Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-cj
February 04, 2002 - February 13, 2002
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gdascomb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Not sure which way to go .... |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gdascomb(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Not sure which way to go .... |
Western Aircraft Supply
P.O. Box 79
Slocan, BC Canada V0G 2C0
Phone: 250-355-0003
Owner is Mark Septav
Quoted me $700 for fuse & tail kit. $900 for wings. millwork done on most of
the spruce.
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> |
what's the current thinking on corvair engines in Piets. I've been off
the list for several months. Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant Tx.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
You know I pulled out the two guages I have in the Pietenpol to varnish the plywood
edges of the holes yesterday.
That altimeter has two fittings on the back, for what look like suction hoses?
You guys who have already installed instruments, what do I need extra? Hoses,
pitot tube, what exactly to get that altimeter completed?
Same thing with the speedometer guage. It has a screw hole in the direct center
of the back. I looked in Aircraft Spruce catalogue, but they do not show
anything except the meters? What is required to complete these installations?
Extra equipment?
-----------------
I'm to bolt that horizontal stabilizer today. But whoever wrote, you are right.
It supposedly only needs 1 3/4 inch screws. I guess the only pressure on
it, is horizontal air pressure? One would think there would be a lot of leverage
on it, at different plane attitudes, but I suppose the wires take all that?
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> |
Ray,
I think you've got them reversed. The Altimeter should have one hole, with
a 1/8" Pipe Thread, which should be connected to your static pressure port.
Or it can be left open, but will not read as accurately that way. The
Airspeed Indicator (called a speedometer on a car or a boat, but not on a
plane. You wouldn't call a boat tiller a steering stick would you?) should
have two ports (both should be threaded with a 1/8" pipe thread) and marked
P and S. The P port should be connected to your Pitot tube and the S port
should be connected to your static pressure port (it can be tied into the
line from the altimeter - the pressure doesn't care how many instruments are
connected to it), or like the altimeter it can be left open, but it will be
reading cockpit static pressure, which is probably not going to agree with
the true static pressure.
If you don't already have them I strongly suggest you buy at least two of
Tony Bingelis' books, if not all four. You really need "The Sportplane
Builder" and Sportplane Construction Techniques". They are available from
the EAA and are absolutely the most important books you can own if you are
building a plane. In there are several chapters on how to hook up the
instruments, along with information that you are going to need on how to
make metal fittings, and aligning the fuselage and landing gear, and brakes,
etc., etc. Those books are the Bible for homebuilding.
Jack
-----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: guages ????
You know I pulled out the two guages I have in the Pietenpol to varnish the
plywood edges of the holes yesterday.
That altimeter has two fittings on the back, for what look like suction
hoses? You guys who have already installed instruments, what do I need
extra? Hoses, pitot tube, what exactly to get that altimeter completed?
Same thing with the speedometer guage. It has a screw hole in the direct
center of the back. I looked in Aircraft Spruce catalogue, but they do not
show anything except the meters? What is required to complete these
installations? Extra equipment?
-----------------
I'm to bolt that horizontal stabilizer today. But whoever wrote, you are
right. It supposedly only needs 1 3/4 inch screws. I guess the only
pressure on it, is horizontal air pressure? One would think there would be
a lot of leverage on it, at different plane attitudes, but I suppose the
wires take all that?
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Jack, Fisherman Caye Ray,
Those words about Tony Bingelis' books are really true. I know
all of you have heard me rant about how good they are but they
really are. Well worth the 75 or whatever dollars for the set available
thru EAA. Ok.....here is the web
site: http://shop.eaa.org/html/2books_bingelis.html?cart_id
If you want to do things right or want alternative ideas, Tony answers
95% of your questions with good common sense and excellent drawings
to boot. Even some IA's and A&P's or your local junkyard mechanic
is wrong sometimes-----sometimes quite often. Check it out for yourself
before listening to an old wives tale or 'that's how we've always done it'
story.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | placement of the landing gear and prop clearance required |
As taken from the book Aircraft Design - Volume Two - Aerostrctures by C. H.
Latimer Needham in 1939, I quote the following passage about these two
subjects. My comments are added in the <>:
"The airscrew clearance should be about 6 inches with the aeroplane in
rigging position, tyres flat, and shock aborbers compressed to their maximum
vertical travel .
"The point of wheel contact with the ground should make an angle with the
vertical through the CG in side elevation (aircraft in rigging position) of
not less than 10 degrees, and may increase with wheel brakes up to a maximum
of 14 degrees.
"The tendency of aircraft to overturn when landing with wheel brakes may be
provided against by arranging for the brakes to be released as the tailskid
leaves the ground . It has been
found, however, that if the angle, made by the line joining the point of
wheel contact to the CG with the vertical line through the CG when the tail
skid is touching, is at least 20 degrees, no overturning is likely. An
angle much greater than 20 degrees results in excessive tail loads at
landing and difficulty in taxi-ing and at takeoff .
"It may be noted that the overturning tendency is not great at the moment of
touchdown since the aircraft is still largely airborne and skidding of the
wheels takes place. Towards the end of the run both aerodynamic lift and
control are negligible, the braking effect increases and for safety the
braking load should be decreased.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Static port venting |
Guys---some Piet/GN-1 owners have noted wild airspeed
fluctuations in slips, turns, etc. or uncoordinated turns.
(which I do my fair share of:) Here is a tip. You don't need
to run static hose/lines to a fuselage port or orifice. Here is
a simple solution that I think I found in the Bingelis books !
You just buy a plastic/nylon fitting for those ports (airsped and
altimeter) and screw it in place like you are going to connect
hose to it. Plug that hole with a screw, wood, glue, or whatever
and then drill a small hole----maybe a #50 or 60 drill into the
nylon fitting to vent the static side. This will dampen any wind
gusts, pressure changes that the static port sees and will stabilize
your instruments on (especially) final approach.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair engine |
They still work!
Lots of discussions about Subarus and Geo's though. Very good stuff.
Some excellent posts on the HP/Torque relationship with understandable
math. You may want to check the archives and catch up, it's always fun.
I'm sticking with the Corvair for the first go around.
If I need more weight up front I'm eyeing a Jag V-12 ;-)
Larry
Mark wrote:
>
>what's the current thinking on corvair engines in Piets. I've been off
>the list for several months. Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant Tx.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Sorry it a few days to reply, I have my junk mail filter set pretty high
and you got thrown in with the junk mail. I just happen to be browsing
in that file looking for something else.
The interesting thing about the horsepower curve and torque curve is
that they are the same curve. Horsepower is torque multiplied by rpm.
So if you took the "x" axis of the graph and rotated it up 45 degrees so
that the torque curve warps, it would be the horsepower curve (sorry,
it's really hard to explain). The reason the horsepower curve keeps
increasing as the torque curve starts falling is due to the fact that
it's being multiplied by an increasing rpm. The point where the
horsepower curve starts falling is at the point where the torque curve
is falling faster than the increasing rpm. Whew.
Now to answer your question. There is no simple formula to calculate
torque/horsepower for and engine. You could calculate the ideal level,
by first determining the volume of air/fuel mix pumped: ( displacement
x rpm ) / 2 (because it's a four stroke engine and fires half the time)
volume pumped. Then determine the quantity of energy in the volume
of air/fuel mix (I need a chemist for this). Then multiply those two
numbers. In an actual engine, you loose energy by: friction of the
rings, friction here, friction there, heat lost in a heated exhaust gas,
work required to turn the alternator, fan, waterpump, power lost due to
an inefficient intake system that limits the air/fuel intake, incomplete
combustion, bla, bla, bla. Now all of these particulars are different
for each engine due to about a million design decisions made when
building the engine. That's why they just put it on a dynometer to
generate a curve.
If you look in any hot rod magazine, I think you should easily find an
advertisement for a "software dyno". There is software that has the
particulars for engine blocks, carbs, manifolds, headers, and can give a
horsepower curve for a combination of those. I've never tried it.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: MacklemAW(at)aol.com
To: robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 4:41 PM
Subject: HP & TORQUE
Thanks for your email on horsepower and torque. Are there simple
formulas that calculate torque for published specs on displacement and
rpm?
Allan W. Macklem
(phone numbers removed - RH)
Indecision and inactivity are expensive.
Get on with it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: placement of the landing gear and prop |
clearance required
On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Christian Bobka" wrote:
>
>
> As taken from the book Aircraft Design - Volume Two - Aerostrctures by C. H.
> Latimer Needham in 1939, I quote the following passage about these two
> subjects. My comments are added in the <>:
>
> "The airscrew clearance should be about 6 inches with the aeroplane in
> rigging position, tyres flat, and shock aborbers compressed to their maximum
> vertical travel ship hanging on the safety cables>.
>
> "The point of wheel contact with the ground should make an angle with the
> vertical through the CG in side elevation (aircraft in rigging position) of
> not less than 10 degrees, and may increase with wheel brakes up to a maximum
> of 14 degrees.
>
> "The tendency of aircraft to overturn when landing with wheel brakes may be
> provided against by arranging for the brakes to be released as the tailskid
> leaves the ground . It has been
> found, however, that if the angle, made by the line joining the point of
> wheel contact to the CG with the vertical line through the CG when the tail
> skid is touching, is at least 20 degrees, no overturning is likely. An
> angle much greater than 20 degrees results in excessive tail loads at
> landing and difficulty in taxi-ing and at takeoff tail skid and the axles mounted too far forward>.
>
> "It may be noted that the overturning tendency is not great at the moment of
> touchdown since the aircraft is still largely airborne and skidding of the
> wheels takes place. Towards the end of the run both aerodynamic lift and
> control are negligible, the braking effect increases and for safety the
> braking load should be decreased.
>
>
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: | Re: corvair engine |
I laughed when I read this and said "oh no". I sure this will start another
heated engine discussion (no pun intended).
Never tried one, but for some reason, I like 'em. Actually, I like any
engine you can direct drive, get some HP at 2000 rpm, doesn't weigh too
much, and the prop won't rip the crank out of the block.
Robert Haines
> From: "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair engine
>
>
> what's the current thinking on corvair engines in Piets. I've been off
> the list for several months. Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant Tx.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Thanks Jack
I did have them reversed. Stuck them back in the panel today. (the two guages)
A pitot tube I kind of know about? That is the venturi tube right? What
is my static pressure port, or fitting like?
Got the horizontal stabilizer mounted. Bolted and screwed. Home Depot didn't
have much in choices, but the local hardware store did. (screws and bolts )
Still need to find some half round molding for the leading edge of it. But it
is up! When it comes time to move this thing, (plane) I am going to have to
call the junk yard to take my van out of here. And cut down a beeeg tropical
leafy plant. Plane can't be under the mango trees when they start bearing in
the Spring. Right now the trees are flowering.
Okay, I need to look up static pressure fitting and pitot tube on the internet.
