did not appeal to me.
>
> Ken
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying
> Flea.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --- KenGailGriff wrote:
> "KenGailGriff"
> > >
> > >
> > Like all airplanes, the CG has to be in a correct
> > range, there are 100's examples of two seaters HM
> 380
> > and Criquets in France with more than 10 years as
> > trainers with no problem.
> >
> > The Flying Flea is very light constructed, the
> problem
> > with wooden aircraft (all over the world) is that
> if
> > the builder "feels that it will brake apart" he
> might
> > add a few 1/8"s to each piece of wood, or the next
> > size of plywood "to make it more safe" untill it
> is
> > overweight, and never will fly as it should be, is
> > easy to happen in any wooden project, has happened
> a
> > lot in our great Piet.
> >
> > As you cut the wood, and see how "thin" it comes
> out,
> > is dificult to resist to cut it a "little more
> wider,
> > just for the safety sake", not knowing that this
> will
> > make it a more unsafe aircraft, because of the
> gross
> > and the Center of Gravity that moves...
> >
> > This aplys to all aircraft, I am not writing in
> favor
> > of the Flying Flea, and I know is not a plane for
> > everyone, but is the safest plane you can built,
> > correctly built and powered of course.
> >
> > Saludos
> > Gary Gower
> >
> > PS Who says that the pilot was not "showing off"
> and
> > you think that it was the plane's fault? almost
> any
> > design of two seater airplane (or ultralight
> > "trainer" ) had suffer of this type of accidents.
> >
> >
> > One homebuilt
> > > HM -380 had been flying great for four years --
> > > until he took a heavy
> > > passenger for a ride. Both the pilot and
> passenger
> > > were killed.
> > >
> > > A gorgeous example was featured in Sport
> Aviation a
> > > couple of years ago. The
> > > article said it came out heavy and usually flies
> as
> > > a single place.
> > >
> > > I concluded that the design needs refinement. I
> am
> > > not experienced enough to
> > > take on a project like that.
> > >
> > > Ken Chambers
> > > In the early stages
> > > Austin, Texas
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the
> Flying
> > > Flea.
> > >
> > >
> Fisherman
> > > Caye
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > My first choice of buildng my first plane,
> was
> > > the Flying Flea. But
> > > there were no plans available that I trusted for
> a
> > > two place. So, I went
> > > Pietenpol.
> > > >
> > > > But they are now building for the French
> > > Military a host of Flying Flea
> > > larger craft. If someone ever comes out with
> some
> > > plans, I would be
> > > interested.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 29 January 2002, Dmott9(at)aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > Dmott9(at)aol.com
> > > > >
> > > > > In a message dated 1/29/02 12:25:44 AM
> Eastern
> > > Standard Time,
> > > > > ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
> > > > >
> > > > > <<
> > > > > http://www.flyingflea.org/ This is a USA
> > > page.
> > > > >
> > > > > FIRST take look to (in the left) "HM-1100"
> the
> > > > > ultimate machine. THEN read the tranlation
> of
> > > Mignet
> > > > > diary of 1936 in HM-14. I am sure you all
> will
> > > enjoy
> > > > > it. THIRD go to Dunnes 2001 (the equivalent
> to
> > > the
> > > > > Piet gadering) once a year event with
> Flying
> > > Fleas in
> > > > > France.
> > > > >
> > > > > Then Gene, you can say IF is worth a
> D****d.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for being so rude Gene, I sincerely
> > > apologize,
> > > > > but is sad to hear a pilot talk (write)
> against
> > > an
> > > > > airplane, without knowing what he says,
> like
> > > women
> > > > > talking about the neighbors in the corner
> > > store.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you keep your interest, Maybe you will
> fall
> > > in love
> > > > > of the Flying Flea the same way Don
> Campbel,
> > > Phyl
> > > > > Howell, Jack McWorther (USA), myself
> (Mexico)
> > > and lots
> > > > > of other pilots and builders around the
> world.
> > > > > >>
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Tim <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com> |
Subject: | 3.3 Litre Chrysler Engine |
List,
There has been some talk about a 3.3 litre Chrysler engine for aviation
purposes. I have just acquired one. Actually I have a Plymouth minivan with
170,000 miles on it. The van was just repainted this summer and is in great
shape. The engine sounds and runs very well!!! The transmission went out
completely yesterday. The trans will cost $1,200 - $1,800 to fix. The van
with a GOOD trans is worth about $2,200 - Not good economics to rebuild. I
just purchased a replacement car...
So, if someone wants to leave the realm of conjecture and really test the
concept, I have a good 3.3 that will work for testing, but MUST be rebuilt
before I would take it in the air.
I think it will end up in a salvage yard for $250 by next Monday.
Tim - Spring, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Skip Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
> [Original Message]
> From: Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Date: 1/30/02 3:26:02 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying Flea.
>
> I live about 1 1/2 hrs. north of W. Wynne. Maybe I should go down
and look at his.
Larry,
Yes go down and visit William. He had his Piet set up as a pressure cowl
and as I remember it was running plenty cool. I know he will be happy to
explain how he did it. I think you leave the bottom baffles in place.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
Would be interested if the original (replica) cowls were available for
the Corvair. If the $125 is realistic it would sure save a lot of
grief.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "B F Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Good advice on the weight of engines.My advice for what it is worth is run
an ad in a large town newspaper ."Wanted a 65 or 66 corvair engine."I did
that and got 7 calls.Got to take my pick.Then get W W's manual and start
there.Will end up with 90 + horsepower and 230 lbs.Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
> Fisherman,
> First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more
than
> 150 pounds
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
>
>Fisherman,
>Then you
>have the gross weight problem, I saw your picture on your web page and we
>both wear the same size pants. Fat guys do not need heavy airplanes, I found
>that out the hard way. I understand that BHP was not as fat as me, Ed Heath
>never weighed more than 140# in his life, Roger Mann who designed my
>Rag-A-Muffin weighs 160#. I noticed at Oshkosh that the War Bird pilots are
>built like us. The 3.3 needs to be in a plane that needs 150-170 HP and
>needs a reduction drive so it can run at it's power range for takeoff. If I
>build a Piet it will have a Corvair engine or a 65-85HP airplane engine if I
>can find a good one that I can afford. The Subaru also looks good to me and
>I know someone who is flying with one that I could ask advice from. You
>gotta always think light.
>Wayne McIntosh Lafayette, IN 204#
Fisherman, Wayne,
I'm one of the few skinny guys on the list, far as I can tell. A long time
ago Graham Hansen posted a quote from a friend of his to the effect that
"This plane was designed when Midgets ruled the earth!" From everything
I've heard, Bernie was a small guy, about 5'7" and maybe 140-145 lbs. which
puts him in my ballpark. Somewhere in the Pietenpol family history (I don't
remember where I read it, but Don P. wrote it), Bernie did put a big,
honkin' Ford engine (V8, V6?) on a Piet. It flew, but it was one of those
experiments that he didn't feel was worth going any further with. Anyone
else on the list recall the details of this?
Cheers!
Kip
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
>> I live about 1 1/2 hrs. north of W. Wynne. Maybe I should go down
>and look at his.
>
>Larry,
>Yes go down and visit William. He had his Piet set up as a pressure cowl
>and as I remember it was running plenty cool. I know he will be happy to
>explain how he did it. I think you leave the bottom baffles in place.
>Skip
Skip,
Yep, a pressure cowl and a BIG (did I say BIG?) spinner, which he told me
really helps direct air into the cowling. And yes, you MUST leave the
bottom baffles in place or you will have no end of problems from the
overheating gremlins. Pity the plane is no longer around, he did a great
job with it. Get his manual, it has an excellent section on how to
identify/pick a good junk engine, as well as all the other details
necessary to do a good conversion.
William is one of those guys who doesn't like to answer email, but if you
go see him, he'll take almost all the time in the world talking stuff over
with you. I 'dropped in' on him with less than 24 hrs. notice & he spent
most of the day with me. Also, his prop hubs are true works of art, I've
seen crappier work on Navy F-18's.
Kip Gardner
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Kip, As I remember, third hand obviously, it was a flat-head Ford V-8
and really heavy both for the horsepower and the aircraft. - Larry
Kip & Beth Gardner wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Fisherman,
>>
>
>>Then you
>>have the gross weight problem, I saw your picture on your web page and we
>>both wear the same size pants. Fat guys do not need heavy airplanes, I found
>>that out the hard way. I understand that BHP was not as fat as me, Ed Heath
>>never weighed more than 140# in his life, Roger Mann who designed my
>>Rag-A-Muffin weighs 160#. I noticed at Oshkosh that the War Bird pilots are
>>built like us. The 3.3 needs to be in a plane that needs 150-170 HP and
>>needs a reduction drive so it can run at it's power range for takeoff. If I
>>build a Piet it will have a Corvair engine or a 65-85HP airplane engine if I
>>can find a good one that I can afford. The Subaru also looks good to me and
>>I know someone who is flying with one that I could ask advice from. You
>>gotta always think light.
>>Wayne McIntosh Lafayette, IN 204#
>>
>
>Fisherman, Wayne,
>
>I'm one of the few skinny guys on the list, far as I can tell. A long time
>ago Graham Hansen posted a quote from a friend of his to the effect that
>"This plane was designed when Midgets ruled the earth!" From everything
>I've heard, Bernie was a small guy, about 5'7" and maybe 140-145 lbs. which
>puts him in my ballpark. Somewhere in the Pietenpol family history (I don't
>remember where I read it, but Don P. wrote it), Bernie did put a big,
>honkin' Ford engine (V8, V6?) on a Piet. It flew, but it was one of those
>experiments that he didn't feel was worth going any further with. Anyone
>else on the list recall the details of this?
>
>Cheers!
>
>Kip
>
>426 Schneider St. SE
>North Canton, OH 44720
>(330) 494-1775
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
Mineral Spirits would work.
-Gary
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gary
> Gower
> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:00 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Inclinometers
>
>
> No is not alcohol, but I do not know the name in
> english, is like liquid vaselin... it has the texture
> of automatic transmision oil but clear, this way the
> ball bearing will not move fast inside the clear tube,
> in fact years ago Aircraft Spruce used to sell a "kit"
> so you could build one. We bought the first and as
> they were so easy to build, just keep making the ones
> we needed.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
>
> --- Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks Joe. Will make it instead, it looks like.
> > Alchohol as the liquid. I think I saw one for sale
> > someplace for $9, would buy one at that price, but
> > cannot find the place again.
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 29 January 2002, "Joe Krzes" wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Was looking at inclinometers, turn and banks
> > in the catalogues. They
> > > >run around $35 or so. Can't I just use a ball
> > bearing and plastic tube
> > > >with wooden plugs in the end? Or a six inch
> > carpenters level? For $3.
> > >
> >
> >--------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Funny you should ask. I saw this on the minimax
> > builder's list a week or so
> > > ago.
> > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.inscorp.com/cgiaj/bbs/discuss.cgi?read=10655>
> > >
> > > Joe
> > > Spring, TX
> > >
> > >
> > > Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN
> > Hotmail.
> > > http://www.hotmail.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > http://mail.Justice.com
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
I realize y'all are talking about cowls for those air-cooled
horizontally-opposed power plants, but I've seen a very nice cowl for a
Model-A on a Super Ace. It was build by Mark Lightsey. He completely fared
in the block by hammering aluminum until he got the complex shape he wanted.
I'ts beautiful.
http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/
Robert Haines
Murphysboro, Illinois (moving soon to Du Quoin, Illinois)
> From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying Flea.
>
>
> Skip,
>
> I'd not heard about the cowl molds, that's worth thinking about. This
> plan is where I started with the pressure cowl.
> I agree with you about losing the blower, just weight and more things to
> break.
> Pressure cooling is what the car used, but the prop is pushing the air.
> DRAT!, just realized I let the lower cylinder baffles go to the dump,
> jeez, I can't believe I did that... how do you kick yourself in email??
> I'm thinking about making the inlet larger. I'm now looking for
> closeups of G-BUCO as I think what he did was use this idea in a similar
> fashion.
> BUCO raised the nose a bit and it looks pretty good from the small
> pictures I've seen.
> I've been making noises about making my Piet look like a mail plane or
> Bendix racer. With Rolls-Royce on the valve covers, maybe I should
> build a grill and get a hood ornament!
>
> Larry
>
>
> Gadd, Skip wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Anyone got any thoughts on good looking cowlings
> >for my long-nose Pietenpol? I'm thinking of pressure cowlings vs
> >eyebrows vs cylinders-in-the-wind. Any comments would be appreciated.
> >Larry
> >
> >Larry,
> >I think it is still possible to get a Pietenpol/Corvair cowl.
> >Dwayne Tauba, who up until last year brought his gray and black Corvair
Piet
> >to Brodhead every year for 10 or 12 years has Pietenpol's actual cement
> >molds. He was selling cowls for $125.00 a couple years ago when I got
mine.
> >He was also selling cowls like the one on his Piet.
> >The Pietenpol/Corvair cowl are like the cowl on the Last Original and the
> >2nd to last original which is
> >http://www.russellw.com/museums/oshkosh/photo_enlargement.asp?PicID=13 at
> >Pioneer field the Oshkosh museum.
> >I am not running a blower on my Corvair but plan to use the above cowl as
a
> >pressure cowl.
> >Skip
> >
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the weight on
the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and weigh it to
make sure.
Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the throttle half
way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would think??? Need
some mechanics input here?
Wing loading is a problem for sure.
On Wed, 30 January 2002, "Wayne McIntosh" wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman,
> First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more than
> 150 pounds I do not know how much it weighs but my guess is 400 pounds +or-.
> It is too heavy for a Piet but I think it would make a nice airplane engine.
> They have flown planes with the 3.8 Ford and the 4.3 Chevrolet. But not in
> Piets that I know of. You do not want to limit the throttle opening, you
> want to run wide open on takeoff and reduce to some economical power
> setting for cruise. The reason you want to run wide open for takeoff is that
> you want the lightest engine that will give you the power to accelerate from
> a stop and get into a safe climb. If you limited the throttle opening you
> would have a bigger engine than you needed and would be carrying the excess
> weight of the big engine. Also you would not be adding weight 1/2 ounce at a
> time but 100 pounds at a time. Also you must consider the engine weight that
> the plane is designed for. The 3.3 will give you all kinds of W&B problems
> that will either bust your saw horse or make your eyes gloss over. Then you
> have the gross weight problem, I saw your picture on your web page and we
> both wear the same size pants. Fat guys do not need heavy airplanes, I found
> that out the hard way. I understand that BHP was not as fat as me, Ed Heath
> never weighed more than 140# in his life, Roger Mann who designed my
> Rag-A-Muffin weighs 160#. I noticed at Oshkosh that the War Bird pilots are
> built like us. The 3.3 needs to be in a plane that needs 150-170 HP and
> needs a reduction drive so it can run at it's power range for takeoff. If I
> build a Piet it will have a Corvair engine or a 65-85HP airplane engine if I
> can find a good one that I can afford. The Subaru also looks good to me and
> I know someone who is flying with one that I could ask advice from. You
> gotta always think light. I even lost 10 pounds last spring so I could fly
> better, but that 10 pounds is back now.
> Wayne McIntosh Lafayette, IN 204#
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
>
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > I'm just considering using the 3.3 engine I have and not chasing down
> some other. Somebody mentioned that the 150 hp is at high rpm or about 4500
> rpm. That probably is right. In other words, if I only need 70 hp, I could
> put a stop on the throttle to prevent going over 2500 rpm and have all the
> horsepower I need. That means I could also go straight drive off the crank
> like a VW without a need for reduction gear. Sounds good to me. What is
> wrong with this scenario?
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 28 January 2002, "Wayne McIntosh" wrote:
> >
> > >
>
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> > >
> > > Fisherman, Cy, and others,
> > > First there was a question about the Chrysler 3.3 engine in the
> > > Chrysler/Dodge minivan. It has an iron block and some versions have iron
> > > heads others have aluminum heads. There was also mention of a Mitsubichi
> > > engine which Chrysler used in their minivan and that was a 3 liter with
> iron
> > > block and aluminum heads. The 3.3 engine gives good service and seems to
> be
> > > generally trouble free, the 3 liter mitsu engine is no longer sold in
> the US
> > > but parts are still readily available. The 3 litre Mitsu seemed to have
> > > trouble with head gaskets although that may have been a maintainance
> > > problem. Of the 2 the 3.3 is in my opinioin the better engine. Both are
> port
> > > fuel injected and you would have to devise a way to trick the computer
> into
> > > thinking the transmission was in high gear and the vehicle was driving
> at
> > > high speed. This can be done electronically but if weight and balance
> makes
> > > your eyes gloss over tricking the computer may do that too. Neither of
> these
> > > engines were ever sold in the US without FI and a computer. I have never
> > > heard of either being used in a plane but I do not see why they would
> not
> > > work. Both of these engines weigh more than a Corvair engine or a model
> A
> > > engine with aluminim head as I have seen in a Piet. By the way I have
> fixed
> > > cars for a living for more than 30 years.
> > > Now back on the subject of hardware store stuff in an airplane.
> First
> > > and foremost weight in an airplane is bad period. Weight gets in an
> airplane
> > > a half ounce at a time. If you can find something in a hardware store
> that
> > > is just as strong that will be just as dependable and is just as light
> as
> > > aircraft grade stuff then that is what should be used. If hardware store
> > > stuff is more heavy but just as strong you will pay the price when you
> fly
> > > your plane that has a poor climb rate, longer takeoff and landing roll,
> less
> > > range( gotta leave the throttle wide open longer to get to altitude),
> higher
> > > stall speed, less payload and I could go on and on. I have a few friends
> > > that have 2 seat homebuilts that never carry a passenger because thair
> > > planes are so heavy, on a hot day a passenger is not possible. Now I
> hope
> > > we can agree that we would not use something that we knew was not as
> strong
> > > as the part specified in the plans. Now we have how long will it last? I
> > > mean why would you go to all of the trouble and time that it takes to
> build
> > > a plane if you thought it was not going to last you at least 20 years or
> > > more?
> > > Now here is my experience with some hardware store aircraft parts.
> > > Hinges, my Rag-A-Muffin plans specified steel hardware store hinges for
> the
> > > rudder and elevator, I got mine at Ace but the pins had to be replaced
> > > because they were aliminum pins in steel hinges, they work fine. I could
> not
> > > find good aluminum piano hinge for my ailerons at thr hardware store so
> I
> > > got aircraft piano hinge. Aluminum tube, I live in Lafayette Indiana
> home of
> > > the worlds largest aluminum extrusion plant, Alcoa. They wouldn't sell
> to
> > > me, the local metal supplier did not stock the sizes I needed and would
> not
> > > order unless I bought an amount that was way more than I needed, same
> for
> > > steel tube. I bought my tubing from an aircraft supplier. Pullys, I
> looked
> > > at boat stuff, garage door stuff, looked in industrial supply catalogs
> and
> > > finally bit the bullet and bought aircraft pullys thay are light,
> strong,
> > > smooth and expensive. Cable, I could have used 7x7 hardware cable for my
> > > rudder cables and flying wires but I could not find 7x19 cable in a
> hardware
> > > store. I needed the more flexable 7x19 for the ailerons to run over the
> > > expensive pulleys. So I bought all 7x19 for 18 cents a foot from Wicks.
> Nuts
> > > and bolts. Most nut and bolt applications on a wood airplane do not need
> the
> > > strength of aircraft bolts. But most automotive and hardware bolts have
> 2
> > > problems. First is corrosion resistance, in the few places that I used
> > > hardware bolts they have already started to rust, none of the AN bolts
> have
> > > a speck of rust on them. AN bolts will rust as I have seen on old planes
> but
> > > they seem to hold up better as far as corrosion resistance. Stainless
> > > hardware bolts cost as much as AN bolts. Second automotive and hardware
> > > bolts come with half or more of the bolt threaded and come in 1/2"
> > > increments of length. AN bolts have the last 1/2" or so threaded and
> come
> > > in 1/8" length increments. Airplanes are made out of small sticks and
> thin
> > > plywood when you bolt something to the wood you do not want any threads
> in
> > > the hole so you get a good bearing area. If you have threads in the hole
> you
> > > do not have good bearing area and vibration tends to wallow out the
> hole.If
> > > you use automotive bolts then you will have either threads in the hole
> > > (wallow) or a lot of thread sticking out and a lot of washers (weight).
> > > Glue, You can get Weldwood Resorcinol glue at the hardware store and I
> > > understand it is good stuff and is aircraft grade. I tried Excel
> > > Polyurethane glue and it is good also but by my tests T88 was better.
> You
> > > can't get T-88 in my Ace store. Plywood, none of the lumberyards in my
> town
> > > stock plywood better than AB, smallest thickness is 1/4". I could
> special
> > > order Marine plywood at a local lumber yard but I had to get 4x8 sheets
> and
> > > the thinnest sheet was 3 ply 1/8". I did find a cabnet shop that sold
> Baltic
> > > Birch plywood thinnest sheet was 1/8" and they said it was interior
> grade. I
> > > bought aircraft Plywood from Harbor Marine in Baltimore. Yes I used
> latex
> > > paint to paint my plane I do not know how long it will last and I know
> it is
> > > heavier than Polytone. I used all Douglas fir lumber from the local
> yard. My
> > > plane is about 15% heavier than it should have been and and I did save
> some
> > > money on the paint and lumber but I pay for it when I fly it. If I
> decide to
> > > build a Piet I will spend the extra money and save a half ounce every
> place
> > > I can. Wood A Spacewalker 2 seat plane had a wing come off in flight in
> > > Conroe Texas in 1999. It had Basswood Spars and the spar broke. The NTSB
> > > thinks that basswood is unsuitable for spars and caused the fatal crash.
> > > Now Cy, tell me about this alloy that is better and cheaper than
> 4130
> > > and where I can get it.
> > > Fisherman, I know a young guy that has a Kolb Firefly ultralight
> with a
> > > 53 horsepower engine on it that is definately not underpowered.
> > >
> > > Wayne McIntosh Lafayette,IN
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > http://mail.Justice.com
> >
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Learn about the Flying Flea. |
Anybody got a Pietenpol flying near Miami Dade County?
On Wed, 30 January 2002, "Skip Gadd" wrote:
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Larry Ragan <lragan(at)hotmail.com>
> > To:
> > Date: 1/30/02 3:26:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying Flea.
> >
> > I live about 1 1/2 hrs. north of W. Wynne. Maybe I should go down
> and look at his.
>
> Larry,
> Yes go down and visit William. He had his Piet set up as a pressure cowl
> and as I remember it was running plenty cool. I know he will be happy to
> explain how he did it. I think you leave the bottom baffles in place.
> Skip
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/31/02 7:00:06 AM Pacific Standard Time,
robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com writes:
> I realize y'all are talking about cowls for those air-cooled
> horizontally-opposed power plants, but I've seen a very nice cowl for a
> Model-A on a Super Ace. It was build by Mark Lightsey. He completely
> fared
> in the block by hammering aluminum until he got the complex shape he
> wanted.
> I'ts beautiful.
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/
>
> Robert Haines
> Murphysboro, Illinois (moving soon to Du Quoin, Illinois)
>
>
>
Robert,
My planes are all Model A powered and cowled per the plans. I am just
helping the Corvair builders in town with the cowling project. Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Now that's a class job!
Robert Haines wrote:
>
>I realize y'all are talking about cowls for those air-cooled
>horizontally-opposed power plants, but I've seen a very nice cowl for a
>Model-A on a Super Ace. It was build by Mark Lightsey. He completely fared
>in the block by hammering aluminum until he got the complex shape he wanted.
>I'ts beautiful.
>
>http://members.tripod.com/~Mark_Lightsey/
>
>Robert Haines
>Murphysboro, Illinois (moving soon to Du Quoin, Illinois)
>
>
>>From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Learn about the Flying Flea.
>>
>>
>>Skip,
>>
>>I'd not heard about the cowl molds, that's worth thinking about. This
>>plan is where I started with the pressure cowl.
>>I agree with you about losing the blower, just weight and more things to
>>break.
>>Pressure cooling is what the car used, but the prop is pushing the air.
>> DRAT!, just realized I let the lower cylinder baffles go to the dump,
>>jeez, I can't believe I did that... how do you kick yourself in email??
>>I'm thinking about making the inlet larger. I'm now looking for
>>closeups of G-BUCO as I think what he did was use this idea in a similar
>>fashion.
>>BUCO raised the nose a bit and it looks pretty good from the small
>>pictures I've seen.
>>I've been making noises about making my Piet look like a mail plane or
>>Bendix racer. With Rolls-Royce on the valve covers, maybe I should
>>build a grill and get a hood ornament!
>>
>>Larry
>>
>>
>>Gadd, Skip wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone got any thoughts on good looking cowlings
>>>for my long-nose Pietenpol? I'm thinking of pressure cowlings vs
>>>eyebrows vs cylinders-in-the-wind. Any comments would be appreciated.
>>>Larry
>>>
>>>Larry,
>>>I think it is still possible to get a Pietenpol/Corvair cowl.
>>>Dwayne Tauba, who up until last year brought his gray and black Corvair
>>>
>Piet
>
>>>to Brodhead every year for 10 or 12 years has Pietenpol's actual cement
>>>molds. He was selling cowls for $125.00 a couple years ago when I got
>>>
>mine.
>
>>>He was also selling cowls like the one on his Piet.
>>>The Pietenpol/Corvair cowl are like the cowl on the Last Original and the
>>>2nd to last original which is
>>>http://www.russellw.com/museums/oshkosh/photo_enlargement.asp?PicID=13 at
>>>Pioneer field the Oshkosh museum.
>>>I am not running a blower on my Corvair but plan to use the above cowl as
>>>
>a
>
>>>pressure cowl.
>>>Skip
>>>
>>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | JEFFREY WILCOX <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
On Thu, 31 January 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
Fisherman: I work with race car engines a lot. The road engines today, unless
balanced, blueprinted, and rebuilt about every 50 hours, are NOT meant to be
run at full power all day long. Too many overheating/under oiling problems!
But the ARE designed to be run at highway speed (i.e., 2,000-2,800 RPM) from now
until hell freezes over. If you use a synthetic oil, the bottom end will last
just about forever. Use a suitable radiator, and something like an MSD ignition
system with a rev limiter chip to keep the prop tips from going supersonic.
The chips are cheap, and come in even numbers from about 2,200 up to over
12,000 RPM.
BTW - on your other post: Someone donated a Piet with a Continental to our EAA
chapter up here. We are currently keeping it at Indiantown airport, at the Team
38 hanger.
Craig
> Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
>
> I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the weight
on the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and weigh it
to make sure.
>
> Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the throttle
half way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would think???
Need some mechanics input here?
>
> Wing loading is a problem for sure.
>
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Had to throw a plastic sheet over the tools and elevator. Rain clouds passing
over, sprinkling everything.
Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
Got two mechanics tell me to forget the antique Corvair engine. Leaks oil to
much, one said and if you put 50 weight oil in there, it ruins the ability
to turn rpms. On the list here, we have a bunch who swear by the Corvair, with
warts and all.
The mechanic who changed the 3.3 for me a year ago in the VAN. Said forget it,
the engine was 400 to 500 lbs. Not 150 lbs. Will take that as a given.
Recommended was a Geo Metro, 3 cylinder, or 4 cylinder, small and light weight.
Also an MR 2 Toyota. Do not know what either of these are, but will see what
I can find out?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Joe Czaplicki" <fishin3(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Miami Dade Co. |
Nuff said !
JoeC
>
>
> What are you talking about?
> ----------------------
>
>
> On Thu, 31 January 2002, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> > So Fisherman Caye-----tell us if that ballot last
> > year was really difficult or not to determine who you were
> > voting for ?