On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
> Ray,
>
> I think you've got them reversed. The Altimeter should have one hole, with
> a 1/8" Pipe Thread, which should be connected to your static pressure port.
> Or it can be left open, but will not read as accurately that way. The
> Airspeed Indicator (called a speedometer on a car or a boat, but not on a
> plane. You wouldn't call a boat tiller a steering stick would you?) should
> have two ports (both should be threaded with a 1/8" pipe thread) and marked
> P and S. The P port should be connected to your Pitot tube and the S port
> should be connected to your static pressure port (it can be tied into the
> line from the altimeter - the pressure doesn't care how many instruments are
> connected to it), or like the altimeter it can be left open, but it will be
> reading cockpit static pressure, which is probably not going to agree with
> the true static pressure.
>
> If you don't already have them I strongly suggest you buy at least two of
> Tony Bingelis' books, if not all four. You really need "The Sportplane
> Builder" and Sportplane Construction Techniques". They are available from
> the EAA and are absolutely the most important books you can own if you are
> building a plane. In there are several chapters on how to hook up the
> instruments, along with information that you are going to need on how to
> make metal fittings, and aligning the fuselage and landing gear, and brakes,
> etc., etc. Those books are the Bible for homebuilding.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
> Caye
> Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 9:12 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: guages ????
>
>
>
> You know I pulled out the two guages I have in the Pietenpol to varnish the
> plywood edges of the holes yesterday.
> That altimeter has two fittings on the back, for what look like suction
> hoses? You guys who have already installed instruments, what do I need
> extra? Hoses, pitot tube, what exactly to get that altimeter completed?
> Same thing with the speedometer guage. It has a screw hole in the direct
> center of the back. I looked in Aircraft Spruce catalogue, but they do not
> show anything except the meters? What is required to complete these
> installations? Extra equipment?
> -----------------
>
> I'm to bolt that horizontal stabilizer today. But whoever wrote, you are
> right. It supposedly only needs 1 3/4 inch screws. I guess the only
> pressure on it, is horizontal air pressure? One would think there would be
> a lot of leverage on it, at different plane attitudes, but I suppose the
> wires take all that?
>
> 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: placement of the landing gear and prop |
clearance required
Your right Chris! Somebody else, think it was Kip and wife mentioned I needed
more room between prop and ground. So decided to go to a 78 inch prop diameter.
That will give me one foot off the ground. I keep thinking of Ted flaring
out at Naples. I thought he was going to dig the prop into the ground. But
with 500 hours in a Pietenpol he knew what he was doing.
Anybody recommend against one foot clearance as being too little, let me know!
On Tue, 05 February 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Christian Bobka" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > As taken from the book Aircraft Design - Volume Two - Aerostrctures by C. H.
> > Latimer Needham in 1939, I quote the following passage about these two
> > subjects. My comments are added in the <>:
> >
> > "The airscrew clearance should be about 6 inches with the aeroplane in
> > rigging position, tyres flat, and shock aborbers compressed to their maximum
> > vertical travel > ship hanging on the safety cables>.
> >
> > "The point of wheel contact with the ground should make an angle with the
> > vertical through the CG in side elevation (aircraft in rigging position) of
> > not less than 10 degrees, and may increase with wheel brakes up to a maximum
> > of 14 degrees.
> >
> > "The tendency of aircraft to overturn when landing with wheel brakes may be
> > provided against by arranging for the brakes to be released as the tailskid
> > leaves the ground . It has been
> > found, however, that if the angle, made by the line joining the point of
> > wheel contact to the CG with the vertical line through the CG when the tail
> > skid is touching, is at least 20 degrees, no overturning is likely. An
> > angle much greater than 20 degrees results in excessive tail loads at
> > landing and difficulty in taxi-ing and at takeoff > tail skid and the axles mounted too far forward>.
> >
> > "It may be noted that the overturning tendency is not great at the moment of
> > touchdown since the aircraft is still largely airborne and skidding of the
> > wheels takes place. Towards the end of the run both aerodynamic lift and
> > control are negligible, the braking effect increases and for safety the
> > braking load should be decreased.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: | mon, the eggheads go wild on the internet |
Boy you ask a simple question of the search engine about pitot tubes and there
is all kinds of physics and theory. But nary, one lousy photograph of a metal
pitot tube and connecting hoses.
If what one guy said is right in theory on here today. I should be able to read
the altimeter with no attachments to the hole in the guage on my panel? Since
the Pietenpol is an open cockpit, it should read the airpressure right?
Or altitude, sorry! Or do I find a plastic plug and drill a needle sized hole
for that hole in the middle of the back that you screw something in?
The air speed guage is different though, I am guessing. Not sure what he said?
There is an output and a static. You do what with which? There are two hose
like connectors on the back. Like you use for a fuel line and fuel filter
( those small one in VW bugs. ) He said plug one and leave the other open, or
something along those lines? Don't you need one of those bent right angle tubes
I see sticking out under a wing?
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: | mon, the eggheads go wild on the internet |
Boy you ask a simple question of the search engine about pitot tubes and
there is all kinds of physics and theory. But nary, one lousy photograph of
a metal pitot tube and connecting hoses.
If what one guy said is right in theory on here today. I should be able
to read the altimeter with no attachments to the hole in the guage on my
panel? Since the Pietenpol is an open cockpit, it should read the
airpressure right? Or altitude, sorry! Or do I find a plastic plug and
drill a needle sized hole for that hole in the middle of the back that you
screw something in?
The air speed guage is different though, I am guessing. Not sure what he
said? There is an output and a static. You do what with which? There are
two hose like connectors on the back. Like you use for a fuel line and fuel
filter ( those small one in VW bugs. ) He said plug one and leave the other
open, or something along those lines? Don't you need one of those bent
right angle tubes I see sticking out under a wing?
Fisherman Caye
OK Ray, I'll give my two cents worth. Yes you will have to have a pitot
tube (unless you use a vane type of airspeed indicator like the old E-2 Cubs
used). You can leave the static ports of the airspeed indicator and the
altimeter open if you wish. However, they will not be seeing the true
static pressure. They will be reading the pressure inside your cockpit
which is probably less than true static pressure because an open cockpit
tends to create a slight vacuum, sucking air out of the cockpit. If the
instruments are reading the cockpit pressure, the airspeed indicator will
read higher than you are actually flying, and the altimeter will also read a
higher altitude than you are actually flying. There will also tend to be
variations due to side-slipping and other maneuvers. Not a real problem if
you're not a real stickler for accuracy, although I would want to have an
altimeter that reads accurately if I was flying underneath some Class C
airspace without a transponder.
To do it right, there are a couple of ways to approach it. The simplest way
is to use a Pitot-Static tube, or a pitot tube with a static tube close by.
You can find these in any of several aircraft parts company catalogs, like
Aircraft Spruce & Specialty (their catalog is free and is a treasure trove
of information - for example their catalog shows how to hook up the
instruments you are asking about right now. They are on the web at
www.aircraftspruce.com. ) or Wag Aero or Wicks Aircraft Supply. You might
as well get all their catalogs now because there is a lot of stuff required
to build a plane that you just can't get at Home Depot.
Most production airplanes use a pair of static ports located somewhere along
the fuselage, one on either side. This is a better setup, but more trouble
to install. The reason it is better is that if the plane is skidding or
slipping the two ports average out the static pressure better than a single
port can. My Cessna 140 uses a static port inside the left wing, just a
piece of tubing flattened slightly on the end but still open and left
dangling in space between the front spar and the leading edge. The point is
that you want a static source that will remain fairly constant with changes
in aircraft attitude.
You can make your own Pitot tube and static tube. The Tony Bingelis books I
mentioned earlier, and Mike Cuy seconded, tell how to do it. Buy or borrow
those books and most of your questions will be answered. They are enjoyable
reading, too.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Education or Ignorance |
Fisherman,
Do please check with your EAA chapter tech counselor on what instruments that
you need in order to get this
craft registered....unless of course you will be flying it off of the beaches in
Belize...}8
).
Do also please invest the $75.00 in the Tony Bengelis books...you will most
sincerely have most of your
questions answered...or as my flight instructor has often said... you think education
is expensive...try
ignorance!
~Cheers
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Education or Ignorance |
I agree completely about the books. Get, at least, the Sportplane
Construction Techniques and the Sportplane Builder.
Can be had from EAA or other sources
EAA 920-426-4800
Kirk
>
>Fisherman,
> Do please check with your EAA chapter tech counselor on what
>instruments that you need in order to get this
>craft registered....unless of course you will be flying it off of
>the beaches in Belize...}8
).
> Do also please invest the $75.00 in the Tony Bengelis
>books...you will most sincerely have most of your
>questions answered...or as my flight instructor has often said...
>you think education is expensive...try
>ignorance!
>~Cheers
>~Warren
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Geo/Suzuki engine |
Hi, folks;
I did notice some mention of the Geo/Suzuki engine in Jenny replicas, and do
have a bit of info on that (sorry if this has already been addressed; I'm
behind). Dan Horton has a beautiful scale replica "Canuck" (aka Jenny) that
made the cover of Experimenter a year or two ago and has won awards, and the
magazine had a nice write-up. It's powered by one of these little engines
with a redrive. I sent him a disposable camera about a year ago and had him
shoot some detail photos of his brake setup for me, but he also got plenty
of under-the-cowl shots. It's a beautiful airplane; brass radiator stuff,
outstanding attention to detail. If you don't have the back issue of the
magazine with the article, maybe one of my photos will help if you're
interested. Just email me offline and give me a week or two. Or -better
yet- email Dan with specific questions like weight, performance, and how he
likes the engine. I think it's DHPHKH(at)aol.com
Sorry if I'm late getting back to those that asked about photos of William's
cowling (on the Corvair); I'll get to it after I get through about another
100 emails and digests!
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Info on Bingelis books, Scott Liefield's Piet, etc. |
Since we are all EAA members (or should be), page 89 of your February Sport
Aviation magazine has a full color add about Tony Bingelis' four
homebuilder special books. The four together cost $79.95 ($24.95
each). Mike Cuy and the others are right, these books should all be on our
bookshelves.
This month, Sport Aviation has a column about our own Scott Liefield from
Palmdale, CA, about his getting a Repairman Certificate for his Pietenpol
AirCamper. Only the actual builder can be granted an FAA Repairman
Certificate, and his dad, Manuel Sparks (hence the N number) was the
builder back in the early '70s. However, since Scott had helped his dad
all the way through, and does all the maintenance anyway, the FAA, with
help from Scott's friends at EAA (Earl Lawrence) issued a special Exemption
so Scott could be designated as the Repairman for N11MS. Nice photo of
Scott flying the Piet, too, complete with wire wheels. See page 19.
John Monnett who designs inexpensive airplanes that are easy to build got a
good bit of ink in this issue. The cover shows Ray Burgner's Sonerai 2,
which calls attention to Jack Cox's article about Ray's airplane. The
Sonerai is one of John Monnett's early designs and a lot of Sonerais are
out there flying. Simple airplane, costs little, flies great. Then there
is Ed Kolano's article about the Sonex, which is today's output of John
Monnett's skunk works here in Oshkosh.
For the people who complain about Sport Aviation not addressing the grass
roots people, these two articles alone refute that. But, in addition,
there is an article about the use of the Mazda Wankel rotary engine in
airplanes (Paul Lamar) and another about the basics of airplane design
(Neal Willford). In addition, Mike Leasure writes about "You, an A&P?" ,
Ron Alexander writes about fabric covering ("New Skin") and Kent White -
the tin man - presents "Forming Wing Ribs." Scott Spangler, editor of
Sport Aviation, has been listening to us.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Fisherman,
If you can wait, EAA Chapter 25 will be having its booksale with books
deliverable in June or July. The 25% off book (and video) sale will be made
available on this chat group. We had it last year and most participants
bought a pile of books.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Warren D.
Shoun
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Education or Ignorance
Fisherman,
Do please check with your EAA chapter tech counselor on what instruments
that you need in order to get this
craft registered....unless of course you will be flying it off of the
beaches in Belize...}8
).
Do also please invest the $75.00 in the Tony Bengelis books...you will
most sincerely have most of your
questions answered...or as my flight instructor has often said... you think
education is expensive...try
ignorance!
~Cheers
~Warren
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Pitot tube and static tube |
Jack,
Are you sure that your static tube did not break off your pitot tube? On
the 140 I fly all the time, it has a nice pitot static setup that comes down
out of wing (the fabric wing) and the pitot and static are siamesed
together.
The wing probably has the lowest pressure inside it in the entire ship.
It seems one could make a nice pitot and static setup from some copper
tubing. I am sure it is covered in Bingelis somewhere. In my opinion, the
outboard wing location down and forward a foot or so is the best. If the
static tube has but two holes in it, one left and one right with them
located on the horizontal axis, any slipping will be nulled out by the
pressure going up on the windward side and the pressure dropping on the
leeward side and the net will still be as close to the true static pressure
as you can get.
Finding a spot on the fuselage that is proper would take some sensitive
instrumentation.
My tcraft had open static ports to the inside of the cabin and I flew slower
than indicated and I always knew I was lower than the altimeter said but
that is ok if you are under class B.
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | placement of the landing gear and prop clearance |
required
Fisherman,
Do not forget the clearance for the prop is with FLAT TYRES and BROKEN SHOCK
CORDS with the tail up high and the longerons level.
I do think that the 78" diameter is the best size for the prop but nobody
else believes me. The disc on a 78 inch prop has 17% more area than a 72
inch prop. That translates to quite a bit more thrust.
A helicopter can go straight up with under 100 HP and two people on board
because the thrust of a big diameter slow turning prop produces gobs more
thrust than a small diameter prop turning a million RPM.
Slow it down!! Make it big!!
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: placement of the landing gear and prop
clearance required
Your right Chris! Somebody else, think it was Kip and wife mentioned I
needed more room between prop and ground. So decided to go to a 78 inch
prop diameter. That will give me one foot off the ground. I keep thinking
of Ted flaring out at Naples. I thought he was going to dig the prop into
the ground. But with 500 hours in a Pietenpol he knew what he was doing.
Anybody recommend against one foot clearance as being too little, let me
know!
On Tue, 05 February 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Christian Bobka" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > As taken from the book Aircraft Design - Volume Two - Aerostrctures by
C. H.
> > Latimer Needham in 1939, I quote the following passage about these two
> > subjects. My comments are added in the <>:
> >
> > "The airscrew clearance should be about 6 inches with the aeroplane in
> > rigging position, tyres flat, and shock aborbers compressed to their
maximum
> > vertical travel > ship hanging on the safety cables>.
> >
> > "The point of wheel contact with the ground should make an angle with
the
> > vertical through the CG in side elevation (aircraft in rigging position)
of
> > not less than 10 degrees, and may increase with wheel brakes up to a
maximum
> > of 14 degrees.
> >
> > "The tendency of aircraft to overturn when landing with wheel brakes may
be
> > provided against by arranging for the brakes to be released as the
tailskid
> > leaves the ground . It has
been
> > found, however, that if the angle, made by the line joining the point of
> > wheel contact to the CG with the vertical line through the CG when the
tail
> > skid is touching, is at least 20 degrees, no overturning is likely. An
> > angle much greater than 20 degrees results in excessive tail loads at
> > landing and difficulty in taxi-ing and at takeoff > tail skid and the axles mounted too far forward>.
> >
> > "It may be noted that the overturning tendency is not great at the
moment of
> > touchdown since the aircraft is still largely airborne and skidding of
the
> > wheels takes place. Towards the end of the run both aerodynamic lift
and
> > control are negligible, the braking effect increases and for safety the
> > braking load should be decreased.
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
Sorry to jump in so late, but I really got behind in my email reading. Been
flying Young Eagles in the Piet too much. But that's another story.
I have an ordinary 12" Sears wood cutting band saw. I was worried about
cutting my 4130. I tried a sabre saw and it jumped around too much. I
tried a hack saw but gave up quickly. I turned in desperation and tried the
band saw with a wood cutting blade. I really wanted to get some parts cut
that weekend. Guess what, it worked. I have cut all my parts out of .090
and .065 sheet and it still cuts just as good. About a week ago I ran
across an article in an old EAA publication full of hints and tricks by "old
timers". There was an article about "friction cutting". So, I found out
that I had been "friction cutting" all this time. If you haven't run out
and bought a metal cutting band saw, try your wood cutting one first. I
have a 1/2" blade and only make straight cuts. No lubrication is used.
Like everyone else said, you push until it starts cutting and keep a nice
and steady pressure on it.
Hope this helps someone.
Ted Brousseau
Naples, FL
----- Original Message -----
From: <JamesJboyer(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Band saw
>
> Leon,
>
> Go to a good tool store and buy a good bi-metal bandsaw blade. They cost
> about $23 here in Santa Rosa and last much longer and cut better than the
> standard high carbon blades. Harbor freight is not a good place, my
opinion,
> to buy good blandes to cut steel.
>
> I have cut 81 pieces of steel so far with my bi-metal blade and its still
> cuts very fast.
>
> Be sure to set your saw blade speed to its slowest speed. My saw will work
at
> 80, 120, and 160 ft/min. Always use the slowest speed and use a
water-soluble
> oil to lube the blade and it will last. Without lube and at highest speed
it
> will not last and will spit teeth like you are seeing.
>
> Cheers, Jim
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Education or Ignorance |
Kirk,
Tell me you read the quote from the needham book earlier today on the list
about axle placement. This should suffice for what I was going to send you
on the subject.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kirk &
Laura Huizenga
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Education or Ignorance
<kirkh@unique-software.com>
I agree completely about the books. Get, at least, the Sportplane
Construction Techniques and the Sportplane Builder.
Can be had from EAA or other sources
EAA 920-426-4800
Kirk
>
>Fisherman,
> Do please check with your EAA chapter tech counselor on what
>instruments that you need in order to get this
>craft registered....unless of course you will be flying it off of
>the beaches in Belize...}8
).
> Do also please invest the $75.00 in the Tony Bengelis
>books...you will most sincerely have most of your
>questions answered...or as my flight instructor has often said...
>you think education is expensive...try
>ignorance!
>~Cheers
>~Warren
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com |
My son gave me a copy of "Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley. Great book!
I'm going to use Douglas Fir too: there is a waiting line for Spruce. And I
got enough wood for the fuselage and tail feathers for $125.00. Get some VG
KD DF (Vertical Grain, Kiln Dried, Douglas Fir). I found that I should never
buy more than one plank at a time, and that I should try to use different
lumberyards. Kiln Dried means less than 19% moisture to the lumberyard - for
our use we really should have around 12%, but once the wood is cut it dries
faster. I tried 2x2s, 2x4s, and 2x6s, and 2x4s work out the best(cheapest).
Mr Pietenpol cut his parts from 2x4s. Try for 10 to 15 growth rings per inch
- more than this and you're dealing with pith wood. My plan is to laminate
the lower longerons with three slices 1/3" thick.
The edge grain requirement is specifically for spars. It doesn't matter which
way the rings are oriented with respect to the 1x1 longerons. But they must
lay the same way when when they are glued together for maximum strength. My
wood has been cut for a little over a week now, and I'm just a little bit
surprised at the amount of shrinkage already.
Mr Pietenpol laminated his spars from 3/4 by 3/4 strips, according to the
constuction manual. That is what I am going to do, too. Flat Grain DF is
cheaper than VG DF, and can be turned properly when laying up the spars.
I was interested in the interest in the Pou de Ciel: I looked at this too,
before deciding on the Piet. I wonder how many others got down to this choice
also?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Careful about the grain direction |
When we have wood with the grain running 90 degress or so to on surface, it
is easy to see that the grain does not run off the piece of wood. With the
wood you propose to use, there is an allowable slope to both the vertical
grain and the flat grain and you will have to do a calulation to see that
the ACTUAL slope is within limits. Minimum allowable grain slope is 1 in
15. Actual slope is computed by taking the square root of the sum of the
vertical slope squared plus the horizontal slope squared.
If horizontal slope is 1 inch in 26 inches and the vertical slope is 1 in 20
then we have:
square root of ((1/26)(1/26)+(1/20)(1/20))= square root of .0039 = .062 and
1/.062=16 so the actual slope of this example is 1 inch over 16 inches and
the piece is good.
Not taking this calculation into account with any old knot free wood with
the right rings per inch is risky.
Look in your EAA WOOD book for the article by Noel Becar on the Selection
and Evaluation of Wood
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
ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Alternate Woods
My son gave me a copy of "Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley. Great
book!
I'm going to use Douglas Fir too: there is a waiting line for Spruce. And I
got enough wood for the fuselage and tail feathers for $125.00. Get some VG
KD DF (Vertical Grain, Kiln Dried, Douglas Fir). I found that I should never
buy more than one plank at a time, and that I should try to use different
lumberyards. Kiln Dried means less than 19% moisture to the lumberyard - for
our use we really should have around 12%, but once the wood is cut it dries
faster. I tried 2x2s, 2x4s, and 2x6s, and 2x4s work out the best(cheapest).
Mr Pietenpol cut his parts from 2x4s. Try for 10 to 15 growth rings per inch
- more than this and you're dealing with pith wood. My plan is to laminate
the lower longerons with three slices 1/3" thick.
The edge grain requirement is specifically for spars. It doesn't matter
which
way the rings are oriented with respect to the 1x1 longerons. But they must
lay the same way when when they are glued together for maximum strength. My
wood has been cut for a little over a week now, and I'm just a little bit
surprised at the amount of shrinkage already.