> >
> > Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Hi Fisherman,
There is a fellow named Jack Sabine who lives down the street from my
outlaws in Turkey Creek, just north of LaBelle. He has a couple of the
3-cylinder Suzuki's that came in the Geo Metro. They make a reasonable
aircraft engine. With a reduction drive (he uses a belt drive), they weigh
about 89 lbs and put out 65 horsepower. He built a small "airbike" style
biplane of his own design and put one of these in it. Don't know if he's
flown it yet, but I did some taxi tests in it the last time I was down
there. There is usually a display at Sun'n'Fun showing these engines. I
believe he told me that including buying the engine and building the
reduction drive he has a total of about $400 in each of these.
I had his e-mail address, but lost it when my old computer died. I can try
to find something from my in-laws, or you can just ask for him next time
you're in LaBelle. I expect everybody knows him there.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Got rained on, in the backyard.
Had to throw a plastic sheet over the tools and elevator. Rain clouds
passing over, sprinkling everything.
Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
Got two mechanics tell me to forget the antique Corvair engine. Leaks
oil to much, one said and if you put 50 weight oil in there, it ruins the
ability to turn rpms. On the list here, we have a bunch who swear by the
Corvair, with warts and all.
The mechanic who changed the 3.3 for me a year ago in the VAN. Said
forget it, the engine was 400 to 500 lbs. Not 150 lbs. Will take that as a
given.
Recommended was a Geo Metro, 3 cylinder, or 4 cylinder, small and light
weight.
Also an MR 2 Toyota. Do not know what either of these are, but will see
what I can find out?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Craig,
That is a great idea... Yes my truck and my minivan
cruise great in OD at about 2,500 rpm (70- 75 mph)...
Having enough prop power (name it HP or torque) at
2,500 to hold the airplane level in cruise... and
probably using 3,500 RPMs for take off, climb at about
3,000 and cruise at 2,500 rpms... maybe control this
by reduction/diameter/chips/carburation... in a 3.3 or
other V6 engine...
Were can we look around for more info on the chips?
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- JEFFREY WILCOX wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 January 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> >
> Caye
> >
> >
> Fisherman: I work with race car engines a lot. The
> road engines today, unless balanced, blueprinted,
> and rebuilt about every 50 hours, are NOT meant to
> be run at full power all day long. Too many
> overheating/under oiling problems! But the ARE
> designed to be run at highway speed (i.e.,
> 2,000-2,800 RPM) from now until hell freezes over.
> If you use a synthetic oil, the bottom end will last
> just about forever. Use a suitable radiator, and
> something like an MSD ignition system with a rev
> limiter chip to keep the prop tips from going
> supersonic. The chips are cheap, and come in even
> numbers from about 2,200 up to over 12,000 RPM.
>
> BTW - on your other post: Someone donated a Piet
> with a Continental to our EAA chapter up here. We
> are currently keeping it at Indiantown airport, at
> the Team 38 hanger.
>
> Craig
>
> > Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
> >
> > I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you
> say. I looked up the weight on the internet and it
> says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and weigh
> it to make sure.
> >
> > Don't buy the argument about needing full power.
> If you stop the throttle half way, your full power
> is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would think???
> Need some mechanics input here?
> >
> > Wing loading is a problem for sure.
> >
>
>
> PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
>
>
> 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: | "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
How much did you pay?
I've found a running 65 in an automatic convertible, but he wants $450 for
it.
Would I be better off buying one for $150 or $200 that doesn't run, since
I'll be rebuilding it anyway?
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
From: B F Dearinger <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
> Good advice on the weight of engines.My advice for what it is worth is run
> an ad in a large town newspaper ."Wanted a 65 or 66 corvair engine."I did
> that and got 7 calls.Got to take my pick.Then get W W's manual and start
> there.Will end up with 90 + horsepower and 230 lbs.Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
>
> >
> > Fisherman,
> > First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more
> than
> > 150 pounds
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
> Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
>
> Got two mechanics tell me to forget the antique Corvair engine. Leaks
>oil to much, one said and if you put 50 weight oil in there, it ruins the
>ability to turn rpms. On the list here, we have a bunch who swear by the
>Corvair, with warts and all.
Caye,
Forget what your mechanics are telling you. Yeah, they leaked oil with
their original rubber seals, the modern seals don't leak if you are careful
to do a good installation job. Also, the #1 cause of trouble with Corvair
engines, aside from the stupid V-belt design Jack Phillips mentioned (yet
another reasopn NOT to use the blower fan on an airplane!) is mechanics who
screw them up while working on them. This engine was so different from
everything that preceded it on the American scene that there were just too
many ways an average Joe mechanic could screw it up. Some examples include:
Torquing the head bolts in the wrong sequence - the 'official' Chevy Shop
manual has it wrong; a guy named Richard Finch figured out the right way -
it's what WW says to do.
Screwing up the valve guides when replacing them - very easy to do
apparently because of their orientation in the heads.
Doing a 'top end overhaul' by doing a quick & dirty 'glaze-braking ' honing
job on the cylinder tops. Leads to broken pistons real fast.
Using a wire brush to clean carbon buildup out of the manifolds.
There are other examples. The point is, a properly overhauled/convertrd
Corvair is not going to have the problems that all your automotive mechanic
buddies tell you.
Oh yeah, somewhere along the line, one of them will probably say something
like 'it will run better with low-compression heads' & will give you a
whole ration on why he thinks so. William talked with me for over an hour
about the engineering analysis he had done that proved that the
high-compression heads are the only safe ones to use on an airplane engine
& why.
Bottom line, your mechanics may be good general mechanics, but they don't
know squat about what really makes a good Corvair conversion a good
conversion. This engine has more misinformation out there about it than
just about any automobile I can think of except maybe the Edsel (remember
it?)
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Caye,
> Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
> Recommended was a Geo Metro, 3 cylinder, or 4 cylinder, small and light
>weight.
In my zeal to keep beatinhg the Corvair drum, forgot to mention that the
Metro is a fine engine. Not hard to work on & reliable. Also, they are
readily available at junkyards - at least they were in VA. Rebuilt one for
a friend & really only used junkyard parts, except for things like gaskets
(this was for a car & he was on a really tight budget - actually, I
basically just cobbled two wrecked engines together rather than overhaul
his old one). The cars are pretty dinky, which means they usually wind up
in the yard if they have an argument with something. Most yards don't even
bother to pull the engines from these wrecks, so if you're willing to do it
yourself, you can save a lot. Geos have some relationship to Toyotas, I
believe, & as I've said before, the 22R Truck enige is one of the all-time
greats as far as I'm concerned. Think you might have to use a reduction
unit if an aircraft, but I think they are pretty easy to find since several
companies sell Metro conversions.
> Also an MR 2 Toyota. Do not know what either of these are, but will
>see what I can find out?
Don't know anything about this engine, but again, it's a Toyota - probably
bulletproof.
Cheers!
Kip
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "B F Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
If money is snug ,keep looking. Running or not an engine destined for
aircraft use has to be completely rebuilt and if you keep looking several
will turn up for $75 to $150 ea. Make sure that they can be rotated by hand
at least a full turn.I found a 110 hp for $100 and a 140 hp for $175.Bought
them both.The 140 hp heads are not efficient for aircraft use but are of
value to car people.Make sure you get the bellhousing, distributor and the
lower cylinder baffles.The good models and years are listed in the
corvaircraft site.The corvair is built rugged ,fairly small and lite for the
output and the most important two things are "air cooled and direct drive".
----- Original Message -----
From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
> How much did you pay?
>
> I've found a running 65 in an automatic convertible, but he wants $450 for
> it.
>
> Would I be better off buying one for $150 or $200 that doesn't run, since
> I'll be rebuilding it anyway?
>
> Thanks
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: B F Dearinger <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
>
> >
> > Good advice on the weight of engines.My advice for what it is worth is
run
> > an ad in a large town newspaper ."Wanted a 65 or 66 corvair engine."I
did
> > that and got 7 calls.Got to take my pick.Then get W W's manual and start
> > there.Will end up with 90 + horsepower and 230 lbs.Bill
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Fisherman,
> > > First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more
> > than
> > > 150 pounds
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Thanks Jack;
Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using GOOGLE search
engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good aircraft engine and puts out
65 hp at 5500 rpm. Which sounds high, but people who have done it, say no sweat.
There is a guy with a web page on it. I'll see if I can find it again?
But the 65 hp is too low for a two seater. Might get you off the ground, but
from everything I can judge, you really want more oomph for takeoff power. The
Geo Metro weighs 155 lbs in the 3 cylinder. The mechanic said there was a
four cylinder also. Just finished chores and going to have a look around with
the search engine. See if I can find the 4 cylinder and also the Suburu EA81
That Geo Metro 3 cylinder only burns 2 gph. Wow! For a single place it would
be great.
I'll not get over to La Belle again in a hurry. I was up in Hendry County and
am going some weekends to Glades County, looking for a cheap 10 acres of sugar
cane, can be turned into a grass strip for the Pietenpol. Couldn't find anything
in Hendry County. Did check out all the airstrips around though. Which
is how I saw the Hatz biplane. It is probably bigger and has a steel fuselage,
but is still the same fuselage otherwise as the Pietenpol. Won't be able
to get away until mid-February for trip up to Moore Haven area again on a weekend.
The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my conclusion.
Think I already mentioned on here, the 3.3 V6 weighs too much. Supposedly my
mechanic friend said in the 400 to 500 lb range?
Anyway, let me get on the search engine and see what I can find on the internet.
Ray
P.S. Here is the Geo Metro aircraft conversion site with photos.
http://www.users.qwest.net/~mls2/GEO.htm
------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 31 January 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Fisherman,
>
> There is a fellow named Jack Sabine who lives down the street from my
> outlaws in Turkey Creek, just north of LaBelle. He has a couple of the
> 3-cylinder Suzuki's that came in the Geo Metro. They make a reasonable
> aircraft engine. With a reduction drive (he uses a belt drive), they weigh
> about 89 lbs and put out 65 horsepower. He built a small "airbike" style
> biplane of his own design and put one of these in it. Don't know if he's
> flown it yet, but I did some taxi tests in it the last time I was down
> there. There is usually a display at Sun'n'Fun showing these engines. I
> believe he told me that including buying the engine and building the
> reduction drive he has a total of about $400 in each of these.
>
> I had his e-mail address, but lost it when my old computer died. I can try
> to find something from my in-laws, or you can just ask for him next time
> you're in LaBelle. I expect everybody knows him there.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
> Caye
> Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 11:48 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Got rained on, in the backyard.
>
>
>
> Had to throw a plastic sheet over the tools and elevator. Rain clouds
> passing over, sprinkling everything.
>
> Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
>
> Got two mechanics tell me to forget the antique Corvair engine. Leaks
> oil to much, one said and if you put 50 weight oil in there, it ruins the
> ability to turn rpms. On the list here, we have a bunch who swear by the
> Corvair, with warts and all.
>
> The mechanic who changed the 3.3 for me a year ago in the VAN. Said
> forget it, the engine was 400 to 500 lbs. Not 150 lbs. Will take that as a
> given.
>
> Recommended was a Geo Metro, 3 cylinder, or 4 cylinder, small and light
> weight.
>
> Also an MR 2 Toyota. Do not know what either of these are, but will see
> what I can find out?
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Thanks for the expert engine input Jeffrey. Putting your e-mail address in my
little brown book. When ever I get it, the engine that is, will push some questions
your way? Don't hold your breath though. Didn't finish the elevator
today either. Had some rain, off and on and also ripped a lot of Englemen Spruce
for rib cap strips. Trying to get some 1/4 by 1/2 inch strips between knots
out of Lumberyard boards of 1 x 6 x 10' Still need another dozen wing ribs.
Where is Indiantown? Is that in Florida? I might drive a good distance to see
a Pietenpol, or take a ride in one.
On Thu, 31 January 2002, JEFFREY WILCOX wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 31 January 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> Fisherman: I work with race car engines a lot. The road engines today, unless
balanced, blueprinted, and rebuilt about every 50 hours, are NOT meant to be
run at full power all day long. Too many overheating/under oiling problems!
But the ARE designed to be run at highway speed (i.e., 2,000-2,800 RPM) from
now until hell freezes over. If you use a synthetic oil, the bottom end will
last just about forever. Use a suitable radiator, and something like an MSD
ignition system with a rev limiter chip to keep the prop tips from going supersonic.
The chips are cheap, and come in even numbers from about 2,200 up to over
12,000 RPM.
>
> BTW - on your other post: Someone donated a Piet with a Continental to our EAA
chapter up here. We are currently keeping it at Indiantown airport, at the
Team 38 hanger.
>
> Craig
>
> > Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
> >
> > I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the weight
on the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and weigh
it to make sure.
> >
> > Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the throttle
half way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would think???
Need some mechanics input here?
> >
> > Wing loading is a problem for sure.
> >
>
>
> PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
> http://www.peoplepc.com
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Plan to go run the junkyards tomorrow, Friday. Got it, bellhousing, distributor
and lower cylinder baffles on the Corvair. We shall see, what we shall see?
------------------------------------------------
On Thu, 31 January 2002, "B F Dearinger" wrote:
>
>
> If money is snug ,keep looking. Running or not an engine destined for
> aircraft use has to be completely rebuilt and if you keep looking several
> will turn up for $75 to $150 ea. Make sure that they can be rotated by hand
> at least a full turn.I found a 110 hp for $100 and a 140 hp for $175.Bought
> them both.The 140 hp heads are not efficient for aircraft use but are of
> value to car people.Make sure you get the bellhousing, distributor and the
> lower cylinder baffles.The good models and years are listed in the
> corvaircraft site.The corvair is built rugged ,fairly small and lite for the
> output and the most important two things are "air cooled and direct drive".
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
> >
> > How much did you pay?
> >
> > I've found a running 65 in an automatic convertible, but he wants $450 for
> > it.
> >
> > Would I be better off buying one for $150 or $200 that doesn't run, since
> > I'll be rebuilding it anyway?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: B F Dearinger <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Good advice on the weight of engines.My advice for what it is worth is
> run
> > > an ad in a large town newspaper ."Wanted a 65 or 66 corvair engine."I
> did
> > > that and got 7 calls.Got to take my pick.Then get W W's manual and start
> > > there.Will end up with 90 + horsepower and 230 lbs.Bill
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fisherman,
> > > > First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot more
> > > than
> > > > 150 pounds
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Got rained on, in the backyard.
>
> Had to throw a plastic sheet over the tools and elevator. Rain clouds
passing over, sprinkling everything.
>
> Came in to do some phoning on an engine.
>
> Got two mechanics tell me to forget the antique Corvair engine. Leaks
oil to much, one said and if you put 50 weight oil in there, it ruins the
ability to turn rpms. On the list here, we have a bunch who swear by the
Corvair, with warts and all.
>
> The mechanic who changed the 3.3 for me a year ago in the VAN. Said
forget it, the engine was 400 to 500 lbs. Not 150 lbs. Will take that as a
given.
>
> Recommended was a Geo Metro, 3 cylinder, or 4 cylinder, small and light
weight.
>
> Also an MR 2 Toyota. Do not know what either of these are, but will
see what I can find out?
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fisherman,
Take a look at a EA81 Subaru engine, light, horizonally oppossed, rugged,
produces 80 plus horsepower and has been used in many homebuilts, including
Pietenpols.
John Dilatush NX114D
Salida Colorado
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | .Attractive nose for the Piet |
From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
> Well, back to Piets, I'm looking at Cub noses, Champ noses and the
> G-BUCO Piet for ideas. Anyone got any thoughts on good looking
> cowlings
> for my long-nose Pietenpol?
Larry,
The first article I read that got me interested in the Pietenpol (all
through my teen years I hated them, and could never understand why anyone
would want to build one--then one day I finally began to get serious
about my financial situation, and what might be possible during my life),
was in the March 1987 Sport Aviation, "England's First Pietenpol Air
Camper." It was G-BMLT, by F.A. Hawke. I also like their paint scheme.
You can try to find the article, and I believe the UK Piet site has
pictures available online. But I don't have the URL on this computer.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Thanks Jack;
Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using GOOGLE
search engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good aircraft engine and
puts out 65 hp at 5500 rpm. Which sounds high, but people who have done it,
say no sweat. There is a guy with a web page on it. I'll see if I can find
it again? But the 65 hp is too low for a two seater.
The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my
conclusion.
Why would you think 65 hp is too little for a two seater? I'm putting a
Continental 65 horse in my Pietenpol, and there are quite a few 2 seaters
from J-3 Cubs to Luscombes that all weigh more than a Piet but have only 65
hp. The Ford Model A puts out a dubious 40 hp on a good day, but that is
good enough to lift two souls.
As has been said before on this forum, "Simplicate and add Lightness".
Don't add any weight you don't have to, and you'll find that you can get by
with very low power. If you build a heavy airplane, all the power in the
world won't make it fly well. I'm heavier than Bernie Pietenpol, by a
bunch, so I sure don't want my plane to be heavier than his.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Wood and wooden planes |
Thanks. Good advice. I think I'll keep looking, or see if this gentleman has
one that he is not so proud of.
----- Original Message -----
From: B F Dearinger <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
> If money is snug ,keep looking. Running or not an engine destined for
> aircraft use has to be completely rebuilt and if you keep looking several
> will turn up for $75 to $150 ea. Make sure that they can be rotated by
hand
> at least a full turn.I found a 110 hp for $100 and a 140 hp for
$175.Bought
> them both.The 140 hp heads are not efficient for aircraft use but are of
> value to car people.Make sure you get the bellhousing, distributor and the
> lower cylinder baffles.The good models and years are listed in the
> corvaircraft site.The corvair is built rugged ,fairly small and lite for
the
> output and the most important two things are "air cooled and direct
drive".
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
> >
> > How much did you pay?
> >
> > I've found a running 65 in an automatic convertible, but he wants $450
for
> > it.
> >
> > Would I be better off buying one for $150 or $200 that doesn't run,
since
> > I'll be rebuilding it anyway?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: B F Dearinger <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Good advice on the weight of engines.My advice for what it is worth is
> run
> > > an ad in a large town newspaper ."Wanted a 65 or 66 corvair engine."I
> did
> > > that and got 7 calls.Got to take my pick.Then get W W's manual and
start
> > > there.Will end up with 90 + horsepower and 230 lbs.Bill
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)home.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Fisherman,
> > > > First I think that the 3.3 Chrysler engine weighs a whole lot
more
> > > than
> > > > 150 pounds
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: .Attractive nose for the Piet |
One really nice nose is on the Pober Pixie, on cover of Sport Aviation Nov
2002 issue ( the EAA magazine)
Henry Williams - working on ribs tonight
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: .Attractive nose for the Piet |
John,
I found a picture at
http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/gbmlt.htm
Nice looking Piet. The paint job makes the fuselage look like a
Stearman somehow.
Long nose and big wheels too. I like it.
G-BUCO is shown as well
http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/gbuco.htm
Very similar idea. I like 'em both.
Right now I'm pouring through "Aviation Year by Year" that I got for
Christmas, just soaking up the twenties and thirties. Just take a look
at the early racers, find a picture of the Spirit of St. Louis, then
look again at the Pietenpol. My goodness, we're just soakin' in class
here lads!
Larry
john e fay wrote:
>
>
>>Well, back to Piets, I'm looking at Cub noses, Champ noses and the
>>G-BUCO Piet for ideas. Anyone got any thoughts on good looking
>>cowlings
>>for my long-nose Pietenpol?
>>
>
>Larry,
>The first article I read that got me interested in the Pietenpol (all
>through my teen years I hated them, and could never understand why anyone
>would want to build one--then one day I finally began to get serious
>about my financial situation, and what might be possible during my life),
>was in the March 1987 Sport Aviation, "England's First Pietenpol Air
>Camper." It was G-BMLT, by F.A. Hawke. I also like their paint scheme.
> You can try to find the article, and I believe the UK Piet site has
>pictures available online. But I don't have the URL on this computer.
>
>John in Peoria
>
>
>ms.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Your engine has lots of cubic inches and a long stroke. The metro has
hardly any cubes and
a very short stroke. Your engine has lots of torque, the metro doesn't. This
is mitigated
somewhat by the psru that will be on the metro. Torque is what really drives
the prop.
The ford falls in the first catagory at 122 lb/ft(from chart in flying and
glider manaul,1932)
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Got rained on, in the backyard.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Jack;
>
> Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using GOOGLE
> search engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good aircraft engine and
> puts out 65 hp at 5500 rpm. Which sounds high, but people who have done
it,
> say no sweat. There is a guy with a web page on it. I'll see if I can
find
> it again? But the 65 hp is too low for a two seater.
>
> The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my
> conclusion.
>
>
> Why would you think 65 hp is too little for a two seater? I'm putting a
> Continental 65 horse in my Pietenpol, and there are quite a few 2 seaters
> from J-3 Cubs to Luscombes that all weigh more than a Piet but have only
65
> hp. The Ford Model A puts out a dubious 40 hp on a good day, but that is
> good enough to lift two souls.
>
> As has been said before on this forum, "Simplicate and add Lightness".
> Don't add any weight you don't have to, and you'll find that you can get
by
> with very low power. If you build a heavy airplane, all the power in the
> world won't make it fly well. I'm heavier than Bernie Pietenpol, by a
> bunch, so I sure don't want my plane to be heavier than his.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: .Attractive nose for the Piet |
----- Original Message -----
From: john e fay
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2002 10:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: .Attractive nose for the Piet
I believe the UK Piet site has
pictures available online. But I don't have the URL on this
computer.
John in Peoria
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
www.aircamper.co.uk
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Jack
Somebody brought up the mention of torque with the Geo Metro, that is what gives
the horsepower to the propellor. But in answer to that question, you replace
lost torque with a reduction gear, when using a high rpm motor.
True, 65 hp with a reduction gear would work, but I am uncomfortable with the
continuous high rpms, irregardless of how much they say that engine does not
mind it. A mental block if you will!
On Thu, 31 January 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Jack;
>
> Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using GOOGLE
> search engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good aircraft engine and
> puts out 65 hp at 5500 rpm. Which sounds high, but people who have done it,
> say no sweat. There is a guy with a web page on it. I'll see if I can find
> it again? But the 65 hp is too low for a two seater.
>
> The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my
> conclusion.
>
>
> Why would you think 65 hp is too little for a two seater? I'm putting a
> Continental 65 horse in my Pietenpol, and there are quite a few 2 seaters
> from J-3 Cubs to Luscombes that all weigh more than a Piet but have only 65
> hp. The Ford Model A puts out a dubious 40 hp on a good day, but that is
> good enough to lift two souls.
>
> As has been said before on this forum, "Simplicate and add Lightness".
> Don't add any weight you don't have to, and you'll find that you can get by
> with very low power. If you build a heavy airplane, all the power in the
> world won't make it fly well. I'm heavier than Bernie Pietenpol, by a
> bunch, so I sure don't want my plane to be heavier than his.
>
> Jack
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Throttle and power |
Please forgive me if this is information that you already have, it's the
basic relationship between the throttle and power:
When the manufacturers of an engine generate the horsepower curve, that is
the power generated at full throttle. They use a varying load to maintain
the engine at a specific revolutions per minute (rpm). The loads required
to hold at the range of rpm's are then plotted. Again, this is all for full
throttle.
Granted, all 3.3 liter / 200 ci engines, at full throttle, have the
capability to produce about the same maximum horsepower (let's say about
60hp) at the same rpm (let's say about 2300 - PLEASE don't use these numbers
for design, they are just for conversation). It's a function of the volume
of air and fuel that the engine will pump at a given rpm. When I stated
"about the same horsepower", several other things come in to play that makes
the engine more efficient at specific rpm's, such as timing and compression
ratio, but I'm ignoring these factors here.
Now if you throttle this airflow, you completly change your horsepower
curve. Where you could get 60hp, you only get 30hp due to the restricted
airflow into the combustion chambers. All the Model-A drivers will tell you
that there is no way to get 60hp out of their stock engine, it's due to the
limited airflow in the intakes and that cute little carb sitting on the
side. To increase horsepower on that thing, you've got to let it breathe;
add a bigger carb, straighten the intakes for smooth flow, and put a special
grind on the cam to add duration. You do the opposite of all this when you
put a half closed throttle plate in the way of the flow.
What you ultimately want to do is operate at 2300 rpm due to the prop speed
limitations. That's done not by restricting air into the engine, it's done
by installing a prop that requires 60hp to turn it at 2300 rpm. As I said
before, an engine at full throttle can only produce a certain horsepower at
a specific rpm. That prop becomes the load that keeps the engine from
spinning any faster. This is achieved because as rpm's increase, the power
required to spin that prop increases faster than the engines ability to
generate power. For conversation, this hypothetical prop requires 80hp at
2600rpm but the engine only produces 75hp at 2600rpm so it becomes
impossible to the engine to get there. When a 70% cruise setting is
applied, the engine and prop find that rpm that generates a ballance between
power required and power available, usually a few hundred rpm's less.
When you are driving down the road with an engine turning 2300 rpm, that
does not mean that it requires 60hp to do that as a horsepower curve shows.
The published horsepower curve is only for full throttle. To push a car or
van down the road really only takes about 20-30 hp.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois / Murphysboro, Illinois
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
>
> Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
>
> I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the
weight on the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and
weigh it to make sure.
>
> Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the
throttle half way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would
think??? Need some mechanics input here?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Throttle and power |
Well put, Robert.
One fact that always seems to surprise people is that an engine is most
efficeint at full throttle, even though it is consuming fuel at its maximum
rate. At partial throttle, the engine is forced to "pump" the mixture into
the cylinders, drawing against the vacuum in the intake manifold. At full
throttle the intake manifold is at or very near atmospheric pressure,
requiring minimal work to suck the mixture past the intake valves. With a
supercharger, manifold pressure is greater than atmospheric and the mixture
is actually pushed into the cylinder past the open intake valves (Oh God,
please don't let anyone even think of supercharging a model A), allowing
more power.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
Haines
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
Please forgive me if this is information that you already have, it's the
basic relationship between the throttle and power:
When the manufacturers of an engine generate the horsepower curve, that is
the power generated at full throttle. They use a varying load to maintain
the engine at a specific revolutions per minute (rpm). The loads required
to hold at the range of rpm's are then plotted. Again, this is all for full
throttle.
Granted, all 3.3 liter / 200 ci engines, at full throttle, have the
capability to produce about the same maximum horsepower (let's say about
60hp) at the same rpm (let's say about 2300 - PLEASE don't use these numbers
for design, they are just for conversation). It's a function of the volume
of air and fuel that the engine will pump at a given rpm. When I stated
"about the same horsepower", several other things come in to play that makes
the engine more efficient at specific rpm's, such as timing and compression
ratio, but I'm ignoring these factors here.
Now if you throttle this airflow, you completly change your horsepower
curve. Where you could get 60hp, you only get 30hp due to the restricted
airflow into the combustion chambers. All the Model-A drivers will tell you
that there is no way to get 60hp out of their stock engine, it's due to the
limited airflow in the intakes and that cute little carb sitting on the
side. To increase horsepower on that thing, you've got to let it breathe;
add a bigger carb, straighten the intakes for smooth flow, and put a special
grind on the cam to add duration. You do the opposite of all this when you
put a half closed throttle plate in the way of the flow.
What you ultimately want to do is operate at 2300 rpm due to the prop speed
limitations. That's done not by restricting air into the engine, it's done
by installing a prop that requires 60hp to turn it at 2300 rpm. As I said
before, an engine at full throttle can only produce a certain horsepower at
a specific rpm. That prop becomes the load that keeps the engine from
spinning any faster. This is achieved because as rpm's increase, the power
required to spin that prop increases faster than the engines ability to
generate power. For conversation, this hypothetical prop requires 80hp at
2600rpm but the engine only produces 75hp at 2600rpm so it becomes
impossible to the engine to get there. When a 70% cruise setting is
applied, the engine and prop find that rpm that generates a ballance between
power required and power available, usually a few hundred rpm's less.
When you are driving down the road with an engine turning 2300 rpm, that
does not mean that it requires 60hp to do that as a horsepower curve shows.
The published horsepower curve is only for full throttle. To push a car or
van down the road really only takes about 20-30 hp.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois / Murphysboro, Illinois
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>
>
>
> Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
>
> I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the
weight on the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and
weigh it to make sure.