Mr Pietenpol laminated his spars from 3/4 by 3/4 strips, according to the
constuction manual. That is what I am going to do, too. Flat Grain DF is
cheaper than VG DF, and can be turned properly when laying up the spars.
I was interested in the interest in the Pou de Ciel: I looked at this too,
before deciding on the Piet. I wonder how many others got down to this
choice
also?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Henry Mignet and his Flying Fleas Haynes Publishing Group
861 Lawrence Drive, Newbury Park, California 91320, USA.
History, Pictures, Some details and drawings, The accidents
The British tests, All of it. Good book. Lessons here for us too!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Alternate Woods |
What glue are you planning on using for these spar laminations?
----- Original Message -----
From: <ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Alternate Woods
>
> My son gave me a copy of "Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley. Great
book!
>
> I'm going to use Douglas Fir too: there is a waiting line for Spruce. And
I
> got enough wood for the fuselage and tail feathers for $125.00. Get some
VG
> KD DF (Vertical Grain, Kiln Dried, Douglas Fir). I found that I should
never
> buy more than one plank at a time, and that I should try to use different
> lumberyards. Kiln Dried means less than 19% moisture to the lumberyard -
for
> our use we really should have around 12%, but once the wood is cut it
dries
> faster. I tried 2x2s, 2x4s, and 2x6s, and 2x4s work out the
best(cheapest).
> Mr Pietenpol cut his parts from 2x4s. Try for 10 to 15 growth rings per
inch
> - more than this and you're dealing with pith wood. My plan is to laminate
> the lower longerons with three slices 1/3" thick.
>
> The edge grain requirement is specifically for spars. It doesn't matter
which
> way the rings are oriented with respect to the 1x1 longerons. But they
must
> lay the same way when when they are glued together for maximum strength.
My
> wood has been cut for a little over a week now, and I'm just a little bit
> surprised at the amount of shrinkage already.
>
> Mr Pietenpol laminated his spars from 3/4 by 3/4 strips, according to the
> constuction manual. That is what I am going to do, too. Flat Grain DF is
> cheaper than VG DF, and can be turned properly when laying up the spars.
>
> I was interested in the interest in the Pou de Ciel: I looked at this too,
> before deciding on the Piet. I wonder how many others got down to this
choice
> also?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Education or Ignorance |
I did and have it saved - thanks
Kirk
>
>Kirk,
>
>Tell me you read the quote from the needham book earlier today on the list
>about axle placement. This should suffice for what I was going to send you
>on the subject.
>
>Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Education or Ignorance |
MEMO!
Inter-Library Loan Request
Hialheah Center Library
Lucy ( ILL's )
Two books and any others by Tony Bingelis
a) The Sportplane Builder
b) Sport Plane Construction Techniques
Ray Auxillou
On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Christian Bobka" wrote:
>
>
> Kirk,
>
> Tell me you read the quote from the needham book earlier today on the list
> about axle placement. This should suffice for what I was going to send you
> on the subject.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kirk &
> Laura Huizenga
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Education or Ignorance
>
>
> <kirkh@unique-software.com>
>
> I agree completely about the books. Get, at least, the Sportplane
> Construction Techniques and the Sportplane Builder.
>
> Can be had from EAA or other sources
>
> EAA 920-426-4800
>
> Kirk
>
>
> >
> >Fisherman,
> > Do please check with your EAA chapter tech counselor on what
> >instruments that you need in order to get this
> >craft registered....unless of course you will be flying it off of
> >the beaches in Belize...}8
).
> > Do also please invest the $75.00 in the Tony Bengelis
> >books...you will most sincerely have most of your
> >questions answered...or as my flight instructor has often said...
> >you think education is expensive...try
> >ignorance!
> >~Cheers
> >~Warren
> >
>
>
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: | Pitot tube and static tube |
Jack,
Are you sure that your static tube did not break off your pitot tube? On
the 140 I fly all the time, it has a nice pitot static setup that comes down
out of wing (the fabric wing) and the pitot and static are siamesed
together.
chris bobka
Chris, I'm not sure. According to the logs, that plane has had a hard life
(been groundlooped three times, over on its back at least once). It is an
early 1947 model and I know that Cessna experimented around with the static
port placement before they finally settled on a location on either side of
the fuselage. This one has metallized wings and it's possible that whoever
did the metallizing just cut off the static line and crimped it as I
described, although I've seen some reference in the Cessna 140 discussion
forums that late 1946 and early 1947 120's and 140's had the setup I have,
with the static line ported inside the left wing. It seems fairly accurate
at cruise - my airspeed in usually accurate within a couple of mph as
verified by GPS on light wind days. I do know that it indicates lower than
it should at high angles of attack (it indicates 40 mph at stall with flaps
when it should be more like 45), but that is probably due more to pitot
errors than static errors. If I went to the trouble to bevel the inside of
the pitot tube opening I could probably eliminate those errors.
Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | mon, the eggheads go wild on the internet |
Thanks Jack
Nice lengthy explanation and I catch the how to build your own now! (static
tube ) Books from EAA take about 6 weeks from ordering around here. But if I
can't get them from inter-library loan, will buy some.
Wasn't sure what a static tube was, but it is that bent tiny tube I see under
the wing. Gotcha on that!
Altimeter and Airspeed can read off same static tube. Got that to! Y connection
and split hoses. Okay on that too!
Got all the stuff on false readings with slips and things. Two static tubes
on either side are better than one on one side. Okay on that to!
Solves my questions. For all I knew, those holes were for electrical stuff?
Now I see not.
Thankyou again.
Ray
P.S. Each to his own area of expertise. Got no shame about appearing a dummy!
Now if you want to know how to spearfish a 20 lb amberjack out of a school of
two dozen, at 40 feet below the ocean surface, on your snorkel and keep it from
a 1300 pound BULL shark circling you. And get back to your boat up on the
surface with your fish and your arm intact. Then you ask me?
On Tue, 05 February 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Boy you ask a simple question of the search engine about pitot tubes and
> there is all kinds of physics and theory. But nary, one lousy photograph of
> a metal pitot tube and connecting hoses.
>
> If what one guy said is right in theory on here today. I should be able
> to read the altimeter with no attachments to the hole in the guage on my
> panel? Since the Pietenpol is an open cockpit, it should read the
> airpressure right? Or altitude, sorry! Or do I find a plastic plug and
> drill a needle sized hole for that hole in the middle of the back that you
> screw something in?
>
> The air speed guage is different though, I am guessing. Not sure what he
> said? There is an output and a static. You do what with which? There are
> two hose like connectors on the back. Like you use for a fuel line and fuel
> filter ( those small one in VW bugs. ) He said plug one and leave the other
> open, or something along those lines? Don't you need one of those bent
> right angle tubes I see sticking out under a wing?
>
>
Fisherman Caye
>
>
> OK Ray, I'll give my two cents worth. Yes you will have to have a pitot
> tube (unless you use a vane type of airspeed indicator like the old E-2 Cubs
> used). You can leave the static ports of the airspeed indicator and the
> altimeter open if you wish. However, they will not be seeing the true
> static pressure. They will be reading the pressure inside your cockpit
> which is probably less than true static pressure because an open cockpit
> tends to create a slight vacuum, sucking air out of the cockpit. If the
> instruments are reading the cockpit pressure, the airspeed indicator will
> read higher than you are actually flying, and the altimeter will also read a
> higher altitude than you are actually flying. There will also tend to be
> variations due to side-slipping and other maneuvers. Not a real problem if
> you're not a real stickler for accuracy, although I would want to have an
> altimeter that reads accurately if I was flying underneath some Class C
> airspace without a transponder.
>
>
> To do it right, there are a couple of ways to approach it. The simplest way
> is to use a Pitot-Static tube, or a pitot tube with a static tube close by.
> You can find these in any of several aircraft parts company catalogs, like
> Aircraft Spruce & Specialty (their catalog is free and is a treasure trove
> of information - for example their catalog shows how to hook up the
> instruments you are asking about right now. They are on the web at
> www.aircraftspruce.com. ) or Wag Aero or Wicks Aircraft Supply. You might
> as well get all their catalogs now because there is a lot of stuff required
> to build a plane that you just can't get at Home Depot.
>
> Most production airplanes use a pair of static ports located somewhere along
> the fuselage, one on either side. This is a better setup, but more trouble
> to install. The reason it is better is that if the plane is skidding or
> slipping the two ports average out the static pressure better than a single
> port can. My Cessna 140 uses a static port inside the left wing, just a
> piece of tubing flattened slightly on the end but still open and left
> dangling in space between the front spar and the leading edge. The point is
> that you want a static source that will remain fairly constant with changes
> in aircraft attitude.
>
> You can make your own Pitot tube and static tube. The Tony Bingelis books I
> mentioned earlier, and Mike Cuy seconded, tell how to do it. Buy or borrow
> those books and most of your questions will be answered. They are enjoyable
> reading, too.
>
> Jack
>
>
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: Geo/Suzuki engine |
I guess if it would lift a Jenny, it should a Pietenpol? I sent a query to the
web site for Geo Metro conversions, but no answer in about 4 days. I was more
concerned with engine weight and have been unable to get engine weights FWF
from the web sites on either the Geo Metro engine, or the Subaru? But the one
Subaru advertised for the RV 6 through 9 series, is too heavy at 362 lbs.
I kind of wonder if there was a smaller Subaru engine, but no answer on that query
either?
A two to one reduction on a 4400 rpm motor should work out? The 78 inch Pietenpol
prop would, or could swing up to 3000 rpm is my rough calculation.
On Wed, 06 February 2002, "Oscar Zuniga" wrote:
>
>
> Hi, folks;
>
> I did notice some mention of the Geo/Suzuki engine in Jenny replicas, and do
> have a bit of info on that (sorry if this has already been addressed; I'm
> behind). Dan Horton has a beautiful scale replica "Canuck" (aka Jenny) that
> made the cover of Experimenter a year or two ago and has won awards, and the
> magazine had a nice write-up. It's powered by one of these little engines
> with a redrive. I sent him a disposable camera about a year ago and had him
> shoot some detail photos of his brake setup for me, but he also got plenty
> of under-the-cowl shots. It's a beautiful airplane; brass radiator stuff,
> outstanding attention to detail. If you don't have the back issue of the
> magazine with the article, maybe one of my photos will help if you're
> interested. Just email me offline and give me a week or two. Or -better
> yet- email Dan with specific questions like weight, performance, and how he
> likes the engine. I think it's DHPHKH(at)aol.com
>
> Sorry if I'm late getting back to those that asked about photos of William's
> cowling (on the Corvair); I'll get to it after I get through about another
> 100 emails and digests!
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, Oregon
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
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: Info on Bingelis books, Scott Liefield's Piet, |
etc.
Interesting on articles. I havent got so far along to worry about fabric covering.
But think about it once in a while. This is all new to me. A newbie.
I'm sure I will eventually bore the list once I get that far.
To me the Pietenpol is a learner, a basic hands on gut feeling learner. I've
read a lot, figure I could design a plane. But there is a difference between
academic theories and understanding and the hands on knowledge, experience.
So for me the Pietenpol is a learner, the hands on gut feeling project.
I compare it to back when I was 24 years old and was running a boat that ran
on a 5 hp Briggs and Stratton gasoline water pump. The boat would sink over the
ocean, without that pump. We ran it every 15 minutes to half hour. Up to
that point, I knew nothing about engines. Real mental block. But boy, when your
life depends on it, and you have an old pump, my Father in Law taught me about
compression, the spark plug check and the gasoline check. Really simple
really on a one piston motor. From then on, I had not much trouble expanding
to more pistons and peripherals, cause I could fix that engine in my sleep and
often did.
So as a first project, the Pietenpol is my gut feeling learner of the basics.
So, if I sound stupid, it is on purpose, until I absorb the lesson through my
fingers. Not through the brain. The Pietenpol is my 5 hp Briggs and Stratton.
That said, there is a lot of romantic talk about flying in articles, which seem
foreign to my nature. I cannot understand it, but read it with amusement,
knowing the world is full of all types of characters. But to me the Pietenpol
is a tool. It has to go from A to B and it has to work and make it's own maintainance
costs at least. How we are going to do that, I don't know yet? But
building a plane for romantic flying. Not in my character. It is a workhorse
tool!
I never built a sailboat or other boat, for fun playing. I did play with them,
but they still had to earn their keep. The same with the Pietenpol. Nothing
romantic about it for me. But yes there may be some romanticism in there,
but I sort of identify it as the pleasure of creativity, the artist in me and
the challenge and conquest of some new professional field. That gives me satisfaction.
But how to make the darn thing work and earn some bread is another
story.
======================================
On Tue, 05 February 2002, Doc Mosher wrote:
>
>
> Since we are all EAA members (or should be), page 89 of your February Sport
> Aviation magazine has a full color add about Tony Bingelis' four
> homebuilder special books. The four together cost $79.95 ($24.95
> each). Mike Cuy and the others are right, these books should all be on our
> bookshelves.
>
> This month, Sport Aviation has a column about our own Scott Liefield from
> Palmdale, CA, about his getting a Repairman Certificate for his Pietenpol
> AirCamper. Only the actual builder can be granted an FAA Repairman
> Certificate, and his dad, Manuel Sparks (hence the N number) was the
> builder back in the early '70s. However, since Scott had helped his dad
> all the way through, and does all the maintenance anyway, the FAA, with
> help from Scott's friends at EAA (Earl Lawrence) issued a special Exemption
> so Scott could be designated as the Repairman for N11MS. Nice photo of
> Scott flying the Piet, too, complete with wire wheels. See page 19.
>
> John Monnett who designs inexpensive airplanes that are easy to build got a
> good bit of ink in this issue. The cover shows Ray Burgner's Sonerai 2,
> which calls attention to Jack Cox's article about Ray's airplane. The
> Sonerai is one of John Monnett's early designs and a lot of Sonerais are
> out there flying. Simple airplane, costs little, flies great. Then there
> is Ed Kolano's article about the Sonex, which is today's output of John
> Monnett's skunk works here in Oshkosh.
>
> For the people who complain about Sport Aviation not addressing the grass
> roots people, these two articles alone refute that. But, in addition,
> there is an article about the use of the Mazda Wankel rotary engine in
> airplanes (Paul Lamar) and another about the basics of airplane design
> (Neal Willford). In addition, Mike Leasure writes about "You, an A&P?" ,
> Ron Alexander writes about fabric covering ("New Skin") and Kent White -
> the tin man - presents "Forming Wing Ribs." Scott Spangler, editor of
> Sport Aviation, has been listening to us.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
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: | wing ribs and spars |
Sam is off today. I tell you, this unpaid labor is unreliable. I offered
to double his salary, but he still took the day off to go see his girl friend.
Anyway, he has about 24 wing ribs made. So in a couple of weeks, we will get
around to making a wing section. Lest you get the wrong idea and that I am
cheap, Sam works for food. I buy him lunch every day he works. But the long
and short of it, is he pays more in income tax than I earn in a year.
But I digress!
So, I found it interesting the question on the spar. Mine is Douglas Fir. I
considered routing it to lessen weight. But it seems a futile effort in this
plane. It can carry weight. What it needs is to watch the engine weight FWF
is my conclusion.
But spar strength is definitely more my item of worry than the engine. After
I finish the Pietenpol, I plan to start building sailplanes. Carbon Dragon is
my first choice. So have done a lot of reading on the composite stuff. I was
just wondering, if one put a TOW, which is carbon string, comes in rolls like
string and you expoxy it. If you grooved the top and bottom of the spar and
put TOW in there like in sailplanes, if it might help with strength, if not
peace of mind?
Or would it be better to make a string carbon web alongside the spar? If a spar
was to break in a three wing setup on the Pietenpol, where would it break?
How could you, or would you combine Carbon Fiber TOW with the Pietenpol spar
box? This wing is not a cantilever, so is inherently vulnerable.
Ray Auxillou
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know of
are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there any
other possibilities that I've missed?
Thanks,
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Geo/Suzuki engine |
Fisherman Caye wrote:
> I sent a query to the web site for Geo Metro conversions...
Is this the Raven site, or is there another source for Geo info?
> But the one Subaru advertised for the RV 6 through 9 series, is too heavy
at 362 lbs.
> I kind of wonder if there was a smaller Subaru engine, but no answer on
that query either?
You want either the EA-81 or the EA-82. It's been a while since I looked at
this stuff,
but either should put out around 75 hp. Some folks claim considerably more
for them
with altered cams, airflow, etc. The EA-81 is a bit lighter and simpler and
usually is
considered preferable. All-up weight for the EA-81 should come out
somewhere in the
neighborhood of 220 lb, if memory serves, with the EA-82 about 20 lb
heavier. You
really need to look up the AIRSOOB mailing list, and its archives, for more
information.
The archives are at http://www.interstice.com/~kevinh/airsoob/subject.html .
There
used to be sign-up info somewhere there as well. Probably appended to the
messages,
if not elsewhere.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | earning it's keep |
Fisherman Ray,
Your point about using the building of your Piet as a tool to learn new things
about a new area in your life is just great. Even for long time pilots,
the building
of a plane like a Pietenpol is like getting a four year degree in material
science,
mechanical engineering, and homelife 115. BUT....the Pietenpol will never
earn
it's keep in any other way but in the romantic realm of low and slow
flying. It will
only provide you with fun for yourself and others you might give rides to,
nothing more.
Ok, you can use it to haul some cans of tuna from point A to point B or
take some
photos of your partners girlfriend's house from the air, or to get a local
burger from
the nearest airport cafe and thats about it. About the only way the Piet
will even come
close to earning it's keep is by you being able to do your own yearly
condition inspections
if you apply for and get your Repairman's Certificate from the FAA. The
only other thing
I can think of is that if you find the right CFI you don't have to rent a
plane or borrow
one for your every two year flight review. You can take it in your own
plane. (I've done it
twice now.) I even passed.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing ribs and spars |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 9:42 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing ribs and spars
......... But spar strength is definitely more my item of worry than
the engine.......
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Not to worry. If you build to the plans & use aircraft materials, that
airplane is not going to break.
While ago, I reviewed a list ot Piet accidents put out by the FAA. Not
one structural failure. There was one strut collapse due to a failure to
install a jury strut.
I have been around Piets for quite a while & talked to many people,
the one common thread is that the Piet is one strong airplane.
Fatalities have happened, at a higher rate than one would expect, but
all of them were due to damn foolishness & pilot error.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Hi Gene,
I used piano hinges - the MS20001 type that are extruded sections, not the
cheaper bent-over type. I know the barn-door hinges will work, but they are
heavy and don't seal the gaps. Mike Cuy used Piano hinges as well.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hubbard,
Eugene
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know of
are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there any
other possibilities that I've missed?
Thanks,
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
In a message dated 2/6/02 7:38:21 AM Pacific Standard Time,
ehubbard(at)titan.com writes:
> I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know of
> are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there any
> other possibilities that I've missed?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
>
>
>
Gene,
No need to weld the loops closed. The strap hinge works very well. There is
no reason to change the design unless one just needs to find something.
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Gene----The plans hinges are just fine, BUT........you'll want to
seal the gaps and that can get messy. Frank Pavliga and his
Dad flew their Piet just one time and grounded it until they put
on gaps seals. The alum. hinges are great. I can remove my
aileron in about 2 minutes if needed too by having installed self
locking floating nutplates on the aileron spar and recess to secure
the alum. piano hinge too. If you ever got flutter (which we never
should see.....but......you'll not want hardware store stuff on there.
Either way will work.....your choice !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> |
I have a rebuilt Subaru EA-81 engine for sale. It was rebuilt by a
company in Colorado. I was going to use it in my Piet but decided to go
with a Corvair instead. I saw a Piet in Okla. flying great with a
direct drive EA - 81. I have 2 rebuilt Corvair engines also and would
like to sell one of them. markmc(at)bluebonnet.net Mark McKellar Mt.
Pleasant Tx.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Attn: Craig Wilcox |
Craig,
Back home in La. Send me your E mail address direct.
Corky in cold, wet La, but no snow.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
Among other comments, Mark said:
> I saw a Piet in Okla. flying great with a direct drive EA - 81.
Gee, that surprises me. I'd have imagined that a direct drive
installation would spin too fast to be efficient on such a draggy
airframe. Any idea what it had for a prop?
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: earning it's keep |
Well I thought it might carry 25 pineapples at $3 each, from the village of Sartenja
to the barrier reef island of Caye Caulker. The occasional sightseeing
tourist (hic! friend passenger ?) low and slow along the barrier reef, for a
photo safari. Then maybe the government of Belize might need a fisheries poaching
patrol or two along the remote southern Cayes of the Belize Barrier Reef.
Run the occasional horny tourist wife off to some place for a little swim on
a remote spot. Different things crossed my mind.
Course, Central America is a different world than yours for enforcement of bureaucratic
rules.
You do know I am joking of course???????
( I'm far too old anymore to do the tourist wife bit and get away with it, like
I did in my youth. )
On Wed, 06 February 2002, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman Ray,
>
> Your point about using the building of your Piet as a tool to learn new things
> about a new area in your life is just great. Even for long time pilots,
> the building
> of a plane like a Pietenpol is like getting a four year degree in material
> science,
> mechanical engineering, and homelife 115. BUT....the Pietenpol will never
> earn
> it's keep in any other way but in the romantic realm of low and slow
> flying. It will
> only provide you with fun for yourself and others you might give rides to,
> nothing more.