>
> Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the
throttle half way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would
think??? Need some mechanics input here?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Subject: | Re: .Attractive nose for the Piet |
You must be clairvoyant... November 2002 is 10 months away. Personally, I
am working on the March 2002 Experimenter issue today.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: <Borodent(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: .Attractive nose for the Piet
One really nice nose is on the Pober Pixie, on cover of Sport Aviation Nov
2002 issue ( the EAA magazine)
Henry Williams - working on ribs tonight
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Fisherman Ray---Seeing that you live in close proximity to the everglades,
I'll bet the operators of those air boats I used to watch Marlin Perkins
and his assistant Jim ride on in Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom
would be great sources for finding you a good used Cont. 65 or the like.
They must know how to keep them in good running order and might even
have some great ideas on alternative motors/reduction drives and prop
making skills. You are in their backyard. It might be worth a trip or two.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Throttle and power |
Yeah,
Mount a Roots blower on the left side and run straight methanol with
port injection. That should cure a lot of the A's intake problems. Put
on 10" straight stacks and it ought to sound great too. ...for about
two minutes. ;-)
Larry
(You just knew I had to go there!)
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>Well put, Robert.
>
>One fact that always seems to surprise people is that an engine is most
>efficeint at full throttle, even though it is consuming fuel at its maximum
>rate. At partial throttle, the engine is forced to "pump" the mixture into
>the cylinders, drawing against the vacuum in the intake manifold. At full
>throttle the intake manifold is at or very near atmospheric pressure,
>requiring minimal work to suck the mixture past the intake valves. With a
>supercharger, manifold pressure is greater than atmospheric and the mixture
>is actually pushed into the cylinder past the open intake valves (Oh God,
>please don't let anyone even think of supercharging a model A), allowing
>more power.
>
>Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert
>Haines
>Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:48 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
>
>
>
>Please forgive me if this is information that you already have, it's the
>basic relationship between the throttle and power:
>
>When the manufacturers of an engine generate the horsepower curve, that is
>the power generated at full throttle. They use a varying load to maintain
>the engine at a specific revolutions per minute (rpm). The loads required
>to hold at the range of rpm's are then plotted. Again, this is all for full
>throttle.
>
>Granted, all 3.3 liter / 200 ci engines, at full throttle, have the
>capability to produce about the same maximum horsepower (let's say about
>60hp) at the same rpm (let's say about 2300 - PLEASE don't use these numbers
>for design, they are just for conversation). It's a function of the volume
>of air and fuel that the engine will pump at a given rpm. When I stated
>"about the same horsepower", several other things come in to play that makes
>the engine more efficient at specific rpm's, such as timing and compression
>ratio, but I'm ignoring these factors here.
>
>Now if you throttle this airflow, you completly change your horsepower
>curve. Where you could get 60hp, you only get 30hp due to the restricted
>airflow into the combustion chambers. All the Model-A drivers will tell you
>that there is no way to get 60hp out of their stock engine, it's due to the
>limited airflow in the intakes and that cute little carb sitting on the
>side. To increase horsepower on that thing, you've got to let it breathe;
>add a bigger carb, straighten the intakes for smooth flow, and put a special
>grind on the cam to add duration. You do the opposite of all this when you
>put a half closed throttle plate in the way of the flow.
>
>What you ultimately want to do is operate at 2300 rpm due to the prop speed
>limitations. That's done not by restricting air into the engine, it's done
>by installing a prop that requires 60hp to turn it at 2300 rpm. As I said
>before, an engine at full throttle can only produce a certain horsepower at
>a specific rpm. That prop becomes the load that keeps the engine from
>spinning any faster. This is achieved because as rpm's increase, the power
>required to spin that prop increases faster than the engines ability to
>generate power. For conversation, this hypothetical prop requires 80hp at
>2600rpm but the engine only produces 75hp at 2600rpm so it becomes
>impossible to the engine to get there. When a 70% cruise setting is
>applied, the engine and prop find that rpm that generates a ballance between
>power required and power available, usually a few hundred rpm's less.
>
>When you are driving down the road with an engine turning 2300 rpm, that
>does not mean that it requires 60hp to do that as a horsepower curve shows.
>The published horsepower curve is only for full throttle. To push a car or
>van down the road really only takes about 20-30 hp.
>
>Robert Haines
>Du Quoin, Illinois / Murphysboro, Illinois
>
>
>>From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood and wooden planes
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>>Ha! Ha! Ha! On the weight of old farts today.
>>
>> I'm not convinced on the weight of the 3.3 you say. I looked up the
>>
>weight on the internet and it says 150 pounds. But I could take it out and
>weigh it to make sure.
>
>> Don't buy the argument about needing full power. If you stop the
>>
>throttle half way, your full power is then 70 to 90 hp at 2300 rpm. I would
>think??? Need some mechanics input here?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Throttle and power |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
Robert,
Your explanation for the relationship between throttle opening and the
horsepower curve is excellent! Pardon me if I might add one other thing.
There seems to be a popular misconception that only torque is important, not
horsepower. The fact is that ONLY horsepower is the factor that makes an
airplane take off and climb as evidenced by the formula for rate of climb:
Thrust hp available x 33,000 / Weight of aircraft, = rate of climb
Thrust hp available (excess hp x prop efficiency)
Weight of aircraft is in pounds
Rate of climb is in ft per min.
Excess horsepower is the hp that is available over and above that required
for level flight.
Notice that torque is not mentioned. Torque along with rpm, at wide open
throttle as you have pointed out is only one of the factors that go into
horsepower. With a high reving engine you also need to have a prop
reduction unit so as to achieve the required horsepower with a reasonable
prop speed.
Cheers,
John Dilatush NX114D, still working on the duplicator to make the prop.
>
> Please forgive me if this is information that you already have, it's the
> basic relationship between the throttle and power:
>
> When the manufacturers of an engine generate the horsepower curve, that is
> the power generated at full throttle. They use a varying load to maintain
> the engine at a specific revolutions per minute (rpm). The loads required
> to hold at the range of rpm's are then plotted. Again, this is all for
full
> throttle.
>
> Granted, all 3.3 liter / 200 ci engines, at full throttle, have the
> capability to produce about the same maximum horsepower (let's say about
> 60hp) at the same rpm (let's say about 2300 - PLEASE don't use these
numbers
> for design, they are just for conversation). It's a function of the
volume
> of air and fuel that the engine will pump at a given rpm. When I stated
> "about the same horsepower", several other things come in to play that
makes
> the engine more efficient at specific rpm's, such as timing and
compression
> ratio, but I'm ignoring these factors here.
>
> Now if you throttle this airflow, you completly change your horsepower
> curve. Where you could get 60hp, you only get 30hp due to the restricted
> airflow into the combustion chambers. All the Model-A drivers will tell
you
> that there is no way to get 60hp out of their stock engine, it's due to
the
> limited airflow in the intakes and that cute little carb sitting on the
> side. To increase horsepower on that thing, you've got to let it breathe;
> add a bigger carb, straighten the intakes for smooth flow, and put a
special
> grind on the cam to add duration. You do the opposite of all this when
you
> put a half closed throttle plate in the way of the flow.
>
> What you ultimately want to do is operate at 2300 rpm due to the prop
speed
> limitations. That's done not by restricting air into the engine, it's
done
> by installing a prop that requires 60hp to turn it at 2300 rpm. As I said
> before, an engine at full throttle can only produce a certain horsepower
at
> a specific rpm. That prop becomes the load that keeps the engine from
> spinning any faster. This is achieved because as rpm's increase, the
power
> required to spin that prop increases faster than the engines ability to
> generate power. For conversation, this hypothetical prop requires 80hp at
> 2600rpm but the engine only produces 75hp at 2600rpm so it becomes
> impossible to the engine to get there. When a 70% cruise setting is
> applied, the engine and prop find that rpm that generates a ballance
between
> power required and power available, usually a few hundred rpm's less.
>
> When you are driving down the road with an engine turning 2300 rpm, that
> does not mean that it requires 60hp to do that as a horsepower curve
shows.
> The published horsepower curve is only for full throttle. To push a car
or
> van down the road really only takes about 20-30 hp.
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois / Murphysboro, Illinois
>
>
> >>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Air Boat Motors |
Good point Mike....I got a great deal on my Franklin 'cause it came off
an airboat. It couldn't be put back on a certified aircraft unless it's
totally gone through by an AP so they can't ask big bucks for them.
the only market is another air boat or a home built. 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: Pietenpol-List: Air Boat Motors
>Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:43:20 -0500
>
>
>
>Fisherman Ray---Seeing that you live in close proximity to the everglades,
>I'll bet the operators of those air boats I used to watch Marlin Perkins
>and his assistant Jim ride on in Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom
>would be great sources for finding you a good used Cont. 65 or the like.
>They must know how to keep them in good running order and might even
>have some great ideas on alternative motors/reduction drives and prop
>making skills. You are in their backyard. It might be worth a trip or
>two.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Re: Throttle and power |
one Horsepower is 550 ft pounds of work per second. It is a ratio between
torque and RPMs . You can have a high RPM low torque engine which puts out X
amount of horsepower or you can have low RPM high torque engine ( Model A )
which puts out the same amount of horse power. 65 horsepower from a 1.3
liter suzuki is the same as 65 HP from a Continental BUT you would have to
run a major reduction drive on the Suzuki to trade RPMs for torque
sufficiently to turn a 6 foot prop and run it at punishingly high piston
speeds to maintain that torque. Like the old hotrodders used to say "there's
no substitute for cubic inches"
Only problem is big cube engines are heavy. Amazingly the "A" is relatively
light for 200 cubic inches. Maybe ya'll have already said this in a
different way....Just my subect so had to add my two cents. Ed G.
>From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
>Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:47:04 -0700
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
>
>Robert,
>
>Your explanation for the relationship between throttle opening and the
>horsepower curve is excellent! Pardon me if I might add one other thing.
>
>There seems to be a popular misconception that only torque is important,
>not
>horsepower. The fact is that ONLY horsepower is the factor that makes an
>airplane take off and climb as evidenced by the formula for rate of climb:
>
>Thrust hp available x 33,000 / Weight of aircraft, = rate of climb
>
>Thrust hp available (excess hp x prop efficiency)
>Weight of aircraft is in pounds
>Rate of climb is in ft per min.
>Excess horsepower is the hp that is available over and above that required
>for level flight.
>
>Notice that torque is not mentioned. Torque along with rpm, at wide open
>throttle as you have pointed out is only one of the factors that go into
>horsepower. With a high reving engine you also need to have a prop
>reduction unit so as to achieve the required horsepower with a reasonable
>prop speed.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Dilatush NX114D, still working on the duplicator to make the prop.
>
>
>
> >
> > Please forgive me if this is information that you already have, it's the
> > basic relationship between the throttle and power:
> >
> > When the manufacturers of an engine generate the horsepower curve, that
>is
> > the power generated at full throttle. They use a varying load to
>maintain
> > the engine at a specific revolutions per minute (rpm). The loads
>required
> > to hold at the range of rpm's are then plotted. Again, this is all for
>full
> > throttle.
> >
> > Granted, all 3.3 liter / 200 ci engines, at full throttle, have the
> > capability to produce about the same maximum horsepower (let's say about
> > 60hp) at the same rpm (let's say about 2300 - PLEASE don't use these
>numbers
> > for design, they are just for conversation). It's a function of the
>volume
> > of air and fuel that the engine will pump at a given rpm. When I stated
> > "about the same horsepower", several other things come in to play that
>makes
> > the engine more efficient at specific rpm's, such as timing and
>compression
> > ratio, but I'm ignoring these factors here.
> >
> > Now if you throttle this airflow, you completly change your horsepower
> > curve. Where you could get 60hp, you only get 30hp due to the
>restricted
> > airflow into the combustion chambers. All the Model-A drivers will tell
>you
> > that there is no way to get 60hp out of their stock engine, it's due to
>the
> > limited airflow in the intakes and that cute little carb sitting on the
> > side. To increase horsepower on that thing, you've got to let it
>breathe;
> > add a bigger carb, straighten the intakes for smooth flow, and put a
>special
> > grind on the cam to add duration. You do the opposite of all this when
>you
> > put a half closed throttle plate in the way of the flow.
> >
> > What you ultimately want to do is operate at 2300 rpm due to the prop
>speed
> > limitations. That's done not by restricting air into the engine, it's
>done
> > by installing a prop that requires 60hp to turn it at 2300 rpm. As I
>said
> > before, an engine at full throttle can only produce a certain horsepower
>at
> > a specific rpm. That prop becomes the load that keeps the engine from
> > spinning any faster. This is achieved because as rpm's increase, the
>power
> > required to spin that prop increases faster than the engines ability to
> > generate power. For conversation, this hypothetical prop requires 80hp
>at
> > 2600rpm but the engine only produces 75hp at 2600rpm so it becomes
> > impossible to the engine to get there. When a 70% cruise setting is
> > applied, the engine and prop find that rpm that generates a ballance
>between
> > power required and power available, usually a few hundred rpm's less.
> >
> > When you are driving down the road with an engine turning 2300 rpm, that
> > does not mean that it requires 60hp to do that as a horsepower curve
>shows.
> > The published horsepower curve is only for full throttle. To push a car
>or
> > van down the road really only takes about 20-30 hp.
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois / Murphysboro, Illinois
> >
> >
> > >>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | I didn't understand the torque and horsepower high rpms |
at all?
Pietenpol listserve
For a non-mechanic, let me put the results of my hitting about a dozen or more
car auto parts, junk yards and you tell me where to go from here?
I went with a list of three motors to look for: (aircraft conversion)
**** First choice, the Corvair.
This got a lot of laughs. Obsolete engine 40 years old, that spurts oil faster
than it burns gasoline, was the general comment. I was surprised how many
younger middle aged guys had heard about it? Antique they said. No idea where
to find one. But somebody did suggest the car crushing yards. Two were mentioned,
CM & L in Davie, and Sams at Powerline. Don't know where either are,
but will try to find out, in our South Florida area.
By the way, the guy with the Pietenpol plane in Indian Town. Took a look at
the map while driving around and found it. Probably up that way in about 3 weekends
from now? That be okay to come and see? I found the place on the map,
East of Lake Okeechobie.
Did not find any Corvair engines yet!
*** Second Choice:
EA 81 Subaru engine. Didn't find any of these either. Though one guy said
he had one, but was exporting it to South America and not for sale. Never got
to actually see one. Supposed to have horizontal opposed something or other?
Lot of confusion, people thought it meant 1981 Subaru car and I did not know
enough of the subject to correct them. Did not know what EA 81 stands for?
Nor what year and kind of car it comes in? Anybody help there?
Whoops! Checking my notes. Correction, an EA81 Subaru engine supposed to be
a 1995 is available from a sharpie guy for $400. Did not quite trust him though.
You never know though?
*****Third Choice:
A Toyota 22 RE, supposed to be 112 hp at 4600 rpm found in a Celica, or pickup
trucks. Got varying answers on this one. Have never run across anybody converting
one, but I noted it, as somebody somewhere in the last few days highly
recommended it. Maybe I'm wrong?
1984 Toyota 22 RE, or maybe it is an R alone? $500. Running engine he says.
1989 same thing, at $650.
1994 same thing at $1000
Another guy was actually driving a 1981 car, that is a Toyota and he says has
a 22 R, not sure if that is an RE ? Or what the differences are? Wants $300
bucks and drive the car away.
Another place claimed to have a Toyota 22RE with carburetor at $400. Running
engine he says.
Another place said they had a 1994 22RE engine for $600, also running engine.
Went to see the Bugs R Us guy, who does VW engines. Thought he might have a
Corvair. But no, he said not. He did have a Porsche 2000, for $750. Missing
the distributor, but otherwise, all there with exhaust pipes, muffler, alternator,
starter and shroud with turbine that blows air under the shroud down around
the cylinders. He did not know what the Porsche weighs, but thought it had
94 ft. lbs of torque at 3000 rpm. This is a 2 liter, 2.0. Has a 2 barrel progressive
carburetor.
---------------------------------
So, there we go, all I could find today. I know the EA81 Subaru is converted a
lot, but could not find one. Same with the Corvair the antique. New materials
seals supposedly cure the oil leaking problem, if you can find an engine.
Will have to search the internet to see if anyone is converting the Toyota 22
R, or RE series? URL's would be appreciated, if you find any?
So what do you experts in engines suggest now?
Ray
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Air Boat Operators near Miami |
Where do you find airboat operations near Miami ?
AIRBOAT TOURS
COOPERTOWN
Open: Daily
Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Cost: $8 per person, may be discounted for larger groups.
Phone: 305-226-6048.
MICCOSUKEE INDIAN VILLAGE
Open: Daily
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Cost: $9 per person, may be discounted for larger groups.
Phone: 305-223-8380.
EVERGLADES SAFARI PARK
Open: Daily
Hours: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Cost: $10 per person, may be discounted for larger groups.
Phone: 305-223-3804.
WOOTENS EVERGLADES AIRBOAT RIDES
Open: Daily
Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Cost: $10 per person.
Phone: 813-695-2781.
CUSTOM-BUILT AIRBOATS
Airboat Service
9092 NW South River Dr., Medley, 305-884-6181.
Airboat Headquarters
4158 NW 132nd St.t, Opa-locka, 305-685-2933.
By JAMIE GOODSTEIN
Coopertown, a tiny settlement a few miles west of the spotlight at Krome
Avenue (Route 997), offers the first opportunity for an airboat ride
into the
interior of the Glades. The Miccosukee Indian Village, a little
farther down the
Trail, has more airboats. Everglades Safari Park operates a large fleet of
sizable airboats on which groups of visitors can take 30- to 40-minute
tours
into the Glades.
At Wootens Everglades Airboat Rides, travel down old Indian canoe trails
used during the Seminole Wars and into mangrove jungles of Floridas west
coast.
The Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission requires that all airboats
used for hunting or fishing be registered. Registration numbers must be
displayed on both sides of the rudder in clearly visible figures at
least six
inches high.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Wow, you can find anything on the net:
http://www.airboattrader.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | more cheap airboat motors for sale |
Asking_Price: $1600.00-$1850.00
Owner: Don Campbell
Address: 17727 Valencia Blvd.
City: Loxahatchee
State: FL
Zip_Code: 33470
Phone: (561) 795-5936
Email: ladon.campbell(at)gte.net
Date: March 20, 2001
I have 4&6 cyl. Cont. G.P.U.s for sale. All turn over with good
compression. Come with
Carb. Mag. and Fact exhaust.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: I didn't understand the torque and horsepower |
high rpms at all?
Ray,
Here's my 2cents' worth:
>
>Pietenpol listserve
>
> For a non-mechanic, let me put the results of my hitting about a dozen
>or more car auto parts, junk yards and you tell me where to go from here?
>
> I went with a list of three motors to look for: (aircraft conversion)
>**** First choice, the Corvair.
> Did not find any Corvair engines yet!
For the Corvair, two options:
ONE - look up William Wynne's web site (www.flycorvair.com), get his phone
# form ythe site and call him. He is in Daytona. If he can't suggest a
place in S. Fla. where you can find one, he might just have one himself
he's willing to part with. Forget the junkyards, you're just spinnig your
wheels.
TWO - Do a search on the web for CORSA - the Corvair Society of America. I
say do a search, 'cause I don't have their address handy, but it MAY be
(www.corsa.org). From there, check their local chapter directory for a
chapter in FL near you & contact someone in that chapter. If you go this
route you will eventually get in touch with someone who has a stash of
engines, no doubt about it. I've done this in both VA and OH and it works!
>*****Third Choice:
>
> A Toyota 22 RE, supposed to be 112 hp at 4600 rpm found in a Celica, or
>>pickup trucks. Got varying answers on this one. Have never run across
>anybody >converting one, but I noted it, as somebody somewhere in the last
>few days >highly recommended it. Maybe I'm wrong?
I'm the one whose recommended it. It is a marvelous engine with regard to
reliability and durability, and not too hard to wotrk on.
What you are looking for is a TOYOTA 22R engine, most commonly found in
pickups from about 1978 until whenever Toyota screwed up and 'improved'
their basic truck into the 'T100' model, about 1990-92, I think. Probably
also used in some other Toyota models as well. Damn near bulletproof engine.
I sold my old 1983 truck 4 years ago, complete and running, for $800.
Bought an '87 the same year for $3000, and wrecked it this Fall. If my
situation had been different, I might have tried to get the engine out of
the truck before selling it to the insurance Co., but we were in the middle
of moving.
Bottom line, you should be able to get a good junk engine for under $200.
Doug Bryant, on this list, knows someone who can tell you about converting
the Toyota engine.
Good Luck,
Kip
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
BINGO! I've never seen anything like this. Obviously they are
de-certified and repairs/overhaul will add to the outlay, but they're
cheap and there's lots of them.
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
>Wow, you can find anything on the net:
>
>http://www.airboattrader.com/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: I didn't understand the torque and horsepower |
high rpms at all?
I know that distance is a likely problem, but there are Corvairs to
be had - this is a list posted on the Corvaircraft list a few days ago
The web site to get on the corvaircraft list is at
http://www.angelfire.com/ca4/CorvAIRCRAFT/index.html
I'd go for the Corvair, but I'm biased having just worked on ours for
the last week.
Kirk
From: "Jon & Laurel Crawford" <lcrawford1(at)satx.rr.com>
Subject: corvaircraft: Enginess for sale
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 18:53:04 -0800
===============================CorvAIRCRAFT===============================
Hello All,
I found these recently. I hope they help.
Jon
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: 1966 - 110 HP WITH TRANSAXLE - AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION - $100.00
1968 - 95 HP WITH TRANAXLE - AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION $100.00
1965 - 110 HP MONZA CONVERTIBLE COMPLETE, 4 SPEED TRANSMISSION PARTS CAR
$150.00
VIRGIL ABEL
N8348 SCHOENFELD RD
BEAVER DAM WI 53916
TELEPHONE - 920-885-4004
CONTACT: VIRGIL ABEL
rubya(at)mwci.net
PHONE: 920-885-4004
LOCATION: BEAVER DAM WI
+++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: 10 corvairs in a field my job to got out!! call 815-623-2200
For parts only.
CONTACT: Wiliam Avila
BAvila(at)inwave.com
PHONE: 8156232200
++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: 1965 95 hp engine complete with shrouds turns over appears to
be in good condition for some reason it has a generator on it sn# t0406RA
for a manual trans $175 plus shipping cental KS 6205256526 obros(at)gbta.net
ask for lee
CONTACT: lee olsen
obros(at)gbta.net
PHONE: 620-525-6526
LOCATION: larned ks
++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: 1965 MONZA
CAR SAT FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS IN A GARAGE. FRONT FLOORS ARE RUSTED OUT, AND
THERE IS SOME OLD BONDO IN TH BODY
RED COLOR IT HAS BEEN REPAINTED.IT HAS
THE 110 ENGINE AUTO TRANS.THE ENGINE RUNS WELL, REBUILT CARBS. THE TRANS
WORKS WELL,NO LEAKS.HAS SOFT RAY TINTED GLASS INCLUDING WINDSHIELD
$375.00
CONTACT: walter woods
VAIRWOLFE(at)AOL.COM
PHONE: 248 421 6197
LOCATION: WESTBLOOMFIELD MI.
LOCATION: Roscoe il
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: 1965 Conv. California car, but has rust. Does not run, some
engine parts missing. PG trans. Has power top. Missing back seat. Side glass
good, winshield has crack. Restore or parts. $200.00. Call after 7:00 pm. Or
anytime weekends. E-mail best
CONTACT: William Stokes
wstokes3(at)attbi.com
PHONE: 925-755-7961
LOCATION: Antioch CA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: -1967 ULTRA VAN #290
GOOD COND. MOSTLY ORIGINAL,140HP
-1965 CORSA CONV 140HP 4SP
EXCELLENT FOR RESTORATION
-1966 CORVAIR 700 4DR 110HP AUTO
GOOD RESTORABLE CAR
-1966 CORSA COUPE 180 TURBO 4SP POSI.
ORIGINAL GOOD RESTORABLE
-1961 CORVAN V8 CONVERSION
350 CHEV/TORANADO AUTO
-1961 RAMPSIDE CHALLENGING /NOT RUSTY
-1965 CORSA COUPE 140HP 4SP
PARTS CAR RUSTY
-NUMEROUS ENGINES AND PARTS
PRICES ARE NEGOTIABLE
PHONE CALLS ONLY 306-773-8444
ASK FOR MIKE
CONTACT: Mike Johnston
PHONE: (306) 773 8444
LOCATION: Swift Current SK
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DESCRIPTION: Parts car, no title, 102hp engine with 4speed. Good bumpers and
stainless trim, good glass. $200 or BRO. Can e-mail digital photos, must be
trailered.
CONTACT: Bernard Grynkiewicz
grynkie(at)javanet.com
PHONE: 413-527-8597
LOCATION: Southampton MA
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> |
Subject: | Re: OT - Airport memories |
Great story Kent, it brought back a lot of memories of my boyhood. I agree
with Larry, You should submit it to Sport Aviation or any aviation magazine
that will publish it.
Sam
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: .Attractive nose for the Piet |
Pober Pixie on cover of JAN 2002 issue of Sport Aviation
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
Subject: | OT - Airport memories |
Cy,
If this is worthy you go right ahead, you have my permission. In
that case let's remove the d* n*t archive in this reply so my story sticks
around.
I bet we all have a story that will surface when the time is right. How
about the rest of you guys?
Kent
Kent, would you consider having your vinette published in one of the EAAs
magazines? All I need it permission to publish. You of course would receive
the credit.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: OT - Airport memories
Do you remember the times in your youth when you would look up to
the sky and wonder where that airplane was going? Still do today, don't
you? When I was a kid of 8 my parents moved us out to the country, a little
town called Burlington, CT. My parents bought an acre of land and my
brother and I helped move the brush and small trees my Dad cut down. This
was on the weekends, during the week we still lived in New Britain, the city
Dad grew up in. We would see lots of small planes in this area and wonder
where they were.
Somewhere in that time Dad said he took flying lessons in a Cub with
floats, but never got too far with that. His interest turned to remote
controlled planes and we would chase them down when they crashed , which
they always seemed to do. One weekend while we were at the lot clearing
brush, Dad said "C'mon kids, lets go!" . JJ and I would smile, wondering
what new place he was going to take us. The hardware store? Gas station?
Nope, this time it was Johnnycake Airport. We had never been to an airport
before that I could remember, so this was special. We jumped in the old
Chevy wagon and away we went.
A small paved strip, a smaller grass strip, some hangars and a
little office. Oh yeah, let's not forget the wood fence we sat on, never to
cross over for fear of something bad happening. We would just sit and wait
for the little planes to land, or better yet, make a ton of noise and take
off! They would just clear the phone wires on the north end and off they
would go, with 3 sets of eyes watching 'till it was a speck in the sky.
As they years went by we actually got to take a ride in one of those
planes. One weekend after the house was built and some friends came for a
visit we all went up to the airport. Dad and his friend paid the pilot and
somehow 5 of us kids got into a 172 and up we went. I can't remember which
kid got to be the co-pilot, but it wasn't me. When the time was right the
pilot turned the controls over to one of us and said "Do you want to fly?"
Sure!! Who could pass that up! Well the next minute or two was a real
roller coaster ride, and somehow we all managed to keep our dinner down.
That was my first plane ride, and I will never forget it. There are pictures
of us piling out of that plane, each look on our face telling a different
story about that flight.
When I got a bike I would take the back roads to Johnnycake,
avoiding the highway to get there. The highway was forbidden by my mother
to go near. But she never said anything about airplanes. I would get to
the airport and hang off that fence, smile at the pilots and planes, and
wander into the office looking to buy a coke. Yup, I even had the courage
to ask if anyone was giving free rides today, because I sure didn't have the
money to pay for one! Once in a while it would pan out, and I'd always get
the pilot to fly over my house. I remember seeing Mom in the yard and
laughing out loud, knowing I pulled one over on her. I never told her about
that until I was in my 30's, a pilot already. Too late to get in trouble
now.
When I got some money together in my 20's I started taking lessons
at Johnnycake. I soloed at 12 hours and promptly had my tail feathers
pinned to the wall in that old, little office. They were still there years
later. I moved on to another airport to finish my Private, but I always
took a side trip to Johnnycake.
It looks like those trips will soon be at an end for a lot of
pilots, as this little airport is on the verge of succumbing to progress. I
just read the hometown paper on the internet, and Johnnycakes' end seems
near. When the airport started 47 years ago it was a handshake deal between
a landowner on one side and the farmer on the other. The landowner got the
farmers permission to use some of his acreage to get a little grass strip
going. Over the years the landowner built hangars, an office, and paved the
strip. The farmer approved it all too. But one thing would bug up the
works. The town line. And the county line. It seems the town, county and
property lines were one and the same. And to top it off, this line
separated the runway from the buildings.
So in 1989 the farmer dies. The land gets passed on to heirs, who
pretty much keep the status quo. But talks start with builders and rumors
start flying. The man who owns the buildings and who put all his money into
the strip stops financing the operation, he's uncertain about the heirs
intentions, 'cause the papers routinely print how much the land is really
worth. Who can blame him? Now the school district has it's eyes on it, as
the two towns are a regional school system. They want all this nice flat
land in the middle of the two towns for a new school. Officials are saying
Johnnycake is finished. I'm pretty bummed out. Here I am half a country
away in Oklahoma, building some old wood airplane and having an occasional
thought of flying it home to Johnnycake. It'll never happen.
But I am glad I got to take my son to that little airstrip in the
northwest hills of Connecticut, and put him on the same fence I sat on 30
years before. I hope he remembers it. I'm going to take him for an
airplane ride this weekend.
Kent Hallsten
Oklahoma City
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | MacklemAW(at)aol.com |
You'll find CORSA at www.corvair.org
Allan W. Macklem
TEL: 402 289 2298 FAX: 402 289 3437
Indecision and inactivity are expensive.
Get on with it!
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List-corvair |
In a message dated 1/31/2002 2:10:02 PM Eastern Standard Time,
kengg(at)texas.net writes:
> How much did you pay?
>
> I've found a running 65 in an automatic convertible, but he wants $450 for
> it.
>
> Would I be better off buying one for $150 or $200 that doesn't run, since
> I'll be rebuilding it anyway?
>
> Thanks
I rebuilt a corvair using WW manual. I did not finish it and ended up
selling it in my divorce. I replaced almost everything. The cylinders and
pistons are good for core value. The only thing I used was the cam, crank
and block. I bought heads seperately and had a valve job done on the best
pair I could find ( I had about 6 seperate heads, about $20 apiece.). I
bought two engines for $150.
William Koucky
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Air Boat Motors |
I looked at getting a 65 hp Cont.off an airboat in north western
Ontario. The guy started with 100 motors that he picked up somewhere,
but was down to about 5 that were still working. Believe me, you would
not want to even consider using parts out of the bone orchard. They
were shot! Run into the ground after several thousand hours of
limited maintenance. Blow it, replace it, repeat. Moving an airboat
loaded down with rice picking equipment in shallow water was pretty
hard on them.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Re: more cheap airboat motors for sale |
Continental GPUs do not work out that well. Only one spark plug and the
intake comes in from the top so you would have a max rpm of about 2000
before the engine roughens up due to poor mixture distribution and flame
travel from only one plug. Also, the carb would have to be on top of the
engine!!
The crankshaft would be the best piece in these motors.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more cheap airboat motors for sale
>
>
> Asking_Price: $1600.00-$1850.00
>
> Owner: Don Campbell
>
> Address: 17727 Valencia Blvd.
>
> City: Loxahatchee
>
> State: FL
>
> Zip_Code: 33470
>
> Phone: (561) 795-5936
>
> Email: ladon.campbell(at)gte.net
>
> Date: March 20, 2001
>
>
> I have 4&6 cyl. Cont. G.P.U.s for sale. All turn over with good
> compression. Come with
> Carb. Mag. and Fact exhaust.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Airboat engines. |
Years ago, when I was teaching a high school aircraft maintenance
program, several airboat engines were brought in for fixing.
Without exception, they were JUNK! A couple were coaxed into an
extension of their life of drudgery and neglect by replacing a cylinder
or two with units that were beyond serviceable limits for aircraft use,
plus installing some other unserviceable parts. The others were be-
yond help.
One cylinder we removed had the wall so deeply scored that compres-
sion couldn't be restored and another (not on the same engine) had
aluminum from the piston smeared and bonded to the wall. Don't ask
about the condition of the rings! Hydraulic lifters all gummed up and
worn crankpins and bearings from no oil changes were the norm. And
burned valves, etc. probably were the result of using any kind of fuel
that was handy and running too hot. Ugh!
If you do find an airboat engine disassembled, you will have a chance
to check its condition; if it is together, you must assume the worst.
But you could get lucky. I was when I got an A 65 for my Piet that was
briefly on an airboat. It was removed when it "didn't run right". After I
got it and removed the cylinders, the reason was immediately apparent:
the positions of the exhaust and intake valves of one cylinder had been
reversed. Luckily it hadn't been run much and the valves and seats were
still OK. The rest of the engine was fine, also.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Subject: | Throttle and power |
Ed,
I guess we are saying esentially the same thing in a different way, but
the old saying of " you can't beat cubic inches" is really not valid. I
too, when building hot rods and racing used to believe this as the
gospel, but came to understand it only to be valid in a limited sense.
Think of it this way: an engine is nothing more than a sophisicated air
pump. The more air/fuel mixture you can pump through it in a given
time, the more horsepower is developed. Remember that horsepower is a
function of time and work. So if you have a large displacement engine
turning at a slower rpm, the amount of air/fuel mixture can be equaled
by a small displacement engine running at a higher rpm, because the
total amount of air/fuel going through the engine is the same.
Therefore asuming equal combustion efficiency, both can produce the same
horsepower. A good example are the formula one cars that have small
displacement engines turning perhaps 10,000 rpm and producing 6 or 7
hundred hp.
In aircraft the limiting factor is the tip speed of the propeller.
Therefore a limited displacement engine which needs a high rpm to
produce the horsepower has to have the rpm reduced to a figure that
allows the prop to turn at an efficient rpm.
One reference, (Eric Clutton) uses the formula "that the propeller tip
speed should be aprox four times the speed of the aircraft for max
efficiency. (actually 3.93). This applies to all speeds and
configurations". When I worked it out for my Pietenpol, using a 76"
prop, the rpm should only be 1304 rpm!
I apologize for being so wordy about the subject, but hope that this
might be helpful for the members on the list now building Piets, and
considering using auto conversions.
Cheers,
John Dilatush, NX114D, now working on a propeller duplicator.
Salida, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Fisherman,
Don't believe the guy that said an EA81 engine came out of a 1995 car!
Subaru only put this model engine in cars up to about 1984.
EA81, doesn't refer to any year car, the designation is only that of the
model engine. It is a pushrod operated overhead cam engine with
horizonally opposed cylinders, (four cylinders) and displaces 1800 cc.
About 109 cu. inches.
Are you a member of an EAA chapter? Maybe the Tech Advisor (if the
chapter has one) could help you with many of the questions you have
about building your Pietenpol. They are good guys with a lot of
experience and well worth getting aquainted with.
Cheers,
John Dilatush
Salida, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "twinboom" <twinboom(at)email.msn.com> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
Kip,
Pretty sure the Geo engines/cars, are the chevrolet knock off of the
Suzuki's. I had a Suzuki Sidekick, and had 215,00 miles on it. Only changes
were the alternator and the fuel filter, and normal oil changes. I'm going
with Corvair power when I get to that point. I"n want to KNOW that any
engine conversion would have been tested through time, ground stuidies ect.
William Wynne has done this and a good job at that. Check his website at
Doug Blackburn, Arrowbear Lake, So. Cal.
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca.
<http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ISR>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Geo/Suzuki in the Piet. |
From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
>
> Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using
> GOOGLE search engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good
> aircraft engine and puts out 65 hp at 5500 rpm. >
> The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my
> conclusion.
>
The Geo comes in three versions: The 1.0 L 3-cyl. , the 1.3 L. 4 cyl.,
and a larger 1.6 L. 4-cylinder. One of the best converters of these
engines is Raven motors of Colorado. I do not have their URL on this
computer, but it is something like raven-rotors.com. They had a
couple of really good seminars at OSH this last summer.
I am seriously considering the 1.3 L, and Bob Whittier has said that he
thinks the 1.6 L is a great match for the Piet.
But if you noticed, there are several of those Early Bird replica Jennies
flying (about 75% scale). The ones I have seen both used the 3 cyl. Geo
engine, and those planes are both two seaters with weights and
performance numbers almost identical to the Piet's. According to the guy
from Raven (I forget his name, but I've spoken to him several times) the
little 3 cyl. not only has good power to weight ratio, but has very good
torque numbers for such a little engine.
John Fay in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
Subject: | Geo/Suzuki in the |
Piet.
Where can I find a site with Early Bird replica Jennies? Who makes them or
the plans? The only one I knew of was Loehles. Thanks.
Regards,
Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
MyKitPlane.com
EAA 665957
gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com
http://www.mykitplane.com
"What's the hurry? Are you afraid I won't come back?"
Manfred von Richthofen, 'The Red Baron,' last recorded words, in reply to
a request for an autograph as he was climbing into the cockpit of his plane.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of john e
> fay
> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 9:42 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Geo/Suzuki in the Piet.
>
>
> >
> > Suzuki in the Geo Metro?? I looked up on the internet using
> > GOOGLE search engine, and found that the 3 cylinder is a good
> > aircraft engine and puts out 65 hp at 5500 rpm. >
> > The Geo 65 hp would be too light for the two place Pietenpol is my
> > conclusion.
> >
>
> The Geo comes in three versions: The 1.0 L 3-cyl. , the 1.3 L. 4 cyl.,
> and a larger 1.6 L. 4-cylinder. One of the best converters of these
> engines is Raven motors of Colorado. I do not have their URL on this
> computer, but it is something like raven-rotors.com. They had a
> couple of really good seminars at OSH this last summer.
>
> I am seriously considering the 1.3 L, and Bob Whittier has said that he
> thinks the 1.6 L is a great match for the Piet.
>
> But if you noticed, there are several of those Early Bird replica Jennies
> flying (about 75% scale). The ones I have seen both used the 3 cyl. Geo
> engine, and those planes are both two seaters with weights and
> performance numbers almost identical to the Piet's. According to the guy
> from Raven (I forget his name, but I've spoken to him several times) the
> little 3 cyl. not only has good power to weight ratio, but has very good
> torque numbers for such a little engine.
>
> John Fay in Peoria
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Nissan-1981-88. Dual ignition. Yes, four cylinders, eight plugs. This was their
answer
to the pollution problem. I have an 88 extracab now with 130 thou. of very hard
driving on it. More than 800 gear shifts every day, six days a week for the last
four
years. Still runs ok. It has throttle body injection and computer control though.
It would be necessary to find a place for the control away from the engine heat.
Another possible candidate? It's hard to find used parts around here for these
because they're all still on the road!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Got rained on, in the backyard. |
>
>Kip,
> Pretty sure the Geo engines/cars, are the chevrolet knock off of the
>Suzuki's. I had a Suzuki Sidekick, and had 215,00 miles on it. Only changes
>were the alternator and the fuel filter, and normal oil changes. I'm going
>with Corvair power when I get to that point. I"n want to KNOW that any
>engine conversion would have been tested through time, ground stuidies ect.
>William Wynne has done this and a good job at that. Check his website at
>
>
>Doug Blackburn, Arrowbear Lake, So. Cal.
>Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca.
><http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ISR>
Doug,
OK, wasn't sure as I only ever worked on the one & it was the 1.6L 4-cyl.
model, which looked suspiciously Toyota-ish to me :). I knew Chevy was
using some sort of Japanese engine in the thing.
Anyway, As I've said/implied many times on this list, yes, I am sold on
Wynne's Corvair conversion & that's what I'm using. Just wanted to give Ray
some info as it seems he is having a hard time with this whole engine issue.
RAY - whoever suggested that you get involved with an EAA Chapter has given
you probably the best advice of anyone on this list so far. I got my piet
project hauled home from it's previous owner's place, 200+ miles from here,
for just the cost of gas because I opened my mouth at a chapter meeting &
someone was willing to help. One of these days I'm going to go help a guy
buck rivets on his RV8 & I'm sure I'll learn a lot in the process. Learning
something is part of the whole reason for building a plane - much easier to
go out & buy one if you are hoyt to get in the air.
BTW, what's the rush on building this thing? Don't mean to offend, but you
seem to be tearing through this project. Take your time & enjoy the
building ! Even if you slowed down your pace by 50%, I bet you'll be in the
air ahead of most of us. My project had been 'in progress' (or 'not
progress', as the case may be) for 10 years before I bought it & I expect
it will take me 5-7 years more to complete it.
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engine |
Thanks John on the 1995. You are right, after I did some web search, I found
the EA81 Subaru ran from 1983 to 1989. In two doors, sedans and station wagons.
But what I found interesting was that the 1995 Subaru is running a 4 cylinder
aluminum alloy engine. So I guess it must light? But I couldn't find anything
on the web about it, for weight. But it is an expensive car the Impreza
I think? It runs an 1820 cc at 110 hp. There are also bigger model engines.
Runs at 4400 rpm, better than the Geo Metro engine. It is fuel injection and
does not use a distributor. They call it an aluminum boxer engine. Unfortunately,
I do not know much about engines, outside of small marine diesels.
The only real attraction for me, for these 40 year old motors, like the Corvair,
Continental and such; is the massive amount of experience, parts and technical
detail on the aircraft conversions. You can find out things. For a dummy
like me, trying to convert a modern engine, which I have no doubt has to be
better than an old Corvair, means a higher technical skill than I possess and
not much in the way of tools either. But metallurgy has changed a lot. I would
guess that the old farts that got their expertise in 40 year old engines dominate
the Experimental homebuilding category. The new younger guys won't become
popular and build a backlog of experience and technical data for some years
yet in today's model engines.
Sort of a catch 22 situtation. I think some of these later model engines just
have to be better with 16 valves and all. But building a reduction gear for
one, and doing all you have to do, with my non-knowledge is fraught with difficulty.
I need a good mechanic friend, is what I think?
But I think I should have a look at the Geo Metro, and also this 1.8 liter 1820
cc 110 hp Subaru engine? What do you mechanic experts say to that?
-----------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 01 February 2002, "John Dilatush" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fisherman,
>
> Don't believe the guy that said an EA81 engine came
> out of a 1995 car! Subaru only put this model engine in cars up to about
> 1984.
>
> EA81, doesn't refer to any year car, the
> designation is only that of the model engine. It is a pushrod operated
> overhead cam engine with horizonally opposed cylinders, (four cylinders) and
> displaces 1800 cc. About 109 cu. inches.
>
> Are you a member of an EAA chapter? Maybe the
> Tech Advisor (if the chapter has one) could help you with many of the questions
> you have about building your Pietenpol. They are good guys with a lot of
> experience and well worth getting aquainted with.
>
> Cheers,
> John Dilatush
> Salida, Colorado
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engine |
> The only real attraction for me, for these 40 year old motors, like the
>Corvair, Continental and such; is the massive amount of experience, parts
>and technical detail on the aircraft conversions. You can find out
>things. For a dummy like me, trying to convert a modern engine, which I
>have no doubt has to be better than an old Corvair, means a higher
>technical skill than I possess and not much in the way of tools either.
>But metallurgy has changed a lot. I would guess that the old farts that
>got their expertise in 40 year old engines dominate the Experimental
>homebuilding category. The new younger guys won't become popular and
>build a backlog of experience and technical data for some years yet in
>today's model engines.
Ray,
Just 2 short comments & then I think I'll shut up on this whole subject &
let you get on with it.
1.) No the modern auto engines aren't necessarily better for 2 big reasons
- they are ALL liquid-cooled and they ALL (as far as I know) require a
reduction drive. Both situations add complexity, and therefore greater
chances of problems, than an air-cooled, direct drive engine like the
Corvair or VW (and you can't use the VW on a Piet, been over that).
2.) Most of us Corvair proponents are relatively young guys, I think. The
'Old Farts' seem to like Model A's or the A65 Continentals, mostly. William
Wynne is in his late 30's & started working on the Corvair over 10 years
ago. I also think most of us came to the Corvair after a long period of
research and evaluation that convinced us that it was the superior choice,
not because it was merely a known quantity. Among other things, most of the
replacement parts you will put in the Corvair are just as 'modern' with
regard to metallurgy, or whatever, as anything in a new engine.
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
426 Schneider St. SE
North Canton, OH 44720
(330) 494-1775
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Fisherman,
Practically all modern auto engines develop their peak power at a much
higher rpm than you need, or want, for turning a propeller. This means
that you must either make or buy a "propeller reduction unit". If you
make one, be prepared to spend at least four or five hundred bucks for
the parts. And if you purchase one, the cost ranges from $1500 on up.
And in addition to all this, there is a certain amount of design and
engineering in building the motor mount, placing a cooling system with
all the plumbing involved, and if the engine is computer controlled,
then you must come up with a wiring harness etc! All of this means that
you really have two, not one, projects - building the airframe and then
converting the engine for use in a plane!
In your case, when you tell me that you don't have the facilities and
tools to do all of this, I would suggest you stick with a direct drive
engine like a A 65 or 75 Continental - or a Lycoming or Franklin. Or
perhaps you might get serious about a Corvair even though there is a
little more work to it. These are all tried and true solutions and
there is a lot of information and support out there for you to lean on.
Are you a member of an EAA chapter, can you get help from either a tech
advisor or do you have a A&P licensed friend? Use all the resources
that we have available in this wonderful hobby of ours, you will truely
save a lot of time, money and heartache. As someone said, slow down -
it's the journey, not the destination!
What plans are you working from?
Cheers,
John Dilatush, another 74 year old fart.
Salida, Colorado
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engines |
Yup!
Chapter 37. Look us up on the web. Working from the Pietenpol plans. I don't
anticipate much trouble, other than with the reduction gear. And not even that
if I can get some photos of one already done.
Ray
http://members.tripod.com/~speculation/pietenpolplaneconstruction.html
http://members.tripod.com/~speculation/EAAChapt.37.html
On Sat, 02 February 2002, "John Dilatush" wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman,
>
> Practically all modern auto engines develop their peak power at a much
> higher rpm than you need, or want, for turning a propeller. This means
> that you must either make or buy a "propeller reduction unit". If you
> make one, be prepared to spend at least four or five hundred bucks for
> the parts. And if you purchase one, the cost ranges from $1500 on up.
>
> And in addition to all this, there is a certain amount of design and
> engineering in building the motor mount, placing a cooling system with
> all the plumbing involved, and if the engine is computer controlled,
> then you must come up with a wiring harness etc! All of this means that
> you really have two, not one, projects - building the airframe and then
> converting the engine for use in a plane!
>
> In your case, when you tell me that you don't have the facilities and
> tools to do all of this, I would suggest you stick with a direct drive
> engine like a A 65 or 75 Continental - or a Lycoming or Franklin. Or
> perhaps you might get serious about a Corvair even though there is a
> little more work to it. These are all tried and true solutions and
> there is a lot of information and support out there for you to lean on.
>
> Are you a member of an EAA chapter, can you get help from either a tech
> advisor or do you have a A&P licensed friend? Use all the resources
> that we have available in this wonderful hobby of ours, you will truely
> save a lot of time, money and heartache. As someone said, slow down -
> it's the journey, not the destination!
>
> What plans are you working from?
>
> Cheers,
> John Dilatush, another 74 year old fart.
> Salida, Colorado
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Throttle and power |
------- Start of forwarded message -------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
From: Peter Singfield <snkm(at)btl.net>
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 09:45:01 -0600
Yes Ray -- and two strokes "bang" twice as much per RPM number than 4 strokes.
And never forget the HP per pound weight importance! Big Cubes means heavy!!
Then there is max power ratings. People "think" because an engine is rated
for "automotive" purposes at a number -- say 100 HP -- that is the same for
in an airplane. It is not -- maybe -- if your lucky -- half of that.
But the outboards are rated at true max power -- just like a "real"
airplane engine is.
Your never going to beat that Yam outboard engine -- no matter how you
twist and turn -- but I enjoy watching your self bashing over this issue.
Anything but do what I suggested -- love it!!
Trying to save that buck -- eh?? How about wasting it all on what will
never work??
My advice -- mortgage the house and by a real -- designed for -- airplane
engine!
Peter
>------- Start of forwarded message -------
>
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
>To: "ED GRENTZER"
>From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
>Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 19:57:24 -0700
>
>
>Ed,
>
>I guess we are saying esentially the same thing in a different way, but
>the old saying of " you can't beat cubic inches" is really not valid. I
>too, when building hot rods and racing used to believe this as the
>gospel, but came to understand it only to be valid in a limited sense.
>
>Think of it this way: an engine is nothing more than a sophisicated air
>pump. The more air/fuel mixture you can pump through it in a given
>time, the more horsepower is developed. Remember that horsepower is a
>function of time and work. So if you have a large displacement engine
>turning at a slower rpm, the amount of air/fuel mixture can be equaled
>by a small displacement engine running at a higher rpm, because the
>total amount of air/fuel going through the engine is the same.
>Therefore asuming equal combustion efficiency, both can produce the same
>horsepower. A good example are the formula one cars that have small
>displacement engines turning perhaps 10,000 rpm and producing 6 or 7
>hundred hp.
>
>In aircraft the limiting factor is the tip speed of the propeller.
>Therefore a limited displacement engine which needs a high rpm to
>produce the horsepower has to have the rpm reduced to a figure that
>allows the prop to turn at an efficient rpm.
>
>One reference, (Eric Clutton) uses the formula "that the propeller tip
>speed should be aprox four times the speed of the aircraft for max
>efficiency. (actually 3.93). This applies to all speeds and
>configurations". When I worked it out for my Pietenpol, using a 76"
>prop, the rpm should only be 1304 rpm!
>
>I apologize for being so wordy about the subject, but hope that this
>might be helpful for the members on the list now building Piets, and
>considering using auto conversions.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John Dilatush, NX114D, now working on a propeller duplicator.
>Salida, Colorado
>
>
>
>------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>
>_________________________________________________
>FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
>http://www.FindLaw.com
>Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
>http://mail.Justice.com
>
------- End of forwarded message -------
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Skip Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engine |
> [Original Message]
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Date: 3/7/02 9:22:48 AM
>Unfortunately, I do not know much about engines, outside of small marine
>diesels.
Ray,
There are a couple groups doing research on diesel engines for aircraft use.
What can you tell us about small marine diesels:
Weight?
Power output?
What RPM the power is made at?
Pietenpols can use relatively heavy engines and look good with a radiator.
Skip, an almost old fart(53) Corvair guy.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Larry Neal wrote:
>If I do eyebrows I'll have to do something Corvair-ish, of course,
>but the Cub style nosebowl is plan A.
Larry, have you looked at how William Wynne did his? The 'eyebrows' are
more like rectangular scoops that hug the sides of the cowling, and the
cowling itself is much sleeker than the usual bulbous setups seen with
Corvairs in Piets. There are a number of sites with many close-ups of the
cowling and intakes, and I've also downloaded some of the better cowling and
intake shots so I could have them in case a site went down. Get with me
off-net if William's setup is of any interest to you.
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engines |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Subaru engines
>
>
> Yup!
>
> Chapter 37. Look us up on the web. Working from the Pietenpol plans. I
don't anticipate much trouble, other than with the reduction gear. And not
even that if I can get some photos of one already done.
>
> Ray
>
> http://members.tripod.com/~speculation/pietenpolplaneconstruction.html
> http://members.tripod.com/~speculation/EAAChapt.37.html
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
OK, Fisherman,
I'll send you some pictures of my Subaru engine installation with my
homemade redrive and you can take it from there. No plans, I laid the unit
out on the bench after calculating the required loadings on the individual
components and then purchasing the components that would handle the loads.
Are you sure that you are not a masochist?
John Dilatush
>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> On Sat, 02 February 2002, "John Dilatush" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Fisherman,
> >
> > Practically all modern auto engines develop their peak power at a much
> > higher rpm than you need, or want, for turning a propeller. This means
> > that you must either make or buy a "propeller reduction unit". If you
> > make one, be prepared to spend at least four or five hundred bucks for
> > the parts. And if you purchase one, the cost ranges from $1500 on up.
> >
> > And in addition to all this, there is a certain amount of design and
> > engineering in building the motor mount, placing a cooling system with
> > all the plumbing involved, and if the engine is computer controlled,
> > then you must come up with a wiring harness etc! All of this means that
> > you really have two, not one, projects - building the airframe and then
> > converting the engine for use in a plane!
> >
> > In your case, when you tell me that you don't have the facilities and
> > tools to do all of this, I would suggest you stick with a direct drive
> > engine like a A 65 or 75 Continental - or a Lycoming or Franklin. Or
> > perhaps you might get serious about a Corvair even though there is a
> > little more work to it. These are all tried and true solutions and
> > there is a lot of information and support out there for you to lean on.
> >
> > Are you a member of an EAA chapter, can you get help from either a tech
> > advisor or do you have a A&P licensed friend? Use all the resources
> > that we have available in this wonderful hobby of ours, you will truely
> > save a lot of time, money and heartache. As someone said, slow down -
> > it's the journey, not the destination!
> >
> > What plans are you working from?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > John Dilatush, another 74 year old fart.
> > Salida, Colorado
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Fisherman,
Had a senior moment and forgot to ask for your address to send the
pictures to in my last message to you
John Dilatush
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Can anyone tell me where to get more info on this year's Pietenpol event at
Brodhead?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engine |
"Fisherman" wrote:
The only real attraction for me, for these 40 year old motors, like the
Corvair, Continental and such; is the massive amount of experience, parts
and technical detail on the aircraft conversions. You can find out things.
For a dummy like me, trying to convert a modern engine, which I have no
doubt has to be better than an old Corvair, means a higher technical skill
than I possess and not much in the way of tools either. But metallurgy has
changed a lot. I would guess that the old farts that got their expertise in
40 year old engines dominate the Experimental homebuilding category. The
new younger guys won't become popular and build a backlog of experience and
technical data for some years yet in today's model engines.
Sort of a catch 22 situtation. I think some of these later model engines
just have to be better with 16 valves and all. But building a reduction
gear for one, and doing all you have to do, with my non-knowledge is fraught
with difficulty. I need a good mechanic friend, is what I think?
Don't scoff too much at 40 year old aircraft engines. Remember that until
solid-state electronics developed in the early 60's, "high tech" generally
meant aviation or space technology. Aircraft engines have had such things
as liquid sodium filled valves (to allow higher temperature operation) since
the 1930's, possibly earlier (I can't remember if the Wright Whirlwinds had
them or if Pratt & Whitney developed them).
I frequently have discussions with a neighbor of mine who is into drag
racing. He generally scoffs at the low horsepower per displacement of
aircraft engines, particularly when compared to an auto engine modified for
drag racing. He gets over 600 horsepower from a 350 cubic inch engine, he
claims, yet a 360 cubic inch Lycoming only gets at most 200 horsepower.
What he doesn't realize, and a lot of people looking at auto engine
conversions for aircraft also ignore, is that an automobile engine is
designed to only put out full power for a few seconds at a time. Airplane
engines are designed to deliver full power continuously. The difference is
huge. I asked my drag racing friend how many races he can get out of his
600 hp 350 before he has to tear it down and rebuild it. He said he can
usually get 10 or 12 races between rebuilds. Then I asked him how many
revolutions he turns in one race. He figured he turns his engine over maybe
600 revolutions per race, with another 400 revolutions idling before and
after. If he is getting 12 races, with 1000 revolutions per race, he is
getting only 12,000 revolutions between overhauls! Compare that to a
Lycoming's 2000 HOURS between overhauls (which happens to be 300 billion
revolutions at 2500 RPM) and you see that at full power, the aircraft engine
has a useful life 25,000 times greater.