> Ok, you can use it to haul some cans of tuna from point A to point B or
> take some
> photos of your partners girlfriend's house from the air, or to get a local
> burger from
> the nearest airport cafe and thats about it. About the only way the Piet
> will even come
> close to earning it's keep is by you being able to do your own yearly
> condition inspections
> if you apply for and get your Repairman's Certificate from the FAA. The
> only other thing
> I can think of is that if you find the right CFI you don't have to rent a
> plane or borrow
> one for your every two year flight review. You can take it in your own
> plane. (I've done it
> twice now.) I even passed.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
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> |
Mark
I am afraid to ask the prices? But surprise me? The only thing I got plenty
of is labor, money is budgeted on this project.
On Wed, 06 February 2002, "Mark" wrote:
>
>
> I have a rebuilt Subaru EA-81 engine for sale. It was rebuilt by a
> company in Colorado. I was going to use it in my Piet but decided to go
> with a Corvair instead. I saw a Piet in Okla. flying great with a
> direct drive EA - 81. I have 2 rebuilt Corvair engines also and would
> like to sell one of them. markmc(at)bluebonnet.net Mark McKellar Mt.
> Pleasant Tx.
>
>
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: Aileron Hinges |
Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the rudder hinges.
Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the many builders beforehand,
come up with something off the shelf better than welding up stuff?
The other hinges at some point that you mention below are of interest. I would
like to see some photographs along with an explanation. Aluminum piano hinges
from aviation parts supply? What size?
On Wed, 06 February 2002, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Gene----The plans hinges are just fine, BUT........you'll want to
> seal the gaps and that can get messy. Frank Pavliga and his
> Dad flew their Piet just one time and grounded it until they put
> on gaps seals. The alum. hinges are great. I can remove my
> aileron in about 2 minutes if needed too by having installed self
> locking floating nutplates on the aileron spar and recess to secure
> the alum. piano hinge too. If you ever got flutter (which we never
> should see.....but......you'll not want hardware store stuff on there.
> Either way will work.....your choice !
>
> Mike C.
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Fisherman,
You can check the archives for aileron hinge and probably find most
info. Also, i know that budget is of concern, but along with the
Bingelis books, I would suggest getting Mike Cuy's video. It will not
only give the answers to many questions, but inspire one to keep
working
Archives at
http://www.matronics.com/search/
Have a great evening
Kirk
>
>
>Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the
>rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the
>many builders beforehand, come up with something off the shelf
>better than welding up stuff?
>
> The other hinges at some point that you mention below are of
>interest. I would like to see some photographs along with an
>explanation. Aluminum piano hinges from aviation parts supply? What
>size?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Kirk
Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my building
workpage.
The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they used eye
bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder hinges.
Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel and gudgeons
on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They do work.
But I would like to know what the person who used them did, two years ago?
On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that how it is
done on an airplane?
On Wed, 06 February 2002, Kirk & Laura Huizenga wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman,
>
> You can check the archives for aileron hinge and probably find most
> info. Also, i know that budget is of concern, but along with the
> Bingelis books, I would suggest getting Mike Cuy's video. It will not
> only give the answers to many questions, but inspire one to keep
> working
>
> Archives at
>
> http://www.matronics.com/search/
>
> Have a great evening
> Kirk
>
> >
> >
> >Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the
> >rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the
> >many builders beforehand, come up with something off the shelf
> >better than welding up stuff?
> >
> > The other hinges at some point that you mention below are of
> >interest. I would like to see some photographs along with an
> >explanation. Aluminum piano hinges from aviation parts supply? What
> >size?
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Covering options |
Pieters,
While on our trip to the beautiful state of Florida last week I discussed the
above subject with Dick Gillespie and Craig Wilcox. They gave me some helpful
ideas. Now I'm throwing this big bone out in the Pietyard and hope many of
you will take a bite and send me your druthers on covering systems. I will
probably use 1.7 oz. and 2 coats of Poly Brush but would like to go another
direction for the last coats and end up with a gloss. What would you suggest
and what brands would you use. I will be grateful for any responses to this
throwout.
Corky in cold, wet La
Brodhead is sooner than you think and I've no weddings this year.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Covering options |
Corky,
Take a look at these two.
http://www.aircraftfinishing.com
The advantage of this one seems to be it is water based and you can put it
on
with a foam roller for good results.
http://www.airtechcoatings.com
The advantage here seems to be great toughness and matching on metal and
fabric surfaces...and it is glossy!
~Cheers,
~Warren.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Malley <jgmalley(at)home.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Eye bolts work fine on the rudder and elevators (one of the better items
in the Grega plans); they are simple to install; a rod can be used for
alignment, but individual clevis bolts with locking nuts should be used
for assembly. They cannot turn loose because they are on different axes.
Jim Malley
Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> Kirk
>
> Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my building
workpage.
>
> The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they used
eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder hinges.
>
> Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel and gudgeons
on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They do work.
But I would like to know what the person who used them did, two years ago?
>
> On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that how it
is done on an airplane?
>
> On Wed, 06 February 2002, Kirk & Laura Huizenga wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Fisherman,
> >
> > You can check the archives for aileron hinge and probably find most
> > info. Also, i know that budget is of concern, but along with the
> > Bingelis books, I would suggest getting Mike Cuy's video. It will not
> > only give the answers to many questions, but inspire one to keep
> > working
> >
> > Archives at
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/search/
> >
> > Have a great evening
> > Kirk
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the
> > >rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the
> > >many builders beforehand, come up with something off the shelf
> > >better than welding up stuff?
> > >
> > > The other hinges at some point that you mention below are of
> > >interest. I would like to see some photographs along with an
> > >explanation. Aluminum piano hinges from aviation parts supply? What
> > >size?
> > >
> >
> >
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
In a message dated 2/6/02 5:00:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
> Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my
> building workpage.
>
> The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they
> used eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder
> hinges.
>
> Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel and
> gudgeons on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They
> do work. But I would like to know what the person who used them did, two
> years ago?
>
> On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that how
> it is done on an airplane?
>
Vi Kapler sells the cast alum tail control surface hinges which are mentioned
as a note on the tail page of the plans. They are very good quality and easy
to install. I made my first set from steel as shown and spent more hours
than on the entire landing gear; from then on I used the cast hinges. I
think I have built eight tail groups, lost count, and I sure like the cast
hinges. You might consider them.
Doug Bryant Wichita Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing spar,
and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
strong as heck!
Craig
TC#4553
----- Original Message -----
From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
> I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
of
> are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
any
> other possibilities that I've missed?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
Kirk
Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on
my building workpage.
< The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said;
they used eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the
rudder hinges.
Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel
and gudgeons on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings.
They do work. But I would like to know what the person who used them
did, two years ago?
On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that
how it is done on an airplane?>
--------------------------------
I don't know if it is me you are referring to, but I have individual
eye bolts on my rudder & elevators.
The ailerons have door hinges as per plans.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( N 687MB )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
I used the aluminum hinges from Vi Kapler. They are semi- finished, drilled
and countersunk, but just need a bit of work with a file.
They are more than worth the $45 for a set of 9 hinges in time saved alone.
Contact Vi and see if he still supplies them.
Vitalis Kapler
1033 Forest Hill Dr. SW
Rochester, MN 5902
Rod Wooller
Australia
>From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>Date: 6 Feb 2002 13:57:17 -0800 06 Feb 2002 13:57:17 PST
>
>
>
>
>Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the rudder
>hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the many builders
>beforehand, come up with something off the shelf better than welding up
>stuff?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
WOW Jim!
That solves a lot of diddly problems in making rudder fittings. No welding!
Great mon! Will do. Roger on the use of clevis pins instead of a rod. Tell
me when you did it, did you use a backing plate for the eye bolt nut? Or just
a washer against the wood?
On Wed, 06 February 2002, Jim Malley wrote:
>
>
> Eye bolts work fine on the rudder and elevators (one of the better items
> in the Grega plans); they are simple to install; a rod can be used for
> alignment, but individual clevis bolts with locking nuts should be used
> for assembly. They cannot turn loose because they are on different axes.
>
> Jim Malley
>
> Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> >
> > Kirk
> >
> > Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my building
workpage.
> >
> > The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they used
eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder hinges.
> >
> > Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel and gudgeons
on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They do work.
But I would like to know what the person who used them did, two years ago?
> >
> > On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that how
it is done on an airplane?
> >
> > On Wed, 06 February 2002, Kirk & Laura Huizenga wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Fisherman,
> > >
> > > You can check the archives for aileron hinge and probably find most
> > > info. Also, i know that budget is of concern, but along with the
> > > Bingelis books, I would suggest getting Mike Cuy's video. It will not
> > > only give the answers to many questions, but inspire one to keep
> > > working
> > >
> > > Archives at
> > >
> > > http://www.matronics.com/search/
> > >
> > > Have a great evening
> > > Kirk
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the
> > > >rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the
> > > >many builders beforehand, come up with something off the shelf
> > > >better than welding up stuff?
> > > >
> > > > The other hinges at some point that you mention below are of
> > > >interest. I would like to see some photographs along with an
> > > >explanation. Aluminum piano hinges from aviation parts supply? What
> > > >size?
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 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: Aileron Hinges |
Doug
I will consider them. Give me an address, price list, or e-mail, or something
to find out about?
Right on! I am NOT going to weld those suckers up as in the plans. If I can buy
them, fine! If not, eye bolts and clevis pins will do it. Will be at that
stage late next week, I think. Working on the stabilizer now. The hardware
store had the right angle brackets and stainless steel screws to fit. The brackets
are galvanized though. Probably install vertical stabilizer today, or Monday.
I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint. The hardware
store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will spray the
brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is that a standard
spray can?
Another question when covering rear fuselage hull, turtle deck and stabilizer.
I noticed two ways of doing it. One you run the cloth back from the fuselage
and around the stabilizer. It flares out of it's own accord making streamlining.
That is the route I plan to eventually take. But Ted over at Naples on
his Pietenpol, had the fabric stopped at the end of the turtle deck and a separate
layer of fabric on the stabilizer. It looked like unnecessary wind resistance
to me? Any opinions on this, or other comments from those who have done
it?
I presume there are physical labor advantages to one way or the other?
Ray
===========================
On Wed, 06 February 2002, Doug413(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/6/02 5:00:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
>
>
> > Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my
> > building workpage.
> >
> > The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they
> > used eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder
> > hinges.
> >
> > Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel and
> > gudgeons on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They
> > do work. But I would like to know what the person who used them did, two
> > years ago?
> >
> > On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that how
> > it is done on an airplane?