As John Dilatush has said, if you really want to use an auto engine, follow
someone else's lead and use something proven, like a corvair. If you want
to break new ground, go ahead but realize that building an airplane is
nothing compared to developing an engine. Most modern engines will require
a reduction drive, unless they are so heavy and put out so much power (like
the 350 Chevy direct drive engine in the Sauser P-6E) that they would simply
overload a light airplane like a Pietenpol. Reduction drives are not simple
things to design. Indeed, they are extremely complex and require a lot of
pretty sophisticated dynamic analysis, to avoid harmonic vibrations between
the crankshaft and propeller. Ever thought what happens to the drive gears
if the cruising RPM of the engine happens to deliver a power pulse from one
of the pistons at the same point in the cycle every time? If the resonant
frequency of the drive system, or any component of the drive system happens
to be near that point the whole thing can come apart in a hurry. Sport
Aviation had a good article on Fred Geschwender and his gear reduction
drives a couple of years ago, talking about the difficulties of making a
good reduction drive.
I don't mean to discourage you (well, maybe I do). But I want you to
realize what you are undertaking.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
Very happy with my 57 year old Continental A-65, and its ability to put out
65 reliable horsepower continuously for at least 1500 hours
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Subaru engine |
Interesting question Skip, but I would not have an answer to that for an airplane.
I always chose heavy duty diesels, low rpm, heavy flywheel and if possible and
prop space, the biggest reduction gear I could get with the biggest propeller
I could swing. But was never into high speed boats. Displacement hulls that
can carry a load at hull speed for a thousand miles and still only run through
a drum or two of diesel.
Weight and speed are incompatible. Time and hours traveled, are cheaper than
fuel, for me.
Still got a 30 ton cargo boat down in Belize running. She can carry 18,000 of
lumber, or cement, or what have you a few hundred miles on a drum of diesel.
On Sat, 02 February 2002, "Skip Gadd" wrote:
>
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > To:
> > Date: 3/7/02 9:22:48 AM
> >Unfortunately, I do not know much about engines, outside of small marine
> >diesels.
>
> Ray,
> There are a couple groups doing research on diesel engines for aircraft use.
> What can you tell us about small marine diesels:
> Weight?
> Power output?
> What RPM the power is made at?
>
> Pietenpols can use relatively heavy engines and look good with a radiator.
> Skip, an almost old fart(53) Corvair guy.
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
"He figured he turns his engine over maybe
600 revolutions per race, with another 400 revolutions
idling before and
after. If he is getting 12 races, with 1000
revolutions per race"
At 5,000 to 6,000 revolutions per minute, that is a
mighty quick race
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Pietenpol engine choices. |
I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel powered aircraft. A debating
masochist started that, I am sure? I believe there have been such things, but
not sure, and also a steam engine aircraft. But I may be wrong, it was a long
time ago?
But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all look at things from our experience
and background?
Not considering diesels, but displacement boat hulls, big diameter props, large
reductions.
Actually, the first thing I did, was measure the distance from propeller hub
to the ground, with the Pietenpol plane level and figure out what is the biggest
propeller diameter could be swung in this slow airplane? I think it is 84
inch propeller from standard sizes. I forget now, but I understand from reading,
that a two blade, or three blade propeller gives the maximum pull of air,
in a given circle on a slow plane. In a displacement boat hull, I want to move
as much water as possible. In a Pietenpol, I figured the same thing for a plane
flying under 80 mph. That means I want maximum propeller diameter.
Working backwards, then, I need the least horsepower, depending on engine rpm,
and a reduction gear that will give me the most efficient way to turn that propeller
at less than it's maximum speed from stopping the tips going supersonic.
The type of engine then must be built for full load, like a Continental,
versus an automobile engine, which would have to be twice the horsepower, because
it is not engineered that way. Which in turn effects weight.
So, you can see how my experience and mind looks at the Pietenpol? I choose
the propeller first, then engine, based on needed weight and horsepower, and fit
a reduction gear between them, to match the output desired. The propeller
is fixed in this way of looking at things. The variable is engine rpm, weight
size and what ever other factors go into gasoline aircraft engines. These are
things I do not understand, like big pistons requiring more block weight and
small faster pistons moving at higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am trying
to understand. I had already decided on the propeller diameter and also
decided on the two blade wood propeller from the reading on the subject I have
done. But if someone gave me a three bladed suitable propeller FREE, would probably
use it, as the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only slightly
lower. But you get added damping of vibrations with the three blade.
I think a good reduction gear should take care of vibration?
You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3 or 4 miles per hour in water,
with 15 hp and a 5 bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But that requires
a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises! Small boat diesels, since World
War 11, there haven't been any small salt water marine diesels produced in the
USA. They are all industrial, truck and other equipment conversions, with
slapped on water manifolds for the exhaust. They are not designed to be totally
salt water marine engines. They work alright, but turn higher rpms and burn
more fuel and do not last as long. Whenever possible I bought Scandinavian
in heavy low rpm small boat diesels. The 30 tonne freight boat however, has
a Caterpillar. This is an industrial conversion, but the problem was draft and
propeller diameter limitations and horsepower required. A middling compromise.
I think several people have mentioned the difference between automobile engines
that when converted, lose about half the horsepower in the transition as working
output to the propeller. Versus the Continental, which is a full load thrust
engine from get go?
Got one friend down in Belize, an eccentric engineer, that insists that I use
an Outboard Yamaha engine, 125 hp. Light weight, high rpm, but designed to work
at full load all the time. Not like an automobile conversion. He thinks
it would be the answer to a light aircraft, better than any automobile engine.
Dont know myself, never read or seen one done? Yamaha outboard engines are
designed to run about 5000 hours. Or five years in salt water climate. American
Outboard motors are engineered to last 1800 hours before being finished, or
about 1 1/2 years of operating of lobster conditions in Belize along the Barrier
Reef. Planned obsolescence!
I have some ideas of course, but certainly the biggest two blade propeller I
can swing in a slow bird like the Pietenpol is one of them. Then trying to see
what engines are out there and what reduction gear I need to get the propeller
rpms I want.
I have never built a plane, so I really have no knowledge of whether I am on
the right track or not? It is a new field. I enjoy the conflicting opinions.
I have some very virulent people writing me, both for and against the Corvair.
But experience tells! So I take that into account. One writer already solved
the qualms I had about the leaking oil and seals. He said something back
awhile, about there being newer type seals now, that have solved that problem.
I haven't really heard any other problem with the Corvair conversion. So it
is in the running. Lot of opinions on older engines and metallurgy that sounds
reasonable too. One of course has to weigh opinions and advice, against what
they are flying with for engine? Five people flying Corvairs and satisfied
and 2 against are better than my eccentric engineer friend with his Yamaha Outboard
advice, who has never converted, or flown one.
Then when it comes to reduction gears? Much has been written on this subject
for airplanes. For small homebuilts like the Pietenpol, all the research points
to the cogged belt reduction gear as the best choice. It also dampens vibration,
according to the literature and articles I have read on it. So my reduction
gear is basically chosen. Haven't found pulley sources yet. But bit early
in this building project. If I get a Continental, the point becomes moot,
as it is a full load engine, lower rpm and can already match propellers in stock
sizes.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Sports Aviation articles wanted? |
Sports Aviation articles wanted.
If they haven't done any articles on this subject yet, I sure would like to see
them.
I would like a technical article on the reduction gear for the Honda Civic engine.
I think there is a Canadian outfit called Cam 100 selling them.
But I would like a technical article with drawings, photos, bolt holes, shaft
sizes, sources of pulleys, and all that stuff. The nitty gritty make it yourself
knowledge.
Also like to see an article on the Geo Metro engine conversions. Since somebody
is doing them? Again, the most interesting part is the construction and installation
of reduction gears in technical detail.
If there are any people out there doing conversions in anything else, perhaps
more recent in the last ten year engines, those also would be interesting articles.
The Subaru looks like a nice one, in the 1995 car. Somebody else suggested
the Toyota 22 R engine.
Oh yes! This has probably been written about over the last 40 years of EAA,
but I havent got a clue to source the articles? Would like to know about carving
my own wood propeller? I know how to do cross sections an inch a part.
But there used to be, many years ago, people in the magazine at the back, selling
gadgets that did it automatically and booklets on figuring pitch and diameter
and so on. I will need that in a couple of months, or sometime this year.
So an article on that would be appreciated for newbies in the plane building
business.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Yep, about 10 Seconds. Ever been to a drag race?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of del magsam
Subject: Pietenpol-List: huh?
"He figured he turns his engine over maybe
600 revolutions per race, with another 400 revolutions
idling before and
after. If he is getting 12 races, with 1000
revolutions per race"
At 5,000 to 6,000 revolutions per minute, that is a
mighty quick race
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol engine choices. |
Very interesting comparisons regarding marine diesels. I'm trying to
imagine what rpm a 15hp diesel turns a 6ft ship propellor.
Back to Piets though. Build the airplane as the designer intended and
you won't go wrong. It's proven and so is Bernie's approval of the
Corvair motor. Not that any others are wrong, better or what have ye.
This just means that the airframe and engine combination are well known
and proven time and again. Lots of cores, parts and advise too. Same
comment goes for A's, Continental 65's etc., workable, well proven.
Certified does mean more money though.
Homebuilding though is supposed to be a process of experimentation
(that' why we get those cool placards). There is nothing wrong with
putting a diesel, turbine, lawn mover or other engine in a homebuilt.
All have been done, and there are some great flying ships in all these
categories! It's really about whether you want to experiment or fly,
and there's a range of options there.
You may not have seen them yet, but the aero-diesels are for real, but
who knows when they'll be commercially available. When they do they'll
be powerful, lightweight and easy on fuel, but expen$ive for sure. Not
for me this go-around.
Making your own redrive is a test of will. If you've got the patience,
machine tools and money though, not an insoluble problem. Most people I
have heard or read about have broken a couple or three before getting it
right though.
Yes, marine outboards have been used before. A couple of well known
helicopters did this too. On problem that needs to be addressed though,
is that they are made to be cooled by water with at a constant
temperature of 40-80 degrees (ocean or lake water). I understand that a
radiator setup needs to either be very large to get the working
temperatures down, or the engine's internal clearance have to be fudged.
Probably not an huge problem as long as the cylinders are honeable and
not chromed.
Larry
(There are so many tradeoff's in engineering I sometimes think it's a
miracle that we can fly at all. But then again it's amazing what people
get flying. )
Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel powered aircraft. A debating
masochist started that, I am sure? I believe there have been such things, but
not sure, and also a steam engine aircraft. But I may be wrong, it was a long
time ago?
>
> But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all look at things from our experience
and background?
>Not considering diesels, but displacement boat hulls, big diameter props, large
reductions.
>
> Actually, the first thing I did, was measure the distance from propeller hub
to the ground, with the Pietenpol plane level and figure out what is the biggest
propeller diameter could be swung in this slow airplane? I think it is 84
inch propeller from standard sizes. I forget now, but I understand from reading,
that a two blade, or three blade propeller gives the maximum pull of air,
in a given circle on a slow plane. In a displacement boat hull, I want to move
as much water as possible. In a Pietenpol, I figured the same thing for a
plane flying under 80 mph. That means I want maximum propeller diameter.
> Working backwards, then, I need the least horsepower, depending on engine rpm,
and a reduction gear that will give me the most efficient way to turn that
propeller at less than it's maximum speed from stopping the tips going supersonic.
The type of engine then must be built for full load, like a Continental,
versus an automobile engine, which would have to be twice the horsepower, because
it is not engineered that way. Which in turn effects weight.
> So, you can see how my experience and mind looks at the Pietenpol? I choose
the propeller first, then engine, based on needed weight and horsepower, and
fit a reduction gear between them, to match the output desired. The propeller
is fixed in this way of looking at things. The variable is engine rpm, weight
size and what ever other factors go into gasoline aircraft engines. These are
things I do not understand, like big pistons requiring more block weight and
small faster pistons moving at higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am trying
to understand. I had already decided on the propeller diameter and also
decided on the two blade wood propeller from the reading on the subject I have
done. But if someone gave me a three bladed suitable propeller FREE, would
probably use it, as the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only slightly
lower. But you get added damping of vibrations with the three blade.
> I think a good reduction gear should take care of vibration?
>
> You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3 or 4 miles per hour in water,
with 15 hp and a 5 bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But that requires
a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises! Small boat diesels, since World
War 11, there haven't been any small salt water marine diesels produced in
the USA. They are all industrial, truck and other equipment conversions, with
slapped on water manifolds for the exhaust. They are not designed to be totally
salt water marine engines. They work alright, but turn higher rpms and burn
more fuel and do not last as long. Whenever possible I bought Scandinavian
in heavy low rpm small boat diesels. The 30 tonne freight boat however, has
a Caterpillar. This is an industrial conversion, but the problem was draft and
propeller diameter limitations and horsepower required. A middling compromise.
>
> I think several people have mentioned the difference between automobile engines
that when converted, lose about half the horsepower in the transition as working
output to the propeller. Versus the Continental, which is a full load
thrust engine from get go?
>
> Got one friend down in Belize, an eccentric engineer, that insists that I use
an Outboard Yamaha engine, 125 hp. Light weight, high rpm, but designed to
work at full load all the time. Not like an automobile conversion. He thinks
it would be the answer to a light aircraft, better than any automobile engine.
Dont know myself, never read or seen one done? Yamaha outboard engines are
designed to run about 5000 hours. Or five years in salt water climate. American
Outboard motors are engineered to last 1800 hours before being finished,
or about 1 1/2 years of operating of lobster conditions in Belize along the Barrier
Reef. Planned obsolescence!
>
> I have some ideas of course, but certainly the biggest two blade propeller I
can swing in a slow bird like the Pietenpol is one of them. Then trying to see
what engines are out there and what reduction gear I need to get the propeller
rpms I want.
>
> I have never built a plane, so I really have no knowledge of whether I am on
the right track or not? It is a new field. I enjoy the conflicting opinions.
I have some very virulent people writing me, both for and against the Corvair.
But experience tells! So I take that into account. One writer already solved
the qualms I had about the leaking oil and seals. He said something back
awhile, about there being newer type seals now, that have solved that problem.
I haven't really heard any other problem with the Corvair conversion. So
it is in the running. Lot of opinions on older engines and metallurgy that sounds
reasonable too. One of course has to weigh opinions and advice, against
what they are flying with for engine? Five people flying Corvairs and satisfied
and 2 against are better than my eccentric engineer friend with his Yamaha
Outboard advice, who has never converted, or flown one.
>
> Then when it comes to reduction gears? Much has been written on this subject
for airplanes. For small homebuilts like the Pietenpol, all the research points
to the cogged belt reduction gear as the best choice. It also dampens vibration,
according to the literature and articles I have read on it. So my reduction
gear is basically chosen. Haven't found pulley sources yet. But bit early
in this building project. If I get a Continental, the point becomes moot,
as it is a full load engine, lower rpm and can already match propellers in stock
sizes.
>
>
>FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
>http://www.FindLaw.com
>Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
>http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
Subject: | Throttle and power |
I've been lurking here for a while. I have been building a Piet/GN-1 for
quite a while now. Or perhaps I should say that I need to get back to
building it!
The engine game is one of my passions. I instruct apprentices on the
maintenance of large diesel engines. Ed is quite right about 550 ft lbs per
second to be used as the accepted standard for HP.
In our aircraft we need to consider that the airframe is not going to fly
considerably faster with more hp. Its draggy nature is part of its charm
that attracted us all in the first place.
HP is the rate of doing work. Torque does the work. The time factor is
measured in revolutions per minute. If we multiply 550 by 60 seconds we get
33000 ft lbs of work done in one minute. So,?, how far does your engine move
its load in one revolution of the crank? Torque for us is measured in
Pounds Feet or foot pounds, sounds better. 1 foot radius, 2 foot diameter, X
Pi, 3.14159, gives us a distance of 6.28 feet per rev.
33000/6.28318=5252 Now we can use some formulas.
Hp= torque X rpm/5252 , Handy, but with out a dyno how can you know the
torque? Changing the formula around we can get the torque formula T = hp x
5252/ rpm
Now it is well known that a 40 hp Ford A is capable of getting two of us in
a Piet off of the ground. Does it ever sound, smell and feel neat! So if it
is turning at 2200 and the HP is assumed to be 40 then the torque would be
95ftlbs.
For comparison a VW making 40hp @ 3600rpm is by the formulas only making
58.3 ftlbs
To turn fast enough to make 40hp the VW has to have a shorter lever/prop.
The thrust disk now is too small for the draggy airframe. Kinda like the
wrong gear ratio. It is erelavent to the crankshaft how long the lever is.
It puts out torque in foot pounds. The A works well in a Piet because it can
deliver adequate torque for the prop disk needs. The Corvair in a piet works
too but not at its full potential. It isn't nessecary to run them as fast as
they could go. The larger prop limiting the engine to a lower rpm provides
sufficent thrust to fly.
The point of all this?
It doesn't matter to the engine if it is a Model A a boat or a Piet, or a RR
Merlin or a Highway tractor. The engine only provides the torque at rpm. If
the load can be moved at a higher speed the engine can develope more power
until its power output capability balances with the load. (Displacement,
breathing, mixture, timing and prop pitch and dia. all affect this.) Ground
vehicles use transmissions to allow this to happen. If the engine can do
the required work with direct drive it is a simpler solution. For us
experimental types if we can swing the same size prop as an A 65 at the same
rpm then we must be making the same hp. The Fords are available and Fun.
Continentals etc are made for this. (I haven't flown either enough to judge
how wing position and fuselage moment affect the flight, comments?) There
are a lot of engines out that with work and re-drives could be made to work.
I went to the old BPA website looking for the A dyno test specs but the were
not available anymore. If I remember rightly the biggest gain in power on
the Fords was in the breathing.
John, up in Cold Canada, almost ready to shelve the Cirrus and go back to my
Model B
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ed
Grentzer
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Throttle and power
one Horsepower is 550 ft pounds of work per second. It is a ratio between
torque and RPMs . You can have a high RPM low torque engine which puts out X
amount of horsepower or you can have low RPM high torque engine ( Model A )
which puts out the same amount of horse power. 65 horsepower from a 1.3
liter suzuki is the same as 65 HP from a Continental BUT you would have to
run a major reduction drive on the Suzuki to trade RPMs for torque
sufficiently to turn a 6 foot prop and run it at punishingly high piston
speeds to maintain that torque. Like the old hotrodders used to say "there's
no substitute for cubic inches"
Only problem is big cube engines are heavy. Amazingly the "A" is relatively
light for 200 cubic inches. Maybe ya'll have already said this in a
different way....Just my subect so had to add my two cents. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | reply to John McNarry-model a torque |
The 1932 Flying and Glider Manual article by B.P. has a graph for the model A.
It shows the hp to be 38 at 2250 rpm and a torque of 120 lb/ft at 1000 rpm and
90 lb/ft at 2250. Go to BPA site,then click "ford fans" a ways down the list is
"dynamometer testing the model A". This will get your motor turning. Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol engine choices. |
Larry
Hundstedt diesels, one piston, 15 hp. About 90 rpm. Made in Finland I think,
but not much anymore. Used to run the Iceland Shrimp Fleet. You turned them
on in October and shut them of end of June. Continuous running at full load
most of the time. Oil them with an oil can and watch the piston go up and down
and count the rpm. Can do repairs while they are working. Long time ago,
things probably changed now.
Engine choice is narrowing down, with this Pietenpol list commentary, to either
Continental, or Corvair. Though the cheapness and ease of access for a vehicle
engine still titillates the mind. The Toyota 22 R is cheaply and easily
available. Can buy the whole car and drive it home, right here in Opa Locka for
$300. Valve and ring job, reduction gear and away we go. But I need to hear
somebody has done it, before first? I'm not into pioneering with this bird.
Didn't check the other day, but the Geo Metro is also a likely choice, if I
can change that rpm into torque at lower rpms? I'm not overly sure about that?
The questions in my mind on the Geo Metro is the rpm. I think it is 4400 rpm.
It is a no full load car engine. We are going to lose half the horsepower,
so probably need the 1.6 liter, 4 cylinder model. Somebody already has done
the reduction gear experimentation. It is on the web. Maybe Sports Aviation
already have a construction technical article on it, in a past magazine I can
look at? I'm not sure of the horsepower. It is quoted as 110 to 130 hp. That
means available for the propeller is about half that, or 55 to 65 hp. Now turning
that into torque needs a reduction gear. But you want at least 40 hp or
equivalent of the torque the Model A engine puts out with that very favorable
weight to torque and horsepower ration it has. That engine doesn't look stupid
anymore at all.
Lets say you want to run the Geo Metro at 2200 rpm, that is about 27 hp cruising.
Doesnt look like it would make it in the Geo Metro, unless the torque developed
from 2200 rpm with a 2 to 1 reduction, or a 2.5 reduction would give
the torque. I already deleted the math, that our good friend gave us so eloquently
on calculating torque. Maybe he could figure out this Geo Metro, so we
discard it from the discussion as not practical to turn an 84 inch propeller on
the Pietenpol? Or go for it? Maybe do the same calculations with the Toyota
22 R, please?
On Sat, 02 February 2002, Larry Neal wrote:
>
>
> Very interesting comparisons regarding marine diesels. I'm trying to
> imagine what rpm a 15hp diesel turns a 6ft ship propellor.
>
> Back to Piets though. Build the airplane as the designer intended and
> you won't go wrong. It's proven and so is Bernie's approval of the
> Corvair motor. Not that any others are wrong, better or what have ye.
> This just means that the airframe and engine combination are well known
> and proven time and again. Lots of cores, parts and advise too. Same
> comment goes for A's, Continental 65's etc., workable, well proven.
> Certified does mean more money though.
>
> Homebuilding though is supposed to be a process of experimentation
> (that' why we get those cool placards). There is nothing wrong with
> putting a diesel, turbine, lawn mover or other engine in a homebuilt.
> All have been done, and there are some great flying ships in all these
> categories! It's really about whether you want to experiment or fly,
> and there's a range of options there.
>
> You may not have seen them yet, but the aero-diesels are for real, but
> who knows when they'll be commercially available. When they do they'll
> be powerful, lightweight and easy on fuel, but expen$ive for sure. Not
> for me this go-around.
>
> Making your own redrive is a test of will. If you've got the patience,
> machine tools and money though, not an insoluble problem. Most people I
> have heard or read about have broken a couple or three before getting it
> right though.
>
> Yes, marine outboards have been used before. A couple of well known
> helicopters did this too. On problem that needs to be addressed though,
> is that they are made to be cooled by water with at a constant
> temperature of 40-80 degrees (ocean or lake water). I understand that a
> radiator setup needs to either be very large to get the working
> temperatures down, or the engine's internal clearance have to be fudged.
> Probably not an huge problem as long as the cylinders are honeable and
> not chromed.
>
> Larry
> (There are so many tradeoff's in engineering I sometimes think it's a
> miracle that we can fly at all. But then again it's amazing what people
> get flying. )
>
> Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel powered aircraft. A debating
masochist started that, I am sure? I believe there have been such things,
but not sure, and also a steam engine aircraft. But I may be wrong, it was a
long time ago?
> >
> > But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all look at things from our experience
and background?
> >Not considering diesels, but displacement boat hulls, big diameter props, large
reductions.
> >
> > Actually, the first thing I did, was measure the distance from propeller hub
to the ground, with the Pietenpol plane level and figure out what is the biggest
propeller diameter could be swung in this slow airplane? I think it is
84 inch propeller from standard sizes. I forget now, but I understand from reading,
that a two blade, or three blade propeller gives the maximum pull of air,
in a given circle on a slow plane. In a displacement boat hull, I want to
move as much water as possible. In a Pietenpol, I figured the same thing for
a plane flying under 80 mph. That means I want maximum propeller diameter.
> > Working backwards, then, I need the least horsepower, depending on engine
rpm, and a reduction gear that will give me the most efficient way to turn that
propeller at less than it's maximum speed from stopping the tips going supersonic.
The type of engine then must be built for full load, like a Continental,
versus an automobile engine, which would have to be twice the horsepower, because
it is not engineered that way. Which in turn effects weight.
> > So, you can see how my experience and mind looks at the Pietenpol? I choose
the propeller first, then engine, based on needed weight and horsepower, and
fit a reduction gear between them, to match the output desired. The propeller
is fixed in this way of looking at things. The variable is engine rpm, weight
size and what ever other factors go into gasoline aircraft engines. These
are things I do not understand, like big pistons requiring more block weight
and small faster pistons moving at higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am
trying to understand. I had already decided on the propeller diameter and also
decided on the two blade wood propeller from the reading on the subject I have
done. But if someone gave me a three bladed suitable propeller FREE, would
probably use it, as the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only slightly
lower. But you get added damping of vibrations with the three blade.
> > I think a good reduction gear should take care of vibration?
> >
> > You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3 or 4 miles per hour in water,
with 15 hp and a 5 bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But that requires
a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises! Small boat diesels, since World
War 11, there haven't been any small salt water marine diesels produced in
the USA. They are all industrial, truck and other equipment conversions, with
slapped on water manifolds for the exhaust. They are not designed to be totally
salt water marine engines. They work alright, but turn higher rpms and
burn more fuel and do not last as long. Whenever possible I bought Scandinavian
in heavy low rpm small boat diesels. The 30 tonne freight boat however, has
a Caterpillar. This is an industrial conversion, but the problem was draft
and propeller diameter limitations and horsepower required. A middling compromise.
> >
> > I think several people have mentioned the difference between automobile engines
that when converted, lose about half the horsepower in the transition as
working output to the propeller. Versus the Continental, which is a full load
thrust engine from get go?
> >
> > Got one friend down in Belize, an eccentric engineer, that insists that I
use an Outboard Yamaha engine, 125 hp. Light weight, high rpm, but designed to
work at full load all the time. Not like an automobile conversion. He thinks
it would be the answer to a light aircraft, better than any automobile engine.
Dont know myself, never read or seen one done? Yamaha outboard engines are
designed to run about 5000 hours. Or five years in salt water climate. American
Outboard motors are engineered to last 1800 hours before being finished,
or about 1 1/2 years of operating of lobster conditions in Belize along the
Barrier Reef. Planned obsolescence!
> >
> > I have some ideas of course, but certainly the biggest two blade propeller
I can swing in a slow bird like the Pietenpol is one of them. Then trying to
see what engines are out there and what reduction gear I need to get the propeller
rpms I want.
> >
> > I have never built a plane, so I really have no knowledge of whether I am
on the right track or not? It is a new field. I enjoy the conflicting opinions.
I have some very virulent people writing me, both for and against the Corvair.
But experience tells! So I take that into account. One writer already
solved the qualms I had about the leaking oil and seals. He said something back
awhile, about there being newer type seals now, that have solved that problem.
I haven't really heard any other problem with the Corvair conversion. So
it is in the running. Lot of opinions on older engines and metallurgy that
sounds reasonable too. One of course has to weigh opinions and advice, against
what they are flying with for engine? Five people flying Corvairs and satisfied
and 2 against are better than my eccentric engineer friend with his Yamaha
Outboard advice, who has never converted, or flown one.
> >
> > Then when it comes to reduction gears? Much has been written on this subject
for airplanes. For small homebuilts like the Pietenpol, all the research
points to the cogged belt reduction gear as the best choice. It also dampens vibration,
according to the literature and articles I have read on it. So my reduction
gear is basically chosen. Haven't found pulley sources yet. But bit
early in this building project. If I get a Continental, the point becomes moot,
as it is a full load engine, lower rpm and can already match propellers in
stock sizes.
> >
> >
> >FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> >http://www.FindLaw.com
> >Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> >http://mail.Justice.com
> >
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "B F Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol engine choices. |
In the "for what its worth column"there is a piet flying in the USA with a
direct drive conversion of a 2.5 "iron duke" 4 cyl gm motor.From posts in
the past it seemed to be doing good.If I remember correctly, the builder cut
down a tree on his farm and sawed up the wood and built the plane from it
and then converted the engine also.There is info on it somewhere on
line.Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol engine choices.
>
>
> Larry
>
> Hundstedt diesels, one piston, 15 hp. About 90 rpm. Made in Finland I
think, but not much anymore. Used to run the Iceland Shrimp Fleet. You
turned them on in October and shut them of end of June. Continuous running
at full load most of the time. Oil them with an oil can and watch the
piston go up and down and count the rpm. Can do repairs while they are
working. Long time ago, things probably changed now.
>
> Engine choice is narrowing down, with this Pietenpol list commentary, to
either Continental, or Corvair. Though the cheapness and ease of access for
a vehicle engine still titillates the mind. The Toyota 22 R is cheaply and
easily available. Can buy the whole car and drive it home, right here in
Opa Locka for $300. Valve and ring job, reduction gear and away we go. But
I need to hear somebody has done it, before first? I'm not into pioneering
with this bird. Didn't check the other day, but the Geo Metro is also a
likely choice, if I can change that rpm into torque at lower rpms? I'm not
overly sure about that?
> The questions in my mind on the Geo Metro is the rpm. I think it is
4400 rpm. It is a no full load car engine. We are going to lose half the
horsepower, so probably need the 1.6 liter, 4 cylinder model. Somebody
already has done the reduction gear experimentation. It is on the web.
Maybe Sports Aviation already have a construction technical article on it,
in a past magazine I can look at? I'm not sure of the horsepower. It is
quoted as 110 to 130 hp. That means available for the propeller is about
half that, or 55 to 65 hp. Now turning that into torque needs a reduction
gear. But you want at least 40 hp or equivalent of the torque the Model A
engine puts out with that very favorable weight to torque and horsepower
ration it has. That engine doesn't look stupid anymore at all.
> Lets say you want to run the Geo Metro at 2200 rpm, that is about 27 hp
cruising. Doesnt look like it would make it in the Geo Metro, unless the
torque developed from 2200 rpm with a 2 to 1 reduction, or a 2.5 reduction
would give the torque. I already deleted the math, that our good friend
gave us so eloquently on calculating torque. Maybe he could figure out this
Geo Metro, so we discard it from the discussion as not practical to turn an
84 inch propeller on the Pietenpol? Or go for it? Maybe do the same
calculations with the Toyota 22 R, please?
>
>
> On Sat, 02 February 2002, Larry Neal wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Very interesting comparisons regarding marine diesels. I'm trying to
> > imagine what rpm a 15hp diesel turns a 6ft ship propellor.
> >
> > Back to Piets though. Build the airplane as the designer intended and
> > you won't go wrong. It's proven and so is Bernie's approval of the
> > Corvair motor. Not that any others are wrong, better or what have ye.
> > This just means that the airframe and engine combination are well known
> > and proven time and again. Lots of cores, parts and advise too. Same
> > comment goes for A's, Continental 65's etc., workable, well proven.
> > Certified does mean more money though.
> >
> > Homebuilding though is supposed to be a process of experimentation
> > (that' why we get those cool placards). There is nothing wrong with
> > putting a diesel, turbine, lawn mover or other engine in a homebuilt.
> > All have been done, and there are some great flying ships in all these
> > categories! It's really about whether you want to experiment or fly,
> > and there's a range of options there.
> >
> > You may not have seen them yet, but the aero-diesels are for real, but
> > who knows when they'll be commercially available. When they do they'll
> > be powerful, lightweight and easy on fuel, but expen$ive for sure. Not
> > for me this go-around.
> >
> > Making your own redrive is a test of will. If you've got the patience,
> > machine tools and money though, not an insoluble problem. Most people I
> > have heard or read about have broken a couple or three before getting it
> > right though.
> >
> > Yes, marine outboards have been used before. A couple of well known
> > helicopters did this too. On problem that needs to be addressed though,
> > is that they are made to be cooled by water with at a constant
> > temperature of 40-80 degrees (ocean or lake water). I understand that a
> > radiator setup needs to either be very large to get the working
> > temperatures down, or the engine's internal clearance have to be fudged.
> > Probably not an huge problem as long as the cylinders are honeable and
> > not chromed.
> >
> > Larry
> > (There are so many tradeoff's in engineering I sometimes think it's a
> > miracle that we can fly at all. But then again it's amazing what people
> > get flying. )
> >
> > Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel powered aircraft. A
debating masochist started that, I am sure? I believe there have been such
things, but not sure, and also a steam engine aircraft. But I may be wrong,
it was a long time ago?
> > >
> > > But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all look at things from our
experience and background?
> > >Not considering diesels, but displacement boat hulls, big diameter
props, large reductions.
> > >
> > > Actually, the first thing I did, was measure the distance from
propeller hub to the ground, with the Pietenpol plane level and figure out
what is the biggest propeller diameter could be swung in this slow airplane?
I think it is 84 inch propeller from standard sizes. I forget now, but I
understand from reading, that a two blade, or three blade propeller gives
the maximum pull of air, in a given circle on a slow plane. In a
displacement boat hull, I want to move as much water as possible. In a
Pietenpol, I figured the same thing for a plane flying under 80 mph. That
means I want maximum propeller diameter.
> > > Working backwards, then, I need the least horsepower, depending on
engine rpm, and a reduction gear that will give me the most efficient way to
turn that propeller at less than it's maximum speed from stopping the tips
going supersonic. The type of engine then must be built for full load, like
a Continental, versus an automobile engine, which would have to be twice the
horsepower, because it is not engineered that way. Which in turn effects
weight.
> > > So, you can see how my experience and mind looks at the Pietenpol? I
choose the propeller first, then engine, based on needed weight and
horsepower, and fit a reduction gear between them, to match the output
desired. The propeller is fixed in this way of looking at things. The
variable is engine rpm, weight size and what ever other factors go into
gasoline aircraft engines. These are things I do not understand, like big
pistons requiring more block weight and small faster pistons moving at
higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am trying to understand. I had
already decided on the propeller diameter and also decided on the two blade
wood propeller from the reading on the subject I have done. But if someone
gave me a three bladed suitable propeller FREE, would probably use it, as
the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only slightly lower. But you
get added damping of vibrations with the three blade.
> > > I think a good reduction gear should take care of vibration?
> > >
> > > You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3 or 4 miles per hour
in water, with 15 hp and a 5 bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But
that requires a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises! Small boat
diesels, since World War 11, there haven't been any small salt water marine
diesels produced in the USA. They are all industrial, truck and other
equipment conversions, with slapped on water manifolds for the exhaust.
They are not designed to be totally salt water marine engines. They work
alright, but turn higher rpms and burn more fuel and do not last as long.
Whenever possible I bought Scandinavian in heavy low rpm small boat diesels.
The 30 tonne freight boat however, has a Caterpillar. This is an industrial
conversion, but the problem was draft and propeller diameter limitations and
horsepower required. A middling compromise.
> > >
> > > I think several people have mentioned the difference between
automobile engines that when converted, lose about half the horsepower in
the transition as working output to the propeller. Versus the Continental,
which is a full load thrust engine from get go?
> > >
> > > Got one friend down in Belize, an eccentric engineer, that insists
that I use an Outboard Yamaha engine, 125 hp. Light weight, high rpm, but
designed to work at full load all the time. Not like an automobile
conversion. He thinks it would be the answer to a light aircraft, better
than any automobile engine. Dont know myself, never read or seen one done?
Yamaha outboard engines are designed to run about 5000 hours. Or five years
in salt water climate. American Outboard motors are engineered to last 1800
hours before being finished, or about 1 1/2 years of operating of lobster
conditions in Belize along the Barrier Reef. Planned obsolescence!
> > >
> > > I have some ideas of course, but certainly the biggest two blade
propeller I can swing in a slow bird like the Pietenpol is one of them.
Then trying to see what engines are out there and what reduction gear I need
to get the propeller rpms I want.
> > >
> > > I have never built a plane, so I really have no knowledge of whether
I am on the right track or not? It is a new field. I enjoy the conflicting
opinions. I have some very virulent people writing me, both for and against
the Corvair. But experience tells! So I take that into account. One
writer already solved the qualms I had about the leaking oil and seals. He
said something back awhile, about there being newer type seals now, that
have solved that problem. I haven't really heard any other problem with the
Corvair conversion. So it is in the running. Lot of opinions on older
engines and metallurgy that sounds reasonable too. One of course has to
weigh opinions and advice, against what they are flying with for engine?
Five people flying Corvairs and satisfied and 2 against are better than my
eccentric engineer friend with his Yamaha Outboard advice, who has never
converted, or flown one.
> > >
> > > Then when it comes to reduction gears? Much has been written on this
subject for airplanes. For small homebuilts like the Pietenpol, all the
research points to the cogged belt reduction gear as the best choice. It
also dampens vibration, according to the literature and articles I have read
on it. So my reduction gear is basically chosen. Haven't found pulley
sources yet. But bit early in this building project. If I get a
Continental, the point becomes moot, as it is a full load engine, lower rpm
and can already match propellers in stock sizes.
> > >
> > >
> > >FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > >http://www.FindLaw.com
> > >Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > >http://mail.Justice.com
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
"piet discussion"
Subject: | Stromberg carb exploded view |
Found this on the web, for whoever might need it. My continental book
has the parts list, but no pic.
walt
http://pulsar.westmont.edu/aeronca/manual/stromberg/stromberg.jpg
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
Subject: | reply to John McNarry-model a torque |
Thanks Cliff.
Tried that site yesterday but no avail. I have a B extensively modified
already.
It has my own design oilpan and timing gear cover that allows the use of a
Subaru oil pump and filter, driven from a gear running off of the bottom of
the crank gear. The crank is drilled and I am now designing a new induction
system. I intend to mount an SU carb below the oil pan flange on the right
side. A tube carries through the pan under the center main and as it exits,
it curves up splitting in two to feed the intake runners. The hope is to get
the pulse length right so that it will take advantage of the ram effect of
the runners. I have a dyno built in anticipation of the running. If I
remember the specs from that BPA article the Brumfield head gave the best
performance. Anyone know who still makes a copy? Is Dan Price still casting
heads?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of clif
Subject: Pietenpol-List: reply to John McNarry-model a torque
The 1932 Flying and Glider Manual article by B.P. has a graph for the model
A.
It shows the hp to be 38 at 2250 rpm and a torque of 120 lb/ft at 1000 rpm
and
90 lb/ft at 2250. Go to BPA site,then click "ford fans" a ways down the list
is
"dynamometer testing the model A". This will get your motor turning. Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Gene Vickery" <h2opilot(at)cwo.com> |
Regarding conversions of automotive engines for use in airplanes,
reduction drives etc:
An excellent source of information can be found in KITPLANES Magazine.
The articles and ads cover all sorts of automotive conversions and
re-drives. In the August 2001 issue a series of articles started on the
subject of auto engines for aircraft. There's an ad, for example, for a
312 page book AUTO ENGINE CONVERSION BIBLE (Fiesta Publishing, P. O. Box
65106, Tucson, AZ 85728, Phone 800-823-6092). There are ads for engines
and for people who specialize in propellers, reduction drives, and
automotive conversions for all sorts of engines including Subaru, Mazda
rotary (haven't seen this one on the Piet site yet), Volkswagen,
Corvair, Chevrolet V-6 and V-8, Honda, and even turbine engines for sale
(wouldn't that be a sight....a turbine engine on a Pietenpol?). For you
GEO/SUZUKI fans a manual is available CONVERTING THE GEO/SUZUKI FOR
HOMEBUILT AIRCRAFT from Raven ReDrives Inc., 1025 Rosewood Ave., #100,
Boulder, CO 80304, Phone 303-440-6234. There are also ads for recently
developed engines suitable for aircraft such as the Hirth and of course
Rotax.
You might want to look at some of these web sites: www.vestaV8.com
www.AtkinsRotary.com www.stratus2000.homestead.com
www.carrprecision.com www.users.owt.com/worden www.raven-rotor.com
www.centralfloridaflyers.com www.rotaryaviation.com www.firewall.ca
www.funlandings.com
With all the technical discussion regarding horsepower, torque,
displacement, reduction drives, and propellers, I haven't heard much on
this site about RELIABILITY. Certified aircraft engines have a
recommended TBO (time between overhaul) of 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and
thus have a great deal of reliability built into them. The TBO on the
Model A in an airplane has been estimated to be about 200 hours. The TBO
of a converted GEO/SUZUKI has not been established.
If you're going down the highway in your pickup and the engine quits you
can usually manage to coast off to the shoulder, get on your cell phone,
and call the Auto Club. In 50 years of flying I have had two engine
failures, and in both instances I was lucky enough to make it to an
airport and get the plane down without bending anything or breaking any
bones. I can tell you from experience that when your airplane turns
into a glider one of your concerns becomes the integrity of your seat
belt/shoulder harness restraint system.
I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
Gene Vickery
Tehachapi, California
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
For those still interested in the Subaru engines -- look up "Airsoob" in
your favorite search engine -- Yahoo has archives back '97 -- Dragonfly guys
are running direct drive only because they can (fast cruise & low drag
airframe)
Suba have been my favorite "commute" -- engine is a long running (150k
easy -- longer with good care -- even then the cylinder bore is real good --
.005 (??) ridge) Engine dry weight = 180# less radiator (use a VW Rabbit
plastic on!) Negatives -- Cam shaft runs in the case without bearings --
like the old "Bugs" (before '67 -- don't ask why I know! ;-)
Dark thought -- (1) VW may not fly a Piet -- but (2) of them would supply
the same prop disk as a 72" dia prop -- I remember a guy at EAA convention
at Rockford, IL (old days!!) named Lacey that rigged up his plane with (2)
VWs with a frame work off the fire wall -- the 2 engines were 2 1/2ft each
side of center line -- he said it flew about as good as with the c-85 it
had the year before (!?)
Too bad the old Olds 215cu in V-8 is scarce (what Steve Wittman used in his
O&O Special)-- enough cubes, direct drive, & the look of a "baby Hisso" in
your Piet!!
If anyone finds out more about the "Iron Duke" Piet, please let us know --
It's a real common engine (like the S-10 & S-15 pickups )
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: Subaru engine
>
>
> Interesting question Skip, but I would not have an answer to that for an
airplane.
> I always chose heavy duty diesels, low rpm, heavy flywheel and if possible
and prop space, the biggest reduction gear I could get with the biggest
propeller I could swing. But was never into high speed boats. Displacement
hulls that can carry a load at hull speed for a thousand miles and still
only run through a drum or two of diesel.
>
> Weight and speed are incompatible. Time and hours traveled, are cheaper
than fuel, for me.
> Still got a 30 ton cargo boat down in Belize running. She can carry
18,000 of lumber, or cement, or what have you a few hundred miles on a drum
of diesel.
>
>
> On Sat, 02 February 2002, "Skip Gadd" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > [Original Message]
> > > From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > > To:
> > > Date: 3/7/02 9:22:48 AM
> > >Unfortunately, I do not know much about engines, outside of small
marine
> > >diesels.
> >
> > Ray,
> > There are a couple groups doing research on diesel engines for aircraft
use.
> > What can you tell us about small marine diesels:
> > Weight?
> > Power output?
> > What RPM the power is made at?
> >
> > Pietenpols can use relatively heavy engines and look good with a
radiator.
> > Skip, an almost old fart(53) Corvair guy.
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
-----Original Message-----
With all the technical discussion regarding horsepower, torque,
displacement, reduction drives, and propellers, I haven't heard much on
this site about RELIABILITY. Certified aircraft engines have a
recommended TBO (time between overhaul) of 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and
thus have a great deal of reliability built into them. The TBO on the
Model A in an airplane has been estimated to be about 200 hours. The TBO
of a converted GEO/SUZUKI has not been established.
If you're going down the highway in your pickup and the engine quits you
can usually manage to coast off to the shoulder, get on your cell phone,
and call the Auto Club. In 50 years of flying I have had two engine
failures, and in both instances I was lucky enough to make it to an
airport and get the plane down without bending anything or breaking any
bones. I can tell you from experience that when your airplane turns
into a glider one of your concerns becomes the integrity of your seat
belt/shoulder harness restraint system.
I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
Gene Vickery
Tehachapi, California
Well put, Gene. There are ways to cut costs in building a Pietenpol without
resorting to strange unproven engines. After all, Steve Eldridge built his
with a Continental for around $5,000. Flying is dangerous enough without
adding more risks.
Jack Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
-----Original Message-----
Subaru Negatives -- Cam shaft runs in the case without bearings --
like the old "Bugs" (before '67 -- don't ask why I know! ;-)
-Nothing wrong with that, Mike. My Continental A-65 camshaft runs directly
in the case with no bearings. Camshaft journals don't see a lot of load,
and the cam in the Continental runs at 1/2 crankshaft speed.
Too bad the old Olds 215cu in V-8 is scarce (what Steve Wittman used in his
O&O Special)-- enough cubes, direct drive, & the look of a "baby Hisso" in
your Piet!!
I think you're referring to the Buick aluminum block V-8 that they offered
in 1962. It is a very good engine, but GM decided in their infinite wisdom
that no one would want a small V-8, so they sold the whole thing, including
all the tooling, to Rover. What do you think powers all those Land Rovers
today? Same engine. A friend of mine has three of those engines, plus a
lot of spare parts. I have thought about doing a conversion project on it
using one of his engines, but the same arguments that have already surfaced
have held me back. It would be a lot of trouble to develop something with a
power to weight ratio inferior to a certified aircraft engine and with
questionable reliability. It would look cool, though.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the aluminum |
Jack,
I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that conversion
plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where the
plans are for the Tailwind.
If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil pressure
at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to transfer
the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal can.
If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the engine
is assembled and run.
Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
longevity.
Chris Bobka
Tech Counselor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Subaru engine
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>
> Subaru Negatives -- Cam shaft runs in the case without bearings --
> like the old "Bugs" (before '67 -- don't ask why I know! ;-)
>
> -Nothing wrong with that, Mike. My Continental A-65 camshaft runs
directly
> in the case with no bearings. Camshaft journals don't see a lot of load,
> and the cam in the Continental runs at 1/2 crankshaft speed.
>
>
> Too bad the old Olds 215cu in V-8 is scarce (what Steve Wittman used in
his
> O&O Special)-- enough cubes, direct drive, & the look of a "baby Hisso" in
> your Piet!!
>
> I think you're referring to the Buick aluminum block V-8 that they offered
> in 1962. It is a very good engine, but GM decided in their infinite
wisdom
> that no one would want a small V-8, so they sold the whole thing,
including
> all the tooling, to Rover. What do you think powers all those Land Rovers
> today? Same engine. A friend of mine has three of those engines, plus a
> lot of spare parts. I have thought about doing a conversion project on it
> using one of his engines, but the same arguments that have already
surfaced
> have held me back. It would be a lot of trouble to develop something with
a
> power to weight ratio inferior to a certified aircraft engine and with
> questionable reliability. It would look cool, though.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
I always find the engine reliability discussion interesting. In
reasonable terrain, (note that I said that), you can land a slow,
lightly loaded airplane almost anywhere. The Piet's a good example.
The key to successful outlandings is low stall speed and short field
capability, which the Piet has. Training, experience and good judgment
are also critical factors.
Talk to glider pilots, especially the ones in competition, about
outlandings. Sailplanes go hundreds of mile without an engine, totally
at the mercy of random thermals and the pilot's skill. Landouts are
extremely common, in fact mundane. I've done about 25 myself. In
competition is it common to landout roughly once every two or three
days! I have seen a contest in which the entire field of 20 aircraft
all landed out, every darned one. It does happen, but I've never seen
anyone get hurt.
I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but here in the plains of
Texas where I fly, I would consider an engine failure in a Piet/Cub/150
at anything over 2000ft as ranging from relatively exciting to just a
damned nuisance. Of course in saying this, it only takes one more
variable, the unseen power line, ditch or obstacle to produce a tragedy,
so I wouldn't go looking for this if I don't have too.
On the other hand, the glide ratio of a Piet can be duplicated by
tossing your car keys across the room. Keep this in mind with any
engine while putting along at 1000ft!
Gasoline adds another real risk exposure that you don't have in gliders.
You'll remember to shut off the gas and kill the ignition as part of
engine out drill right?
Did you put a fuel shut off valve and battery solenoid in your airplane?
Remember that we're dealing with statistical certainty here. At some
point any engine will fail on you. I agree that "amateur engines" (I
like that phrase) are not guaranteed to be as reliable as certified, but
think that some can be. This all boils down to doing all you can to
reduce risk.
Everyone, all of us, should get instruction and practice on off-field
landing and always have a landing field selected while flying. Better
yet, get some glider time and get over the fear factor of "dead stick".
This will increase your safety factor tremendously in any terrain and
any aircraft. My personal opinion is that panic has a lot to do with
killing people when the engine goes quiet.
That's my two cents, I think that training, preparation and a good
motor are the best safety factors you can buy. Yes, I'll run a Corvair
but it'll be a good one and if it packs it in, I'll be as prepared as I
can be. I strongly recommend getting checked out in a glider, you'll
love it and you'll learn a lot.
Larry
(too much coffee this morning)
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
>With all the technical discussion regarding horsepower, torque,
>displacement, reduction drives, and propellers, I haven't heard much on
>this site about RELIABILITY. Certified aircraft engines have a
>recommended TBO (time between overhaul) of 1,500 to 2,000 hours, and
>thus have a great deal of reliability built into them. The TBO on the
>Model A in an airplane has been estimated to be about 200 hours. The TBO
>of a converted GEO/SUZUKI has not been established.
>
>If you're going down the highway in your pickup and the engine quits you
>can usually manage to coast off to the shoulder, get on your cell phone,
>and call the Auto Club. In 50 years of flying I have had two engine
>failures, and in both instances I was lucky enough to make it to an
>airport and get the plane down without bending anything or breaking any
>bones. I can tell you from experience that when your airplane turns
>into a glider one of your concerns becomes the integrity of your seat
>belt/shoulder harness restraint system.
>
>I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
>understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
>risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
>engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
>you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
>building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
>budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
>safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
>of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
>gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
>
>Gene Vickery
>Tehachapi, California
>
>Well put, Gene. There are ways to cut costs in building a Pietenpol without
>resorting to strange unproven engines. After all, Steve Eldridge built his
>with a Continental for around $5,000. Flying is dangerous enough without
>adding more risks.
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Subject: | Aircraft engines in the Piet |
Fellow Pieters: If there is an argument for never using an aircraft
engine in the Piet, it would be for appearance. To understand what I
mean, look on p. 6 of the latest BPA News letter. All Pietenpols with
aircraft engines all seem to have their engines low slung on the
firewall causing this massive step down on their cowling. This look is
awful no matter how good a job the builder does covering the engine.
Other aircraft in the Piet. class don't do this. Look at the Pixy on
last month's Sport Av. Also there is a Baby Ace in the same issue. Their
fuselage top makes a smooth straight line clear out to the nose bowl. I
presume BHP designed the engine mt. to put the Cont. prop hub on the
same thrust line as it was with the
ford A. Is this necessary? Those other 2 Piet. like airplanes have their
engines setting much higher than in the Piet, and have a good looking
appearance. Maybe you design engineer type can explain why the engine on
the Piet must set so low. Can it be mounted higher for appearance sake
and not effect performance or handling? I'm building with the Model A,
but always considering that I may have to change engines latter as so
many others have done. If the Piet had never been built with the Model
A, only with the low slung aircraft engine with step down cowl (i'm
being nice when I only say step down cowl. There are other adjective I
could add), I would never have considered building it, strictly because
of thee look. An added note on water cooling. If you can stand the
extra weight and complexity, your engine will cool more efficiently and
run leaner than with air cooling. Dave Blanton who did the work on the
Ford V6's several years ago use to call air cooled engines "fuel cooled"
because so much raw gas was ran threw them to cool the cht. He said a
Cont. 65 tat burned 4 gph. could e cut down to about 2 gph. with water
cooling.Doesn't sound like much, but If the Arabs turn off the oil
spigot, (they already hate us) 2 gph could suddenly be $10 or more in
operating expense. Leon S. At 50 and already practicing to be an old
fart. Just yesterday I backed into the street without first looking
back.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Aircraft engines in the Piet |
-----Original Message-----
I presume BHP designed the engine mt. to put the Cont. prop hub on the
same thrust line as it was with the ford A. Is this necessary? Those other 2
Piet. like airplanes have their
engines setting much higher than in the Piet, and have a good looking
appearance. Maybe you design engineer type can explain why the engine on
the Piet must set so low. Can it be mounted higher for appearance sake
and not effect performance or handling?
Generally, airplanes are designed with the thrust line of the engine in line
with the top longeron of the fuselage. One reason few upright inline
engines are used in aircraft is that the cylinder bank sticks up too high,
restricting visibility and increasing drag. The early DeHavillands used an
inline 4 cylinder engine called the Gypsy, but lacked somewhat in forward
visibility, so the engine was inverted and it became known as the Gypsy
Major. This was the engine that powered the Tiger Moth. In this country,
both Ranger and Menasco made inline aircraft engines, and to my knowledge,
all were inverted.
I think Mike Cuy and Frank Pavliga have both done good jobs in cowling their
flat four Continentals. I've also seen some less successful attempts. To
each his own.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the aluminum |
-----Original Message-----
Jack,
I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that conversion
plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where the
plans are for the Tailwind.
If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil pressure
at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to transfer
the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal can.
If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the engine
is assembled and run.
Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
longevity.
Chris Bobka
Tech Counselor
I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do before
rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled by
milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage and
found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old worn
out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is quite
possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | Re: Aircraft engines in the Piet |
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aircraft engines in the Piet
-----Original Message-----
................ Maybe you design engineer type can explain why the
engine on
the Piet must set so low. Can it be mounted higher for appearance sake
and not effect performance or handling?................
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Piet was designed for the Ford engine. If it was mounted higher,
it would obstruct the radiator.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Re: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the aluminum |
Jack,
It is good to see you checked that troublesome area. Milling the case opens
another whole can of worms. It moves the cylinders closer to the crankshaft
centerline. You have to also check the clearance on the connecting rod
bolts to the bottom of the cylinder barrels (dry assemble one side and look
through from the other side and then swap side for side). Also, it moves
the tops of the valve pushrods out and you may wind up not getting your
deflated valve lifter clearance we talked about a few weeks ago of .3 to.11
inches. This would necessitate getting the shorter pushrods made up
(someone says that Fresno Airparts has these). Also, if the valve seats are
ground deep, then you take away this clearance as well.
An engine machinist friend says that bearing inserts are available in just
about any concievable size and even custom ones can be made for less than
the cost of sending out the case.
Your cam can have the lobe rewelded, ground, and hardened. If yo are to
have the case reworked, you could have the journals on the cam turned down
and then have the case remachined to fit, that way you have material you can
take off next time you do and overhaul.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Jack,
>
> I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
> talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that
conversion
> plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where
the
> plans are for the Tailwind.
>
> If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil
pressure
> at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
> My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
> series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
> today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
>
> The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to
transfer
> the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
> journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
> the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
> the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal
can.
>
> If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
> area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
> makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the
engine
> is assembled and run.
>
> Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
> longevity.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> Tech Counselor
>
>
> I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do
before
> rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled
by
> milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
> measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage
and
> found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
> one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old
worn
> out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
>
> The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
> have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
> camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is
quite
> possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "rte" <rte(at)ipa.net> |
anyone out there building the steel fuse? I'm looking for some ideas
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Jack,
>
> I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
> talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that
conversion
> plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where
the
> plans are for the Tailwind.
>
> If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil
pressure
> at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
> My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
> series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
> today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
>
> The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to
transfer
> the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
> journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
> the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
> the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal
can.
>
> If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
> area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
> makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the
engine
> is assembled and run.