> >
>
> Vi Kapler sells the cast alum tail control surface hinges which are mentioned
> as a note on the tail page of the plans. They are very good quality and easy
> to install. I made my first set from steel as shown and spent more hours
> than on the entire landing gear; from then on I used the cast hinges. I
> think I have built eight tail groups, lost count, and I sure like the cast
> hinges. You might consider them.
>
> Doug Bryant Wichita Ks
>
>
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: Aileron Hinges |
Jeffrey
I am trying to follow this conversation, but I haven't a clue what you are talking
about? Care to explain in more detail, please?
Ray
On Wed, 06 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
> I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing spar,
> and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
> strong as heck!
>
> Craig
> TC#4553
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
> of
> > are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> > piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
> any
> > other possibilities that I've missed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gene Hubbard
> > San Diego
> >
> >
>
>
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: Aileron Hinges |
Michael
I guess I have to get my terminology right? The elevators, or elevons are the
adjustable things for pitch at the back, right?
The ailerons are the barn doors on the wing, right? So you use door hinges?
I haven't looked at that yet, but my apprentice SAM keeps mumbling about it.
But I haven't got that far along yet, to bother my head. But tentatively had
planned on using piano hinge, from aircraft supply house for wing ailerons.
Due mostly to a comment someplace about it closes the airgap and so, controls
flutter possibilities somewhat. Flutter bothers me!
Ray
On Wed, 06 February 2002, "Michael Brusilow" wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fisherman Caye
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2002 7:57 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
>
> Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on
> my building workpage.
>
> < The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said;
> they used eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the
> rudder hinges.
>
> Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel
> and gudgeons on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings.
> They do work. But I would like to know what the person who used them
> did, two years ago?
>
> On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that
> how it is done on an airplane?>
>
>
> --------------------------------
>
> I don't know if it is me you are referring to, but I have individual
> eye bolts on my rudder & elevators.
> The ailerons have door hinges as per plans.
>
> Mike B Piet N687MB ( N 687MB )
>
>
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: | Vitalis Kapler $70 |
Just talked to Vitalis Kapler in Minnesota.
$70 for cast aluminum fittings for rudder and elevons, plus pins, AN screws,
locknuts and what have you.
Will order NOW, today! As I am going to be ready by end of next week, to hang
the rudder, weather permitting.
Vitalis Kapler, 1033 Forest Hill Dr. SW, Rochester, MN 5902.
tel: 507 288 3322
I don't see how you can do this cheaper buying hardware fittings? With 27 eyebolts
at say $1.50 each, that is $40. Other pins and screws. Forget it! Better
to buy the aluminum cast stuff.
He sounded on the phone older than me. So if anybody else needs them, they better
get them before he kicks the bucket.
Ray
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Covering options |
Pieters,
Maybe I was not clear in my request for info on covering systems. What I want
is the process or processes for using Latex and or Rustoleum type paints
after the poly brush. Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Thanks Craig,
How do you hold the threaded rod end to the wing spar? Do you put a strap
around it or drill through the sleeve/threaded rod combo to leave studs on
each end? I think I understand the reversed "L" brackets. This moves the
hinge line down somewhat, doesn't it? Is this a problem?
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Wilcox [mailto:craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing spar,
and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
strong as heck!
Craig
TC#4553
----- Original Message -----
From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
> I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
of
> are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
any
> other possibilities that I've missed?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JEFFREY WILCOX <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
Gene -
I use a wood washer (large diameter) with two little slots cut, and a tab turned
up, small hole thru the tab. Then I put the bolt through the washer, through
the spar, and screw on the rod end bearing. Use a drilled head bolt, and safety
wire the bolt through the turned up tab.
The hinge line will depend on how long a fastener you use - many methods are available.
Generally, the hinge line is about 1.375" aft of the spar. Use thin
(1/16") ply to form aileron gap seals, with openings just wide enuf to install
the threaded clevis hinge pins.
Craig
On Thu, 07 February 2002, "Hubbard, Eugene" wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Craig,
>
> How do you hold the threaded rod end to the wing spar? Do you put a strap
> around it or drill through the sleeve/threaded rod combo to leave studs on
> each end? I think I understand the reversed "L" brackets. This moves the
> hinge line down somewhat, doesn't it? Is this a problem?
>
> Gene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Wilcox [mailto:craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com]
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
> I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing spar,
> and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
> strong as heck!
>
> Craig
> TC#4553
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
> of
> > are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> > piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
> any
> > other possibilities that I've missed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gene Hubbard
> > San Diego
> >
> >
>
>
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JEFFREY WILCOX <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Raye -
I will do better - when you come on the 16th, I will demonstrate it to you. And
if you call me "Jeffrey" again, I will address you as "Mister".
Craig
On Thu, 07 February 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> Jeffrey
>
> I am trying to follow this conversation, but I haven't a clue what you are
talking about? Care to explain in more detail, please?
>
> Ray
>
>
> On Wed, 06 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing spar,
> > and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
> > strong as heck!
> >
> > Craig
> > TC#4553
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
> > of
> > > are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to use
> > > piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
> > any
> > > other possibilities that I've missed?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Gene Hubbard
> > > San Diego
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Got it. Thanks!
-----Original Message-----
From: JEFFREY WILCOX [mailto:craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com]
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
Gene -
I use a wood washer (large diameter) with two little slots cut, and a tab
turned up, small hole thru the tab. Then I put the bolt through the washer,
through the spar, and screw on the rod end bearing. Use a drilled head
bolt, and safety wire the bolt through the turned up tab.
The hinge line will depend on how long a fastener you use - many methods are
available. Generally, the hinge line is about 1.375" aft of the spar. Use
thin (1/16") ply to form aileron gap seals, with openings just wide enuf to
install the threaded clevis hinge pins.
Craig
On Thu, 07 February 2002, "Hubbard, Eugene" wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Craig,
>
> How do you hold the threaded rod end to the wing spar? Do you put a strap
> around it or drill through the sleeve/threaded rod combo to leave studs on
> each end? I think I understand the reversed "L" brackets. This moves the
> hinge line down somewhat, doesn't it? Is this a problem?
>
> Gene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeffrey Wilcox [mailto:craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com]
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
> I faavor the method of using a female threaded rod end on the aft wing
spar,
> and a pair or reversed "L" pieces on the aileron spar. Neat, easy, and
> strong as heck!
>
> Craig
> TC#4553
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hubbard, Eugene <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm dithering on how to do the aileron hinges. The two ways that I know
> of
> > are to weld the loops together on ordinary strap (gate) hinges, and to
use
> > piano hinge sections. What experiences have you people had? Are there
> any
> > other possibilities that I've missed?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Gene Hubbard
> > San Diego
> >
> >
>
>
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: spar strength |
Hmmmm!
Mike, I also think the spar is strong enough. Because in a three piece spar, you
only have 12 feet in the spar. I think it is Douglas Fir, 1 inch by 5 inches.
Right now I have to cut mine down, when ready. 12 feet of Douglas Fir on
edge, should carry the load quite handily. If it can take 3000 lbs without breaking
then it should be enough? Douglas Fir when air cured, is very bendable.
Highly flexible. I'm not at all certain about this kiln dried stuff. Air
dried is usually about 12 % moisture. This kiln dried stuff though, sometimes
frightened me at the beginning, by splitting, when you try to stick in a big
screw without drilling a hole first in smaller pieces.
There are two spars, both fore and aft, so between them in 12 feet, they should
take 3000 lbs load?
Still, the struts and the bolt on angle iron by the hull ( fuselage ) part should
be okay. I think there is five feet hanging out there on the end though.
That was more what I kind of thought about? With no theoretical backing behind
it though. But assuming regular 70 degree banks in the aircraft, I wonder
how much load you are putting outboard from the strut?
If it was a tapered wing spar, or cantilever, I would be tempted to groove the
top and bottom and just lay in a thread of Carbon fiber tow. But in a straight
line horizontally, I do not know what kind of strength that would give anything?
You might have to build a series of vertical carbon fiber tow pieces, to
make it work? But with two spars fore and aft, you could build a string like
box out of light carbon fiber tow? When I get it together, shall see what I
think then?
I wonder if anyone knows at what position on the wing, the greatest bending moment
is, in a 70 degree bank? Or a severe pull up from an inadvertant dive?
Where would the G forces concentrate on the wing loading? Then you could just
put some carbon fiber webbing around that particular spot?
On Thu, 07 February 2002, "Mike Bell" wrote:
------------
Another question, that may not find answers in North American temperate zone.
But what do you do for "wood lice" and or "termites" in a wooden airplane in
tropical warm and hot conditions? Just take off the engine and fittings and
build a new wood plane?
---------------------------------------------
I got the rudder roughed out and glued up today. Planing and some moldings to
go on yet another day, but it is framed up. But that rudder is a very light
thingy. Gosh, my worries about hinges were all for naught. Could easily run
that thing with farm fence post staples for hinges and a 1/4 galvanized rod down
through for a hinge. Wouldn't want to do that of course being in the air,
but on a small boat, sure would. However, the question I had yesterday on eye
bolt hinges was a no brainer. Eye bolts would easily handle any strain of that
little biddy rudder. Already sent my $70, or I might re-think spending on
the aluminum cast hinges. Could have cut some cost there though, with a wide
margin of safety and reliability. This I know from experience in water rudders,
which use a much stronger heavier liquid medium, denser than air.
There is a problem on eye bolts, in that they have an open gap around the eye.
But if you buy some of that French underwater expoxy putty, from a marine store.
Comes in tubes like the peppermint candy toothpaste stuff. Except it is
gray paste, with a white hardner in the pepperment strips as you squeeze it
out of the tube. About $9 around Ft. Lauderdale. You squeeze it out as a putty
and start needing with your fingers as in kiddies plasticine. The hardner
and the expoxy mix and you then just mold it on to whatever you have. It hardens
up like steel, my mon! Not even a high speed grinder will move that stuff
afterward in 48 hours. French product. I first found it in Point O' Pitre,
in Guadalupe in the Eastern Caribbean, twenty five years ago. Used it many times
since. Will fix a hole in a boat and can be put on underwater with a snorkel.
In two days it will be the strongest part of the boat. Anyway use a little
of that putty to close the eye hole gap on eyebolts ( no welding ) and you
would have a stronger fitting, lot easier and cheaper too.
---------------------------------
>
> Hi Ray,
>
> I have some opinions on the spar that I will offer you for free. (opinions
> are free, answers will cost you) I worry about this part of the airplane
> just like you. The greatest load on the spar is where the wing struts
> attach. Moving outward and inward from this point, the loading falls off
> quite quickly. Also, the spar carries the tension and compression loading
> along the top and the bottom edges. As you move from the top and bottom
> towards the center the loading becomes shear loading which is much less than
> the load that the top and bottom carry. I also thought about adding the
> carbon fiber tow along the spar, especially since this adds to strength
> where the stress is greatest.