>
> Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
> longevity.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> Tech Counselor
>
>
> I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do
before
> rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled
by
> milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
> measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage
and
> found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
> one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old
worn
> out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
>
> The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
> have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
> camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is
quite
> possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Subject: | certified engines |
With all this talk of engines , from old car engines to certified
engines, I was talking to my mentor/AP today. He came down to check
out my engine that wasn't running right. (A 65) Turns out that I have
leaky valves that when I rebuilt the engine, I only lapped in the valves
to the seats, and assumed it was ok. He put a gadget on each cylinder,
one at a time to check compression, that looked like the old tire
pressure tools with a slide that came out to give the tire pressure.
One by one we checked eack cyl. through three compressions. The front 2
were above 70, the left rear was 62, and the right rear was 40 ish.
Oh well, so much for my basement mechanics. Now I'm pulling off the
cylinders to have him regrind the valve seats and the valves, if
necessary. His advise was, if you do just the bad ones, the others will
just come back to bite you on the ass later.
Doesn't matter cause I still have a wing to cover.
Guess what I'm getting at is that if anyone is interested in a A80
engine, He has one that he took off a Cassut Racer to put on an O200.
This guy is more qualified on planes than I know, and probably will ever
know. He rebuilt the A80, it was magnefluxed and brought up to a 0
time engine. Guess it comes with papers or logs , I'm not sure, but it
could be put in a certified plane.
If you ever heard of the late Leo Loudenschlager the many time world
champ pilot, this guy did the mods and recovering, repairs, etc, on
Leos plane. So he's good. But he's not a money grubber, only does what
he loves to do.
An engine like this would be an investment, but it would always be worth
what you paid for it, because with the logs, it could always be sold and
put in a certified airplane.
Sorry to go on and on, but if anyone wants an engine that they can bolt
on and fly away (or knows anyone in need of a A80 for a certified
plane) , let me know , and I'll put you in touch with him.
walt
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Mike King" <mikek120(at)mindspring.com> |
Subject: | Re: certified engines |
Walt,
I have an A-80 in my GN-1 which has a couple of hundred
hours on it, but would be interested in knowing more about
your friends engine.
Please email me or have your friend contact me with the
particulars. My phone number in Dallas is 214 905-9299.
Thanks.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
----- Original Message -----
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: certified engines
>
> With all this talk of engines , from old car engines to certified
> engines, I was talking to my mentor/AP today. He came down to check
> out my engine that wasn't running right. (A 65) Turns out that I have
> leaky valves that when I rebuilt the engine, I only lapped in the valves
> to the seats, and assumed it was ok. He put a gadget on each cylinder,
> one at a time to check compression, that looked like the old tire
> pressure tools with a slide that came out to give the tire pressure.
> One by one we checked eack cyl. through three compressions. The front 2
> were above 70, the left rear was 62, and the right rear was 40 ish.
> Oh well, so much for my basement mechanics. Now I'm pulling off the
> cylinders to have him regrind the valve seats and the valves, if
> necessary. His advise was, if you do just the bad ones, the others will
> just come back to bite you on the ass later.
> Doesn't matter cause I still have a wing to cover.
> Guess what I'm getting at is that if anyone is interested in a A80
> engine, He has one that he took off a Cassut Racer to put on an O200.
> This guy is more qualified on planes than I know, and probably will ever
> know. He rebuilt the A80, it was magnefluxed and brought up to a 0
> time engine. Guess it comes with papers or logs , I'm not sure, but it
> could be put in a certified plane.
> If you ever heard of the late Leo Loudenschlager the many time world
> champ pilot, this guy did the mods and recovering, repairs, etc, on
> Leos plane. So he's good. But he's not a money grubber, only does what
> he loves to do.
> An engine like this would be an investment, but it would always be worth
> what you paid for it, because with the logs, it could always be sold and
> put in a certified airplane.
> Sorry to go on and on, but if anyone wants an engine that they can bolt
> on and fly away (or knows anyone in need of a A80 for a certified
> plane) , let me know , and I'll put you in touch with him.
> walt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Excuse a newbie. But what is GN-1 ? I think it was explained to me once, as
anything other than an original purist built Pietenpol.
But where does the number come from and do you stick it on the plane someplace?
Another question, if you decide you want to swing an 84 inch propellor. How
many revolutions, or what is the maximum rpm you can swing it, before you get
into that supersonic tip thing?
What is the upper rpm on an 84 inch propellor, if you are trying to figure out
backwards, engine size and reduction gears?
There are probably books all over the place with statistical tables of this for
engineers?
--------------------------
I was glad to get that site with all the Subaru conversions. Going to take a
good look at it later.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "B F Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net> |
Subject: | Re: 2.5 gm engine |
I have located a picture and some info on the gm 2.5 iron duke powered
piet.It is called the "poplar piet" as it was made from a poplar tree.It is
in www.pietenpol.org in images in line 42.The writing is hard to read but
maybe someone with a large screen can read it.Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Subaru engine
>
> If anyone finds out more about the "Iron Duke" Piet, please let us know --
> It's a real common engine (like the S-10 & S-15 pickups )
>
> Mike C.
> Pretty Prairie, KS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Subject: | Re: steel tube fuse |
rte(at)ipa.net asked:
> anyone out there building the steel fuse? I'm looking for some ideas
Thinking about it, mainly because it's lighter than the wood version,
and I really enjoy welding. I'm just not fully convinced that it's still
a Piet, even if the original designer did offer steel as an alternative.
What sort of ideas are you looking for? Maybe I've had one.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: | Re: Sports Aviation articles wanted? |
From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
This is for the Fisherman
I think I have the book that you are looking for. It was written by Alvin
Schubert.
The name is "How I Make Wood Propellers" The book was never sold Al gave
them to friends that had an interest in carving props. He talkes about
the trouble Bernard
Pietenpol had finding a prop for his first corvair Pete. Alvin carved
him a prop
that was to small causing the engine to over rev. Alvin carved him a
second prop
that worked. They were surprised at the power the corvair put out.
Bernard was real proud of this prop.
This book has some simple formulas for figuring prop length & pitch.
A lot of prop airfoil for different props. Lot of information on wood &
glue.
How to clamp a blank.
If you want a copy send me your snail mail address.
I'll try to find a copy machine.
I just finished Duplicating a prop for our Pete and I used a lot of
information
from this book.
Dale Mpls,
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "William Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net> |
Correction on the location.it is www.aircamper.org...Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: "B F Dearinger" <mrclean(at)arkansas.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 2.5 gm engine
>
> I have located a picture and some info on the gm 2.5 iron duke powered
> piet.It is called the "poplar piet" as it was made from a poplar tree.It
is
> in www.pietenpol.org in images in line 42.The writing is hard to read but
> maybe someone with a large screen can read it.Bill
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Subaru engine
> >
> > If anyone finds out more about the "Iron Duke" Piet, please let us
know --
> > It's a real common engine (like the S-10 & S-15 pickups )
> >
> > Mike C.
> > Pretty Prairie, KS
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/3/02 12:31:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, h2opilot(at)cwo.com
writes:
<< I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
Gene Vickery
Tehachapi, California
>>
VERY Very good comments. For the extra savings in weight and reliability the
wood and the engine are places that are up to the pilot / builder. I would
like to weigh the cost / weight as well as the cost / reliability to come up
with a place somewhere in the middle, that I can afford. How much is your
life worth ? True we are experimenters and will accept some risk or we
wouldn't be building, but its best to reduce the risk with the knowledge that
we will have to pay with either money or wegith penalties to decrease the
risk.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
John Grega redesigned the aircraft to make use of many J3 Cub parts that
used to be so plentiful. I started on one before I knew the difference. They
are both good as built. The Piet is more adaptable.
John Mc
Pi D gives circumference. If you work it out in feet then the prop tip speed
should stay below the speed of sound.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject:
Excuse a newbie. But what is GN-1 ? I think it was explained to me once,
as anything other than an original purist built Pietenpol.
But where does the number come from and do you stick it on the plane
someplace?
Another question, if you decide you want to swing an 84 inch propellor.
How many revolutions, or what is the maximum rpm you can swing it, before
you get into that supersonic tip thing?
What is the upper rpm on an 84 inch propellor, if you are trying to figure
out backwards, engine size and reduction gears?
There are probably books all over the place with statistical tables of
this for engineers?
--------------------------
I was glad to get that site with all the Subaru conversions. Going to
take a good look at it later.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
I don't think any of us are suggesting that we take risks like just bolting
on an engine twanging a wire and lighting the fire. We do this for
reacreation and education. Any enginge is a collection of parts flying in
formation. i trust the timed out engine in the PA 12 more than I would if it
was brand new. Brand new is nice but it also is unknown. We should be
testing our design changes, making certain they are improvements or
for-going them. I have a Dyno that I built for our RAAC chapter it has been
used to test several certified engines with acceptable results. I can assure
you that untill I am satisfied my homebuilt engine performs as expected, in
all areas, it won't be lifting me from terra firma! The "Low and slow since
1929" slogan is neat, but air beneath when that engine quits sure feels
good.
The last engine outage I had was in a Mk2 Harvard at about 2500 agl. The PIC
pushed the nose down and about the same time I saw 0 fuel pressure, he
switched the tanks and I hit the wobble pump. Sounds neat with the prop
driving 9. Sounds better with 9 driving the prop. Superstitious? I was
wearing a chute! would it have quit if I wasn't? The point is be prepared!
Be cautious! Have fun!
Test everything!
Questions: Does the short moment arm of the fuse with a heavier engine and
wing forward for CofG cause signifigant handling differences than a light
engine on a longer mount and with the wing back for Cof G ? Any one out
there familiar with both configurations?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Dmott9(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engines
In a message dated 2/3/02 12:31:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
h2opilot(at)cwo.com
writes:
<< I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "rte" <rte(at)ipa.net> |
anyone building the steel fuse?
thanks
Robert Bozeman
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | McNarry question |
John,
Any vertical surface area forward of the Center of Pressure will tend to
destabilize. This is why we see floatplanes with additional vertical
surface area aft to offset the destabilizing effect of the float's vertical
surfaces forward, the majority of which are forward.
Since the A-65 is lighter than the Model A, it is imperative that the motor
be mounted farther forward to keep the ship in balance. The additional
cowling area needed will destabilize. Those that have used the spoked
wheels that are fabric covered have also noticed(complained) about the
destabilizing effect.
A fix would be to build slightly oversize vertical stab and rudder, moreso
the stabilizer. No one would really notice and you would have a sweeter
flying ship. This would have to be worked into the design from day one of
the fuselage build up.
Chris Bobka
Tech Counselor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
McNarry
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engines
I don't think any of us are suggesting that we take risks like just bolting
on an engine twanging a wire and lighting the fire. We do this for
reacreation and education. Any enginge is a collection of parts flying in
formation. i trust the timed out engine in the PA 12 more than I would if it
was brand new. Brand new is nice but it also is unknown. We should be
testing our design changes, making certain they are improvements or
for-going them. I have a Dyno that I built for our RAAC chapter it has been
used to test several certified engines with acceptable results. I can assure
you that untill I am satisfied my homebuilt engine performs as expected, in
all areas, it won't be lifting me from terra firma! The "Low and slow since
1929" slogan is neat, but air beneath when that engine quits sure feels
good.
The last engine outage I had was in a Mk2 Harvard at about 2500 agl. The PIC
pushed the nose down and about the same time I saw 0 fuel pressure, he
switched the tanks and I hit the wobble pump. Sounds neat with the prop
driving 9. Sounds better with 9 driving the prop. Superstitious? I was
wearing a chute! would it have quit if I wasn't? The point is be prepared!
Be cautious! Have fun!
Test everything!
Questions: Does the short moment arm of the fuse with a heavier engine and
wing forward for CofG cause signifigant handling differences than a light
engine on a longer mount and with the wing back for Cof G ? Any one out
there familiar with both configurations?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Dmott9(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engines
In a message dated 2/3/02 12:31:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
h2opilot(at)cwo.com
writes:
<< I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
________________________________________________________________________________
About 3050rpm at standard temperature and pressure with a generic formula of
((diameter*3.1416)/12)*3050*60/5280=762
Speed of sound at STP= 763
It should be (and has been on this list I believe) argued that the
above formula is flawed because it doesn't take into account the prop
moving forward as it spins (like a cork screw), but for a rough idea
I think 3000rpm would be safe
If i'm off on the formula above, someone let me know.
Hope this helps
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
It seems like you would need some pretty tall landing gear to swing
an 84" prop on a Piet and still have the recommended 9" or clearance
from the ground with the tail up in flying position. I think the
"standard" for Piets is around 64" diameter.
Just a thought
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
The correct deflated valve lifter clearance on the A-65 is .03 to.11 not .3
to .11 inches. I hereby correct myself. I left out a zero.
Chris Bobka
tech Counselor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
Jack,
It is good to see you checked that troublesome area. Milling the case opens
another whole can of worms. It moves the cylinders closer to the crankshaft
centerline. You have to also check the clearance on the connecting rod
bolts to the bottom of the cylinder barrels (dry assemble one side and look
through from the other side and then swap side for side). Also, it moves
the tops of the valve pushrods out and you may wind up not getting your
deflated valve lifter clearance we talked about a few weeks ago of .3 to.11
inches. This would necessitate getting the shorter pushrods made up
(someone says that Fresno Airparts has these). Also, if the valve seats are
ground deep, then you take away this clearance as well.
An engine machinist friend says that bearing inserts are available in just
about any concievable size and even custom ones can be made for less than
the cost of sending out the case.
Your cam can have the lobe rewelded, ground, and hardened. If yo are to
have the case reworked, you could have the journals on the cam turned down
and then have the case remachined to fit, that way you have material you can
take off next time you do and overhaul.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Jack,
>
> I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
> talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that
conversion
> plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where
the
> plans are for the Tailwind.
>
> If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil
pressure
> at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
> My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
> series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
> today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
>
> The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to
transfer
> the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
> journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
> the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
> the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal
can.
>
> If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
> area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
> makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the
engine
> is assembled and run.
>
> Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
> longevity.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> Tech Counselor
>
>
> I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do
before
> rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled
by
> milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
> measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage
and
> found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
> one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old
worn
> out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
>
> The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
> have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
> camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is
quite
> possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kirk & Laura Huizenga" <kirkh@unique-software.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 84 in Prop
Kirk,
Mr. Pietenpol used props in the 76" dia range x 40" or 42" pitch and cruised
his Ford engine at about 16 hundred rpm. His belief was that the engine
should turn the same rpm as in the Model A at 35 mph.
Cheers,
John Dilatush MX114D - Making a prop duplicator so I can make the prop to go
flying!
<kirkh@unique-software.com>
>
> It seems like you would need some pretty tall landing gear to swing
> an 84" prop on a Piet and still have the recommended 9" or clearance
> from the ground with the tail up in flying position. I think the
> "standard" for Piets is around 64" diameter.
>
> Just a thought
> Kirk
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
Subject: | Re: McNarry question |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: McNarry question
> cowling area needed will destabilize. Those that have used the spoked
> wheels that are fabric covered have also noticed(complained) about the
> destabilizing effect.
This was noticed by some of the "early birds" & WW1 pilots that the wheel
covers made some flying machines more prone to spins.
"Design of the Airplane" by Darrol Stinton has a Chapter on Lateral Stab. on
figuring tail sizes by way of cardboard cutout being balanced at a centroid
a distance behind the guessed CG.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | DonanClara(at)aol.com |
Subject: | Re: 2.5 gm engine |
I never heard it called the Iron Duke but the plane several folks have
described was built by Larry Harrison and he flies it from his own strip in
Climax, Georgia. It flies great and has many hours on it. Larry also built a
Piet Scout...also with an auto engine and is currently about halfway through
building a Boredom Fighter. It wouldn't surprise me to see him put another
auto engine in that too !! Don H.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
Subject: | reduction gearing and props |
Fisherman,
You have a pretty good understanding of propellor efficiency, it is true
that with a draggy airframe like a Pietenpol that you need to move a
large volume of air at a relatively low speed with a large disk area.
With my Subaru engine, I have it geared down 2.35:1 which means at 3500
engine rpm, the prop is only turning a little less than 1500 rpm. Of
course I have to use an 80 x 52 prop with a very wide chord of the
blade. I am using a pattern that a friend of mine used, and his Subaru
engine (not turbocharged as mine is), turned 4400 rpm at about the same
field elevation. Since my turbocharged engine develops it's max hp at
4800 rpm, I expect that mine will turn up full 4800 static rpm here.
A little more on the engine. I left the stock flywheel on and then
bolted the clutch plate in position so the clutch springs could absorb
the torsional impulses from the engine. Works like a dream, engine w/o
prop at this stage is smooth as silk.
John Dilatush, NX114D - Making the duplicating machine to make the prop
so I can go flying!
Salida, Colorado
PS. There is a ultra-lite Newport replica flying with a motorcycle
Yamaha 1000cc engine that is geared down 4:1 through the stock
transmission swinging a huge prop. You can almost see the blades
turning at cruise I am told and count the blades at idle. Plane flys
great!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol engine choices. |
There goes my post one more time...
Does someone on the list remember the book about
airplanes performance and design by Mr. Crawford?
This is a great book, hope Mr. Crawford is still
around, very brillant, I had the chance to call him by
phone (international long di$tance) for advice in the
early 90's, but was worth every minute of his coments.
This book worked around conections betwen (very easy)
formulas in a line... used letter size pages to conect
two known numbers, with a ruler and pencil, to get a
third unknown value, and so on, until we got
everything we needed...
Well, my point is this: Using his easy formulas we
could find out (from several other important data) how
much HP was needed for take off and how much HP was
needed to maintain level flight (cruise). It was
something very interesting because with some aircrafts
(homebuilds) the HP needed to maintain level flight
was less than (maybe,if I remember correct) about no
more than 25 or 30% the HP needed for take off, the
KR1 was one of those airplanes.
My point, is to find out what engine conversion could
"hold" (for example) the Piet in cruise with 2,500
RPMs (65 mph cruise in OD {5th gear} in my manual
transmision 1988 Ford Pick Up six in line)... for
engine life, using maybe 3,500 RPMS (the "passing"
rpm range in my Ford Pick up) for take off and
ascending in periods of no more than 3 to 5 minutes at
the time.
I am not saying to use this particular engine, but to
use THIS engine RPMS range once the correct reduction
and propeller is found, Because I think that the USA
engines were design to last for ever in this
conditions (at least the 1,000 + hours until overhaul
we need in our airplanes.
I think my idea is not that crazy. What do you think?
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
> Larry
>
> Hundstedt diesels, one piston, 15 hp. About 90
> rpm. Made in Finland I think, but not much anymore.
> Used to run the Iceland Shrimp Fleet. You turned
> them on in October and shut them of end of June.
> Continuous running at full load most of the time.
> Oil them with an oil can and watch the piston go up
> and down and count the rpm. Can do repairs while
> they are working. Long time ago, things probably
> changed now.
>
> Engine choice is narrowing down, with this
> Pietenpol list commentary, to either Continental, or
> Corvair. Though the cheapness and ease of access
> for a vehicle engine still titillates the mind. The
> Toyota 22 R is cheaply and easily available. Can
> buy the whole car and drive it home, right here in
> Opa Locka for $300. Valve and ring job, reduction
> gear and away we go. But I need to hear somebody
> has done it, before first? I'm not into pioneering
> with this bird. Didn't check the other day, but the
> Geo Metro is also a likely choice, if I can change
> that rpm into torque at lower rpms? I'm not overly
> sure about that?
> The questions in my mind on the Geo Metro is the
> rpm. I think it is 4400 rpm. It is a no full load
> car engine. We are going to lose half the
> horsepower, so probably need the 1.6 liter, 4
> cylinder model. Somebody already has done the
> reduction gear experimentation. It is on the web.
> Maybe Sports Aviation already have a construction
> technical article on it, in a past magazine I can
> look at? I'm not sure of the horsepower. It is
> quoted as 110 to 130 hp. That means available for
> the propeller is about half that, or 55 to 65 hp.
> Now turning that into torque needs a reduction gear.
> But you want at least 40 hp or equivalent of the
> torque the Model A engine puts out with that very
> favorable weight to torque and horsepower ration it
> has. That engine doesn't look stupid anymore at
> all.
> Lets say you want to run the Geo Metro at 2200
> rpm, that is about 27 hp cruising. Doesnt look like
> it would make it in the Geo Metro, unless the torque
> developed from 2200 rpm with a 2 to 1 reduction, or
> a 2.5 reduction would give the torque. I already
> deleted the math, that our good friend gave us so
> eloquently on calculating torque. Maybe he could
> figure out this Geo Metro, so we discard it from the
> discussion as not practical to turn an 84 inch
> propeller on the Pietenpol? Or go for it? Maybe do
> the same calculations with the Toyota 22 R, please?
>
>
> On Sat, 02 February 2002, Larry Neal wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > Very interesting comparisons regarding marine
> diesels. I'm trying to
> > imagine what rpm a 15hp diesel turns a 6ft ship
> propellor.
> >
> > Back to Piets though. Build the airplane as the
> designer intended and
> > you won't go wrong. It's proven and so is
> Bernie's approval of the
> > Corvair motor. Not that any others are wrong,
> better or what have ye.
> > This just means that the airframe and engine
> combination are well known
> > and proven time and again. Lots of cores, parts
> and advise too. Same
> > comment goes for A's, Continental 65's etc.,
> workable, well proven.
> > Certified does mean more money though.
> >
> > Homebuilding though is supposed to be a process of
> experimentation
> > (that' why we get those cool placards). There is
> nothing wrong with
> > putting a diesel, turbine, lawn mover or other
> engine in a homebuilt.
> > All have been done, and there are some great
> flying ships in all these
> > categories! It's really about whether you want to
> experiment or fly,
> > and there's a range of options there.
> >
> > You may not have seen them yet, but the
> aero-diesels are for real, but
> > who knows when they'll be commercially available.
> When they do they'll
> > be powerful, lightweight and easy on fuel, but
> expen$ive for sure. Not
> > for me this go-around.
> >
> > Making your own redrive is a test of will. If
> you've got the patience,
> > machine tools and money though, not an insoluble
> problem. Most people I
> > have heard or read about have broken a couple or
> three before getting it
> > right though.
> >
> > Yes, marine outboards have been used before. A
> couple of well known
> > helicopters did this too. On problem that needs
> to be addressed though,
> > is that they are made to be cooled by water with
> at a constant
> > temperature of 40-80 degrees (ocean or lake
> water). I understand that a
> > radiator setup needs to either be very large to
> get the working
> > temperatures down, or the engine's internal
> clearance have to be fudged.
> > Probably not an huge problem as long as the
> cylinders are honeable and
> > not chromed.
> >
> > Larry
> > (There are so many tradeoff's in engineering I
> sometimes think it's a
> > miracle that we can fly at all. But then again
> it's amazing what people
> > get flying. )
> >
> > Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> Caye
> > >
> > >
> > > I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel
> powered aircraft. A debating masochist started
> that, I am sure? I believe there have been such
> things, but not sure, and also a steam engine
> aircraft. But I may be wrong, it was a long time
> ago?
> > >
> > > But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all
> look at things from our experience and background?
> > >Not considering diesels, but displacement boat
> hulls, big diameter props, large reductions.
> > >
> > > Actually, the first thing I did, was measure
> the distance from propeller hub to the ground, with
> the Pietenpol plane level and figure out what is the
> biggest propeller diameter could be swung in this
> slow airplane? I think it is 84 inch propeller from
> standard sizes. I forget now, but I understand from
> reading, that a two blade, or three blade propeller
> gives the maximum pull of air, in a given circle on
> a slow plane. In a displacement boat hull, I want
> to move as much water as possible. In a Pietenpol,
> I figured the same thing for a plane flying under 80
> mph. That means I want maximum propeller diameter.
> > > Working backwards, then, I need the least
> horsepower, depending on engine rpm, and a reduction
> gear that will give me the most efficient way to
> turn that propeller at less than it's maximum speed
> from stopping the tips going supersonic. The type
> of engine then must be built for full load, like a
> Continental, versus an automobile engine, which
> would have to be twice the horsepower, because it is
> not engineered that way. Which in turn effects
> weight.
> > > So, you can see how my experience and mind
> looks at the Pietenpol? I choose the propeller
> first, then engine, based on needed weight and
> horsepower, and fit a reduction gear between them,
> to match the output desired. The propeller is fixed
> in this way of looking at things. The variable is
> engine rpm, weight size and what ever other factors
> go into gasoline aircraft engines. These are things
> I do not understand, like big pistons requiring more
> block weight and small faster pistons moving at
> higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am trying
> to understand. I had already decided on the
> propeller diameter and also decided on the two blade
> wood propeller from the reading on the subject I
> have done. But if someone gave me a three bladed
> suitable propeller FREE, would probably use it, as
> the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only
> slightly lower. But you get added damping of
> vibrations with the three blade.
> > > I think a good reduction gear should take care
> of vibration?
> > >
> > > You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3
> or 4 miles per hour in water, with 15 hp and a 5
> bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But that
> requires a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises!
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net> |
Subject: | Re: Sports Aviation articles wanted? |
If the book is not published, would there be any problem in posting
it? Or is it too large. An alternate would be maybe to see if the EAA
would make it available. It seems a shame that a work done by someone
to enhance the experimental part of aviation is not readily available.
I purchased the Eric Clutton book, and although well done, it still
leaves some room for guesswork. Two books should be better than one
book, if available.
What say?
-=Ian=-
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Another point in reliability comparition is:
We can not compare a normal car engine with our
Aircraft Conversion, in engine stoping in road/flight,
just because one important diference... Mantainance!
No one of us (well maybe one of us) give our car the
timed and correct mantainace we will give to the same
engine if used converted in our plane... Remember the
last time you changed the spark plugs (or the oil) in
your wifes minivan? :o) :-0 :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Larry Neal wrote:
>
>
> I always find the engine reliability discussion
> interesting. In
> reasonable terrain, (note that I said that), you can
> land a slow,
> lightly loaded airplane almost anywhere. The Piet's
> a good example.
> The key to successful outlandings is low stall
> speed and short field
> capability, which the Piet has. Training,
> experience and good judgment
> are also critical factors.
>
> Talk to glider pilots, especially the ones in
> competition, about
> outlandings. Sailplanes go hundreds of mile without
> an engine, totally
> at the mercy of random thermals and the pilot's
> skill. Landouts are
> extremely common, in fact mundane. I've done about
> 25 myself. In
> competition is it common to landout roughly once
> every two or three
> days! I have seen a contest in which the entire
> field of 20 aircraft
> all landed out, every darned one. It does happen,
> but I've never seen
> anyone get hurt.
>
> I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but here
> in the plains of
> Texas where I fly, I would consider an engine
> failure in a Piet/Cub/150
> at anything over 2000ft as ranging from relatively
> exciting to just a
> damned nuisance. Of course in saying this, it only
> takes one more
> variable, the unseen power line, ditch or obstacle
> to produce a tragedy,
> so I wouldn't go looking for this if I don't have
> too.
>
> On the other hand, the glide ratio of a Piet can be
> duplicated by
> tossing your car keys across the room. Keep this in
> mind with any
> engine while putting along at 1000ft!
>
> Gasoline adds another real risk exposure that you
> don't have in gliders.
> You'll remember to shut off the gas and kill the
> ignition as part of
> engine out drill right?
> Did you put a fuel shut off valve and battery
> solenoid in your airplane?
>
> Remember that we're dealing with statistical
> certainty here. At some
> point any engine will fail on you. I agree that
> "amateur engines" (I
> like that phrase) are not guaranteed to be as
> reliable as certified, but
> think that some can be. This all boils down to
> doing all you can to
> reduce risk.
>
> Everyone, all of us, should get instruction and
> practice on off-field
> landing and always have a landing field selected
> while flying. Better
> yet, get some glider time and get over the fear
> factor of "dead stick".
> This will increase your safety factor tremendously
> in any terrain and
> any aircraft. My personal opinion is that panic has
> a lot to do with
> killing people when the engine goes quiet.
>
> That's my two cents, I think that training,
> preparation and a good
> motor are the best safety factors you can buy. Yes,
> I'll run a Corvair
> but it'll be a good one and if it packs it in, I'll
> be as prepared as I
> can be. I strongly recommend getting checked out in
> a glider, you'll
> love it and you'll learn a lot.
>
> Larry
> (too much coffee this morning)
>
> Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Phillips"
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> Vickery"
> >
> >With all the technical discussion regarding
> horsepower, torque,
> >displacement, reduction drives, and propellers, I
> haven't heard much on
> >this site about RELIABILITY. Certified aircraft
> engines have a
> >recommended TBO (time between overhaul) of 1,500 to
> 2,000 hours, and
> >thus have a great deal of reliability built into
> them. The TBO on the
> >Model A in an airplane has been estimated to be
> about 200 hours. The TBO
> >of a converted GEO/SUZUKI has not been established.
> >
> >If you're going down the highway in your pickup and
> the engine quits you
> >can usually manage to coast off to the shoulder,
> get on your cell phone,
> >and call the Auto Club. In 50 years of flying I
> have had two engine
> >failures, and in both instances I was lucky enough
> to make it to an
> >airport and get the plane down without bending
> anything or breaking any
> >bones. I can tell you from experience that when
> your airplane turns
> >into a glider one of your concerns becomes the
> integrity of your seat
> >belt/shoulder harness restraint system.
> >
> >I understand and share the intrigue of experimental
> aircraft. I also
> >understand the principles of risk management in
> flying; to reduce the
> >risks to the lowest possible level. When you power
> your airplane with an
> >engine of unknown reliability you become an
> experimental test pilot. Are
> >you qualified? From what I have read on this site
> most contributors are
> >building on a budget and have limited pilot
> experience. I suggest that
> >budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship
> should not compromise
> >safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on
> the plywood rear seat
> >of your Pietenpol on that first flight and
> subsequent ones. Is it worth
> >gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
> >
> >Gene Vickery
> >Tehachapi, California
> >
> >Well put, Gene. There are ways to cut costs in
> building a Pietenpol without
> >resorting to strange unproven engines. After all,
> Steve Eldridge built his
> >with a Continental for around $5,000. Flying is
> dangerous enough without
> >adding more risks.
> >
> >Jack Phillips
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Subject: | fisherman--engines+props |
Get ahold of Auto Engines For Experamental Aircraft by Richard Finch
Should be available from EAA.
Chart on p121 gives tip speeds for diff. diameters @ 2750 rpm. 84"
prop is 687 mph and 72" prop is 588 mph. Add forward speed. You
can adjust these figures for your desired rpm.
Another interesting article on props giving formulas for hp required and
thrust is in Popular Mechanics "Shop Notes" of 1916. This is available
from Lee Valley Tools. See http://www.leevalley.com . These things
also make great bedtime reading. Just don't get addicted.
Minimum hp- Pmin= 0.016W + C V W3 divided by b
Pmin= minimum hp
b= wingspan in feet
W=take off weight
C=0.018
V=the best I can do for the sguare root sign on this thing
W3=weight cubed,see above.
This is supposed to give you at least 390 ft/minute climb at STP.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Pietenpol engine choices. |
HOLY COW! You want to read the FAQ site on the Subaru Aircraft Engine Conversion
page. Does he ever take apart the old crowd on this list, who promote 40
year old engines, on the principal it works, we have always done it this way,
so we will always do it this way and it is therefore the best way arguments.
What an eyeopener. He almost had me rushing out to buy a Subaru engine this
morning. Except the one he is using weighs too much at 362 pounds all up weight
for everything for 165 hp. Used in the RV 6 through RV 9 homebuilt plane series.
The stuff on one spark plug versus two spark plugs was an eye opener for theory
and empirical evidence. But there were too many key things and the section
was way too long to print out, though I am tempted to try and do so anyway.
The smaller radiators and extra fan was excellent.
The old crowd using Continentals, Lycombings an Corvairs need to read that FAQ
section. Course you cannot convert the thinking of the faithfully religious
anyway????
Now to see if I can find a smaller Subaru? Weighs less?
On Sun, 03 February 2002, Gary Gower wrote:
>
>
> There goes my post one more time...
>
> Does someone on the list remember the book about
> airplanes performance and design by Mr. Crawford?
> This is a great book, hope Mr. Crawford is still
> around, very brillant, I had the chance to call him by
> phone (international long di$tance) for advice in the
> early 90's, but was worth every minute of his coments.
>
> This book worked around conections betwen (very easy)
> formulas in a line... used letter size pages to conect
> two known numbers, with a ruler and pencil, to get a
> third unknown value, and so on, until we got
> everything we needed...
>
> Well, my point is this: Using his easy formulas we
> could find out (from several other important data) how
> much HP was needed for take off and how much HP was
> needed to maintain level flight (cruise). It was
> something very interesting because with some aircrafts
> (homebuilds) the HP needed to maintain level flight
> was less than (maybe,if I remember correct) about no
> more than 25 or 30% the HP needed for take off, the
> KR1 was one of those airplanes.
>
> My point, is to find out what engine conversion could
> "hold" (for example) the Piet in cruise with 2,500
> RPMs (65 mph cruise in OD {5th gear} in my manual
> transmision 1988 Ford Pick Up six in line)... for
> engine life, using maybe 3,500 RPMS (the "passing"
> rpm range in my Ford Pick up) for take off and
> ascending in periods of no more than 3 to 5 minutes at
> the time.
>
> I am not saying to use this particular engine, but to
> use THIS engine RPMS range once the correct reduction
> and propeller is found, Because I think that the USA
> engines were design to last for ever in this
> conditions (at least the 1,000 + hours until overhaul
> we need in our airplanes.
>
> I think my idea is not that crazy. What do you think?
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
>
> --- Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry
> >
> > Hundstedt diesels, one piston, 15 hp. About 90
> > rpm. Made in Finland I think, but not much anymore.
> > Used to run the Iceland Shrimp Fleet. You turned
> > them on in October and shut them of end of June.
> > Continuous running at full load most of the time.
> > Oil them with an oil can and watch the piston go up
> > and down and count the rpm. Can do repairs while
> > they are working. Long time ago, things probably
> > changed now.
> >
> > Engine choice is narrowing down, with this
> > Pietenpol list commentary, to either Continental, or
> > Corvair. Though the cheapness and ease of access
> > for a vehicle engine still titillates the mind. The
> > Toyota 22 R is cheaply and easily available. Can
> > buy the whole car and drive it home, right here in
> > Opa Locka for $300. Valve and ring job, reduction
> > gear and away we go. But I need to hear somebody
> > has done it, before first? I'm not into pioneering
> > with this bird. Didn't check the other day, but the
> > Geo Metro is also a likely choice, if I can change
> > that rpm into torque at lower rpms? I'm not overly
> > sure about that?
> > The questions in my mind on the Geo Metro is the
> > rpm. I think it is 4400 rpm. It is a no full load
> > car engine. We are going to lose half the
> > horsepower, so probably need the 1.6 liter, 4
> > cylinder model. Somebody already has done the
> > reduction gear experimentation. It is on the web.
> > Maybe Sports Aviation already have a construction
> > technical article on it, in a past magazine I can
> > look at? I'm not sure of the horsepower. It is
> > quoted as 110 to 130 hp. That means available for
> > the propeller is about half that, or 55 to 65 hp.
> > Now turning that into torque needs a reduction gear.
> > But you want at least 40 hp or equivalent of the
> > torque the Model A engine puts out with that very
> > favorable weight to torque and horsepower ration it
> > has. That engine doesn't look stupid anymore at
> > all.
> > Lets say you want to run the Geo Metro at 2200
> > rpm, that is about 27 hp cruising. Doesnt look like
> > it would make it in the Geo Metro, unless the torque
> > developed from 2200 rpm with a 2 to 1 reduction, or
> > a 2.5 reduction would give the torque. I already
> > deleted the math, that our good friend gave us so
> > eloquently on calculating torque. Maybe he could
> > figure out this Geo Metro, so we discard it from the
> > discussion as not practical to turn an 84 inch
> > propeller on the Pietenpol? Or go for it? Maybe do
> > the same calculations with the Toyota 22 R, please?
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 02 February 2002, Larry Neal wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Very interesting comparisons regarding marine
> > diesels. I'm trying to
> > > imagine what rpm a 15hp diesel turns a 6ft ship
> > propellor.
> > >
> > > Back to Piets though. Build the airplane as the
> > designer intended and
> > > you won't go wrong. It's proven and so is
> > Bernie's approval of the
> > > Corvair motor. Not that any others are wrong,
> > better or what have ye.
> > > This just means that the airframe and engine
> > combination are well known
> > > and proven time and again. Lots of cores, parts
> > and advise too. Same
> > > comment goes for A's, Continental 65's etc.,
> > workable, well proven.
> > > Certified does mean more money though.
> > >
> > > Homebuilding though is supposed to be a process of
> > experimentation
> > > (that' why we get those cool placards). There is
> > nothing wrong with
> > > putting a diesel, turbine, lawn mover or other
> > engine in a homebuilt.
> > > All have been done, and there are some great
> > flying ships in all these
> > > categories! It's really about whether you want to
> > experiment or fly,
> > > and there's a range of options there.
> > >
> > > You may not have seen them yet, but the
> > aero-diesels are for real, but
> > > who knows when they'll be commercially available.
> > When they do they'll
> > > be powerful, lightweight and easy on fuel, but
> > expen$ive for sure. Not
> > > for me this go-around.
> > >
> > > Making your own redrive is a test of will. If
> > you've got the patience,
> > > machine tools and money though, not an insoluble
> > problem. Most people I
> > > have heard or read about have broken a couple or
> > three before getting it
> > > right though.
> > >
> > > Yes, marine outboards have been used before. A
> > couple of well known
> > > helicopters did this too. On problem that needs
> > to be addressed though,
> > > is that they are made to be cooled by water with
> > at a constant
> > > temperature of 40-80 degrees (ocean or lake
> > water). I understand that a
> > > radiator setup needs to either be very large to
> > get the working
> > > temperatures down, or the engine's internal
> > clearance have to be fudged.
> > > Probably not an huge problem as long as the
> > cylinders are honeable and
> > > not chromed.
> > >
> > > Larry
> > > (There are so many tradeoff's in engineering I
> > sometimes think it's a
> > > miracle that we can fly at all. But then again
> > it's amazing what people
> > > get flying. )
> > >
> > > Fisherman Caye wrote:
> > >
> > Caye
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I was chuckling about the prompt on the diesel
> > powered aircraft. A debating masochist started
> > that, I am sure? I believe there have been such
> > things, but not sure, and also a steam engine
> > aircraft. But I may be wrong, it was a long time
> > ago?
> > > >
> > > > But it did hit a core spot. I suppose we all
> > look at things from our experience and background?
> > > >Not considering diesels, but displacement boat
> > hulls, big diameter props, large reductions.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, the first thing I did, was measure
> > the distance from propeller hub to the ground, with
> > the Pietenpol plane level and figure out what is the
> > biggest propeller diameter could be swung in this
> > slow airplane? I think it is 84 inch propeller from
> > standard sizes. I forget now, but I understand from
> > reading, that a two blade, or three blade propeller
> > gives the maximum pull of air, in a given circle on
> > a slow plane. In a displacement boat hull, I want
> > to move as much water as possible. In a Pietenpol,
> > I figured the same thing for a plane flying under 80
> > mph. That means I want maximum propeller diameter.
> > > > Working backwards, then, I need the least
> > horsepower, depending on engine rpm, and a reduction
> > gear that will give me the most efficient way to
> > turn that propeller at less than it's maximum speed
> > from stopping the tips going supersonic. The type
> > of engine then must be built for full load, like a
> > Continental, versus an automobile engine, which
> > would have to be twice the horsepower, because it is
> > not engineered that way. Which in turn effects
> > weight.
> > > > So, you can see how my experience and mind
> > looks at the Pietenpol? I choose the propeller
> > first, then engine, based on needed weight and
> > horsepower, and fit a reduction gear between them,
> > to match the output desired. The propeller is fixed
> > in this way of looking at things. The variable is
> > engine rpm, weight size and what ever other factors
> > go into gasoline aircraft engines. These are things
> > I do not understand, like big pistons requiring more
> > block weight and small faster pistons moving at
> > higher rpms. There are tradeoffs here I am trying
> > to understand. I had already decided on the
> > propeller diameter and also decided on the two blade
> > wood propeller from the reading on the subject I
> > have done. But if someone gave me a three bladed
> > suitable propeller FREE, would probably use it, as
> > the efficiency in swept air diameter circle is only
> > slightly lower. But you get added damping of
> > vibrations with the three blade.
> > > > I think a good reduction gear should take care
> > of vibration?
> > > >
> > > > You can for instance move 6000 tons, at about 3
> > or 4 miles per hour in water, with 15 hp and a 5
> > bladed propeller around 6 feet diameter. But that
> > requires a deep draft vessel. Lots of compromises!
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Kirk
This is just a rough guess at prop diameter at this time. I rely on people like
you with experience to set this idiot straight. But yeah, it looks like 6
inch clearance from upper longeron. But could raise the engine three inches if
necessary? There was mention of wider chord on a prop too. But I notice those
wider chord propellers of olden days, and scimitar shapes are no longer in
vogue. That they are slim and thin today. Presumably there is a reason for
a thin prop? Probably the efficiency gained is insufficient for carrying and
swinging the extra weight? The tradeoff was probably not worth the trouble for
a wider chord propeller? It works in boats in salt water, but maybe not in
the medium of thinner air?
On Sun, 03 February 2002, "John Dilatush" wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kirk & Laura Huizenga" <kirkh@unique-software.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 84 in Prop
>
> Kirk,
>
> Mr. Pietenpol used props in the 76" dia range x 40" or 42" pitch and cruised
> his Ford engine at about 16 hundred rpm. His belief was that the engine
> should turn the same rpm as in the Model A at 35 mph.
>
> Cheers,
> John Dilatush MX114D - Making a prop duplicator so I can make the prop to go
> flying!
>
> <kirkh@unique-software.com>
> >
> > It seems like you would need some pretty tall landing gear to swing
> > an 84" prop on a Piet and still have the recommended 9" or clearance
> > from the ground with the tail up in flying position. I think the
> > "standard" for Piets is around 64" diameter.
> >
> > Just a thought
> > Kirk
> >
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Kirk
Thanks for the rpm figures. I am settling in my mind, the 2750 rpm for an 84
inch propeller and 3200 rpm for a 72 inch propeller. So if I cut one in between,
can get a rough fit for that with those figures. Good enough for practical
backyard purposes. But I still do not know how to draw the pitch on a laminated
block of prop wood?
On Sun, 03 February 2002, Kirk & Laura Huizenga wrote:
>
>
> About 3050rpm at standard temperature and pressure with a generic formula of
>
> ((diameter*3.1416)/12)*3050*60/5280=762
>
> Speed of sound at STP= 763
>
> It should be (and has been on this list I believe) argued that the
> above formula is flawed because it doesn't take into account the prop
> moving forward as it spins (like a cork screw), but for a rough idea
> I think 3000rpm would be safe
>
> If i'm off on the formula above, someone let me know.
>
> Hope this helps
> Kirk
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Re: Sports Aviation articles wanted? |
Beautiful, beautiful Dale!
Exactly what I need, sounds like!
Ray Auxillou, 2471 NW 152 Terr, N. Dade, Fl. 33054
tel: 305 685 9752
On Sun, 03 February 2002, "D.Dale Johnson" wrote:
>
>
> This is for the Fisherman
> I think I have the book that you are looking for. It was written by Alvin
> Schubert.
> The name is "How I Make Wood Propellers" The book was never sold Al gave
> them to friends that had an interest in carving props. He talkes about
> the trouble Bernard
> Pietenpol had finding a prop for his first corvair Pete. Alvin carved
> him a prop
> that was to small causing the engine to over rev. Alvin carved him a
> second prop
> that worked. They were surprised at the power the corvair put out.
> Bernard was real proud of this prop.
> This book has some simple formulas for figuring prop length & pitch.
> A lot of prop airfoil for different props. Lot of information on wood &
> glue.
> How to clamp a blank.
> If you want a copy send me your snail mail address.
> I'll try to find a copy machine.
> I just finished Duplicating a prop for our Pete and I used a lot of
> information
> from this book.
> Dale Mpls,
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "MORGAN HETRICK" <morgan(at)heifercreek.com> |
Subject: | Re: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the aluminum |
If you mill the case halves you will increase the compression ratio.
Different pistons?
Different rods?
Morgan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Jack,
>
> I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
> talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that
conversion
> plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where
the
> plans are for the Tailwind.
>
> If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil
pressure
> at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
> My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
> series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
> today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
>
> The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to
transfer
> the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
> journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
> the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
> the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal
can.
>
> If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
> area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
> makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the
engine
> is assembled and run.
>
> Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
> longevity.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> Tech Counselor
>
>
> I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do
before
> rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled
by
> milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
> measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage
and
> found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
> one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old
worn
> out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
>
> The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
> have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
> camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is
quite
> possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Subject: | Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the aluminum |
You might be talking an increase in compression of .5% which is
insignificant.
The point is that many of the clearances in the valve train do not have the
give if things stack up agianst you rather than averaging out.
Ususally you have one thing a little short and another a little long and the
total number adds up to be what you want. In the case of milling the cases,
it seems that it always goes against you.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of MORGAN
HETRICK
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
If you mill the case halves you will increase the compression ratio.
Different pistons?
Different rods?
Morgan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Olds 215 and camrunning directly on the
aluminum
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Jack,
>
> I believe that there are a number of articles in old Sport Aviations that
> talk about the Olds 215 conversion in detail. I also think that
conversion
> plans are currently available from ACS. Look in the catalog front where
the
> plans are for the Tailwind.
>
> If you have a small continental flat four and it gives zero psi oil
pressure
> at idle when the engine warms up, it is because the cam bearings are worn.
> My opinion is that this the only weakness in a great bottom end of a great
> series of engines. There would be a lot more of these engines out there
> today if Continental had used bearing inserts for the camshaft.
>
> The continental series uses an annulus in the front cam journal to
transfer
> the oil from the left side of the case to the right side. Therefore that
> journal has maybe two thirds the surface area and still takes a load from
> the valve springs. It is also the "end" of the camshaft so it can't share
> the load with the journals on either side of it like the center journal
can.
>
> If you all go out and look at the A-65 cases you might have, look at this
> area and notice the grooves worn into the case by the cam journal. This
> makes for one huge oil leak that most owners discover only after the
engine
> is assembled and run.
>
> Zero oil pressure at idle with a warm engine does not bode well for
> longevity.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> Tech Counselor
>
>
> I have to agree with you Chris. One of the last things I need to do
before
> rebuilding my A65 is to send the crankcase out to Divco to be overhauled
by
> milling the mating faces down and then re-boring the camshaft bearings. I
> measured the clearance between my cam and the bearings using plastigage
and
> found it to be right at the limits. I will need a new cam anyway (the old
> one has the front lobe worn off) and don't want to run a new cam in old
worn
> out bearings or it will be worn out in short order.
>
> The O-200 in my Cessna 140 has over 1400 hours on it and is beginning to
> have low oil pressure at idle on hot days. I'm sure it too has worn
> camshaft bearings. My point in remarking on the Subaru was that it is
quite
> possible to get 1500 hours of operation out of such bearings.
>
> Jack
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
Subject: | McNarry question |
That is way my intuition sensed it to be. I have stopped the building of the
airframe untill I have an engine that I think is suitable. I was gifted a
Cirrus from an early Dh Moth and for a while was excited about its
potential. However I still need to find one more good cylinder head. So.. it
is back to the modified Ford B. The question I asked has to do of course
with the choice of engine. The shorter moment arm of wing forward with the
heavier engine should in my mind make for a more stable setup. The final
weight of my engine conversion will then get me back to passing the 1" thick
stage. Thanks for your input,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: Pietenpol-List: McNarry question
John,
Any vertical surface area forward of the Center of Pressure will tend to
destabilize. This is why we see floatplanes with additional vertical
surface area aft to offset the destabilizing effect of the float's vertical
surfaces forward, the majority of which are forward.
Since the A-65 is lighter than the Model A, it is imperative that the motor
be mounted farther forward to keep the ship in balance. The additional
cowling area needed will destabilize. Those that have used the spoked
wheels that are fabric covered have also noticed(complained) about the
destabilizing effect.
A fix would be to build slightly oversize vertical stab and rudder, moreso
the stabilizer. No one would really notice and you would have a sweeter
flying ship. This would have to be worked into the design from day one of
the fuselage build up.
Chris Bobka
Tech Counselor
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John
McNarry
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Engines
I don't think any of us are suggesting that we take risks like just bolting
on an engine twanging a wire and lighting the fire. We do this for
reacreation and education. Any enginge is a collection of parts flying in
formation. i trust the timed out engine in the PA 12 more than I would if it
was brand new. Brand new is nice but it also is unknown. We should be
testing our design changes, making certain they are improvements or
for-going them. I have a Dyno that I built for our RAAC chapter it has been
used to test several certified engines with acceptable results. I can assure
you that untill I am satisfied my homebuilt engine performs as expected, in
all areas, it won't be lifting me from terra firma! The "Low and slow since
1929" slogan is neat, but air beneath when that engine quits sure feels
good.
The last engine outage I had was in a Mk2 Harvard at about 2500 agl. The PIC
pushed the nose down and about the same time I saw 0 fuel pressure, he
switched the tanks and I hit the wobble pump. Sounds neat with the prop
driving 9. Sounds better with 9 driving the prop. Superstitious? I was
wearing a chute! would it have quit if I wasn't? The point is be prepared!
Be cautious! Have fun!
Test everything!
Questions: Does the short moment arm of the fuse with a heavier engine and
wing forward for CofG cause signifigant handling differences than a light
engine on a longer mount and with the wing back for Cof G ? Any one out
there familiar with both configurations?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Dmott9(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Engines
In a message dated 2/3/02 12:31:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
h2opilot(at)cwo.com
writes:
<< I understand and share the intrigue of experimental aircraft. I also
understand the principles of risk management in flying; to reduce the
risks to the lowest possible level. When you power your airplane with an
engine of unknown reliability you become an experimental test pilot. Are
you qualified? From what I have read on this site most contributors are
building on a budget and have limited pilot experience. I suggest that
budget and quality of materials and craftsmanship should not compromise
safety. Remember it will be your buns planted on the plywood rear seat
of your Pietenpol on that first flight and subsequent ones. Is it worth
gambling your life to save a thousand dollars?
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Subject: | Undersized Pushrods---Cont. 65 |
Jack----I have a complete set of undersized pushrods for you if
you need them after you have your cases milled and the camshaft
journals opened up.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | horizontal rear stabilizer |
Not sure what you call that thingy at the back?
elevator stabilizor, horizontal rear stabilizer? Something like that?
Can't see how it is supposed to be fastened down. From the plans it looks like
screws?
That sure doesn't sound right? Nothing on the photographs on the links from
my web page either. I think I will put a couple of lower cross braces and drill
holes through and use some bolts, with washers? Or something like that?
Should be ready to install temporarily by tomorrow. Then pull it and do some
varnishing, or maybe I will varnish first, as I have a couple of spots need doing
also?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Subject: | Undersized Pushrods---Cont. 65 |
Thanks Mike,
I've had a couple of off-forum emails with Chris Bobka (I didn't want to get
the Fisherman involved) about this. He has a machinist who can bore out the
cam bearings and line them with bronze inserts, similar to craknshaft main
bearings. I might go that way, although it is hard to see how a reputable
firm like Divco can go wrong. I asked Chris to get me a quote, since at
this time I can't afford Divco's $575 price.
Were you able to open the pictures I sent you?
Jack
-----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: Undersized Pushrods---Cont. 65
Jack----I have a complete set of undersized pushrods for you if
you need them after you have your cases milled and the camshaft
journals opened up.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Subject: | Undersized Pushrods---Cont. 65 |
Your right Jack. I don't speak Latin, or Greek, or whatever it is your talking
here? ( ha! Ha!)
On Mon, 04 February 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Mike,
>
> I've had a couple of off-forum emails with Chris Bobka (I didn't want to get
> the Fisherman involved) about this. He has a machinist who can bore out the
> cam bearings and line them with bronze inserts, similar to craknshaft main
> bearings. I might go that way, although it is hard to see how a reputable
> firm like Divco can go wrong. I asked Chris to get me a quote, since at
> this time I can't afford Divco's $575 price.
>
> Were you able to open the pictures I sent you?
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D
> Cuy
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:41 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Undersized Pushrods---Cont. 65
>
>
>
> Jack----I have a complete set of undersized pushrods for you if
> you need them after you have your cases milled and the camshaft
> journals opened up.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
Subject: | Re: horizontal rear stabilizer |
Fisherman,
You are correct to think that through bolts would be a better way to attach the
horizontal stabilizer to the upper longerons.
This is also a good place to anchor the shoulder harnesses.
Greg Cardinal
>>> cayecaulker(at)justice.com 02/04 11:52 AM >>>
Not sure what you call that thingy at the back?
elevator stabilizor, horizontal rear stabilizer? Something like that?
Can't see how it is supposed to be fastened down. From the plans it looks like
screws?
That sure doesn't sound right? Nothing on the photographs on the links from
my web page either. I think I will put a couple of lower cross braces and drill
holes through and use some bolts, with washers? Or something like that?
Should be ready to install temporarily by tomorrow. Then pull it and do some
varnishing, or maybe I will varnish first, as I have a couple of spots need doing
also?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | <dhull3(at)bellsouth.net> |
Subject: | Olds 215 Aluminum V-8 |
Mike,
You make a good point about the Olds 215 aluminum V-8; however, at the risk
of sounding "picky" I'd like to point out that Steve Wittman used the Olds
215 in one of his Tailwinds, the red one. I saw it and him at the Tullahoma
Tennessee EAA fly-in in 1979.
The "0&0" Special was a yellow aircraft with a six cylinder engine, an O-470
Continental, I believe. I saw its remains at my home airport after the NTSB
concluded their investigation of the crash. It was in a corner of one of
the DCU (PRYOR FIELD) hangars under a tarpaulin.
I wish now I had asked Mr. Wittman some questions, but I was just a student
pilot at the time, and the thought of building an airplane was a distant
thought. I doubt if I would have had any meaningful questions to ask him.
I do remember thinking this guy must have something on the ball if he has
inverted an automobile engine and installed it successfully in an airplane!
Best regards,
Don Hull
Decatur, Alabama
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Subject: | horizontal rear stabilizer |
I had to put triangular blocks between the diagonals and uprights at that
point to give a flat surface for the though bolts. The bolts have to be
about 3 1/2 inches long to go through the stabilizer spar into my fuselage.
While I wouldn't even consider using the #7 wood screws as stated on the
plans, the thought does occur to me that they aren't really holding
much--all of the stress is on the brace wires.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Cardinal [mailto:gcardinal(at)startribune.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: horizontal rear stabilizer
Fisherman,
You are correct to think that through bolts would be a better way to attach
the horizontal stabilizer to the upper longerons.
This is also a good place to anchor the shoulder harnesses.
Greg Cardinal
>>> cayecaulker(at)justice.com 02/04 11:52 AM >>>
Not sure what you call that thingy at the back?
elevator stabilizor, horizontal rear stabilizer? Something like that?
Can't see how it is supposed to be fastened down. From the plans it looks
like screws?
That sure doesn't sound right? Nothing on the photographs on the links
from my web page either. I think I will put a couple of lower cross braces
and drill holes through and use some bolts, with washers? Or something like
that?
Should be ready to install temporarily by tomorrow. Then pull it and do
some varnishing, or maybe I will varnish first, as I have a couple of spots
need doing also?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: | "Larry Ragan" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
Subject: | Not sure which way to go .... |
but I'm thinking about using Western Aircraft Supply for my wood. Any comments,
suggestions? Does he have a web page? Phone no.? Address?
Thanks
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: Click Here
January 30, 2002 - February 04, 2002
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ci