>
> All that said, here are my opinions some of which are resulting from answers
> provided by others on this list while having similar discussions:
>
> 1) this is making something simple that is up to the task at hand, more
> complicated.
> 2) the one inch solid spar is way more than up to the task.
> 3) the only qualms that I have about a solid spar is the selection of the
> individual pieces of wood. I'm picking and choosing the wood myself every
> time I make a trip to Lowes. When I see a good piece on the heap that I can
> saw what I want out of it, then I pick it up.
> 4) I want perfect wood for my spars and sometimes defects may not be readily
> visible.
>
> Bernard had one excellent solution for this and it also reduced the cost of
> the spar. He laminated a spar out of 3/4 inch strips stacked one on another
> and glued into a solid spar. The smaller pieces of wood are cheaper. It is
> easier to find smaller dimensioned wood that has acceptable grain. If there
> is a hidden fault in an individual piece, it will only compromise a small
> portion of the strength of the spar.
>
> I feel much more assured of the overall quality of a laminated spar over a
> solid spar. (My opinion)
>
> Another way to laminate is using a thin piece of plywood the height of the
> spar with strips of solid wood along the top and bottom to carry the tension
> and compression stresses. The plywood serves to separate the top and bottom
> of the spar and to carry the shear stress, which plywood handles quite
> excellently. Strips of wood also span the plywood from top to bottom where
> the ribs attach. The spar is also strengthened with additional plywood
> where the struts attach.
>
> The latter is how I expect to construct my spar. I think that either method
> is to be highly recomended over using a solid spar for the security that a
> laminate has over the solid.
>
> Additionally, both are lighter.
>
> Mike
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Fisherman: Stick with the Al. hinges for weight savings. Pietenpols are
notorious for being tail heavy. If you go with eye bolts, galv. rod, and
all of the necessary nuts, washers, etc. you will have to hang a Chev.
454 on the fire wall to balance it out. I'm surprised at the cost. I
bought mine for $40 three years ago. They have really gone up. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
In a message dated 2/7/02 5:06:39 AM Pacific Standard Time,
cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
> Doug
>
> I will consider them. Give me an address, price list, or e-mail, or
> something to find out about?
>
> Right on! I am NOT going to weld those suckers up as in the plans. If I
> can buy them, fine! If not, eye bolts and clevis pins will do it. Will be
> at that stage late next week, I think. Working on the stabilizer now. The
> hardware store had the right angle brackets and stainless steel screws to
> fit. The brackets are galvanized though. Probably install vertical
> stabilizer today, or Monday.
>
> I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint. The
> hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
> that a standard spray can?
>
> Another question when covering rear fuselage hull, turtle deck and
> stabilizer. I noticed two ways of doing it. One you run the cloth back
> from the fuselage and around the stabilizer. It flares out of it's own
> accord making streamlining. That is the route I plan to eventually take.
> But Ted over at Naples on his Pietenpol, had the fabric stopped at the end
> of the turtle deck and a separate layer of fabric on the stabilizer. It
> looked like unnecessary wind resistance to me? Any opinions on this, or
> other comments from those who have done it?
>
> I presume there are physical labor advantages to one way or the other?
>
> Ray
> ===========================
>
> On Wed, 06 February 2002, Doug413(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/6/02 5:00:40 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> > cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
> >
> >
> > > Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I posted the link on my
> > > building workpage.
> > >
> > > The only curious thing is a year or more ago, message that said; they
>
> > > used eye bolts instead of welding up those plan fittings, for the
> rudder
> > > hinges.
> > >
> > > Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead of bronze pintel
> and
> > > gudgeons on sailboat, or slow motor boats, for the rudder fittings.
> They
> > > do work. But I would like to know what the person who used them did,
> two
> > > years ago?
> > >
> > > On boats, I run a long rod through the different eye bolts. Is that
> how
> > > it is done on an airplane?
> > >
> >
>
Ray,
Here is the addres and phone for Vi.
Vitalis Kapler, 1033 Forest Hill Dr. SW, Rochester, MN 5902.
tel: 507 288 3322
Vi sell the hinges two ways. One with the hardware and the other without.
The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum parts,
not necessary for steel parts.
Cover the turtle deck/fusalage separate from the horizontal stabilizer. Some
steel tube aicraft (cubs) have the vertical as part of the fuselage. The
Piet is not that way.
Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
| From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
>
> Sam and I were discussing this subject today. Mostly right now the
> rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the drawings, or have the
> many builders beforehand, come up with something off the shelf
> better than welding up stuff?
Fisherman,
My partner and I are using U-channel. We are using .125" thick Aluminum
purchased from Wicks, with the outside one 1.25" wide and the inside one
1 " wide. I made up a little wood jig last week, then cut all the
blanks out of the U-channel and drilled al of the holes.Only took a
little over one hour total ( I cut the channel on my 10" Sears bandsaw
with a 1/4" metal cuting blade. As easy as could be.) The hard part is
left, which is to sand each blank down to the proper round shape on my
little belt/disc sander.
John in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair motor mount bushings |
Im trying to decide which kind of bushing will work best for my corvair
engine thats being mounted on the stock pietenpol motor mount. Ive read
shock absorber rubber bushings to neoprene tie rod bushings. If any corvair
flyers ( or friends of) could tell me what they used, that would give me a
great place to start.
Thanks,
Carl ( getting to hang the engine on N40044)
Please visit my website at
www.megsinet.net/skycarl
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com |
Thanks for the responses. I've been reading the EAA publications on wood, and
Hoadley's book on Understanding Wood.
I take it that most people make the trailing edges of the empennage fatter
than shown on the plans, since if you rabbetted 3/16" deep, there wouldn't be
much material left, and I don't think that a person would want to taper the
3/16" strips so much right at the edge like that.
I'm going to keep the 5/8" thickness and rout a groove for a 1/4" plywood
spline which the strips will fasten to, permitting a nicely faired trailing
edge.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: spar strength |
Not sure what a jury strut is? Probably that thin set that are inboard from
the main struts, a foot or two?
On marine turnbuckles versus aircraft turnbuckles. I am not sure of any differences
and certainly either one should be strong enough. I guess it will come
down to price? But aviation grade, probably have a safety hole drilled, in
which you put a cotter pin, or some other kind of unwinding safety lock. Haven't
got there yet, but getting close. Maybe not next week, but the week after.
Haven't got a mental picture of what those metal grade and cable wire grade
numbers mean yet. When I get to see some, will be able to translate the gut
feeling into mental gymnastics.
Probably be ready to wire up my vertical and horizontal stabilizers by then.
The wing ribs are almost done. By Tuesday next week. We will have to varnish
them then. Sam my buddy did a work of art on them. Not like my work at all.
I'm more of a slap it together type and it will be covered with fabric, so
why bother approach.
On Thu, 07 February 2002, "Mike Bell" wrote:
>
> The airplane pretty much hangs from the struts, so what ever you're doing
> stressful is either pushing or pulling the wing around this point. There is
> a lot less stress where the three piece wing center joins. The single
> structural failure that was also discussed recently was a strut collapse
> that did not have jury struts to keep it from failure in compression. The
> spars did fine.
>
>
>
> I don't think that I've ever worked with douglas fir that wasn't kiln dried.
> Maybe that's why I don't like it. It is always so brittle seeming and not
> in any way pleasant to work with.
>
>
>
> " There is a problem on eye bolts, in that they have an open gap around the
> eye. "
>
> What is the problem with the gap?
>
>
>
> Speaking of marine stores? What have you considered for turnbuckles? Have
> you priced "aviation" grade turnbuckles? When I get further along I was
> planning to check out marine suppliers for turnbuckles. Stainless or
> bronze, they seem to be pretty heavily stressed when you swing a sail back
> and forth and the mast and boom snap from side to side. Lord knows but salt
> water has got to be a lot tougher on them than being installed on a
> Pietenpol. Quality marine suppliers should have some good quality stuff.
> You seem to be a lot more familiar with marine goods. What do you think?
>
> Mike
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Cc:
> Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2002 5:11 PM
> Subject: Re: spar strength
>
>
> >
> > Hmmmm!
> >
> > Mike, I also think the spar is strong enough. Because in a three piece
> spar, you only have 12 feet in the spar. I think it is Douglas Fir, 1 inch
> by 5 inches. Right now I have to cut mine down, when ready. 12 feet of
> Douglas Fir on edge, should carry the load quite handily. If it can take
> 3000 lbs without breaking then it should be enough? Douglas Fir when air
> cured, is very bendable. Highly flexible. I'm not at all certain about
> this kiln dried stuff. Air dried is usually about 12 % moisture. This kiln
> dried stuff though, sometimes frightened me at the beginning, by splitting,
> when you try to stick in a big screw without drilling a hole first in
> smaller pieces.
> > There are two spars, both fore and aft, so between them in 12 feet, they
> should take 3000 lbs load?
> > Still, the struts and the bolt on angle iron by the hull ( fuselage )
> part should be okay. I think there is five feet hanging out there on the
> end though. That was more what I kind of thought about? With no
> theoretical backing behind it though. But assuming regular 70 degree banks
> in the aircraft, I wonder how much load you are putting outboard from the
> strut?
> >
> > If it was a tapered wing spar, or cantilever, I would be tempted to
> groove the top and bottom and just lay in a thread of Carbon fiber tow. But
> in a straight line horizontally, I do not know what kind of strength that
> would give anything? You might have to build a series of vertical carbon
> fiber tow pieces, to make it work? But with two spars fore and aft, you
> could build a string like box out of light carbon fiber tow? When I get it
> together, shall see what I think then?
> >
> > I wonder if anyone knows at what position on the wing, the greatest
> bending moment is, in a 70 degree bank? Or a severe pull up from an
> inadvertant dive? Where would the G forces concentrate on the wing loading?
> Then you could just put some carbon fiber webbing around that particular
> spot?
> > On Thu, 07 February 2002, "Mike Bell" wrote:
> > ------------
> >
> > Another question, that may not find answers in North American temperate
> zone. But what do you do for "wood lice" and or "termites" in a wooden
> airplane in tropical warm and hot conditions? Just take off the engine and
> fittings and build a new wood plane?
> > ---------------------------------------------
> >
> > I got the rudder roughed out and glued up today. Planing and some
> moldings to go on yet another day, but it is framed up. But that rudder is
> a very light thingy. Gosh, my worries about hinges were all for naught.
> Could easily run that thing with farm fence post staples for hinges and a
> 1/4 galvanized rod down through for a hinge. Wouldn't want to do that of
> course being in the air, but on a small boat, sure would. However, the
> question I had yesterday on eye bolt hinges was a no brainer. Eye bolts
> would easily handle any strain of that little biddy rudder. Already sent my
> $70, or I might re-think spending on the aluminum cast hinges. Could have
> cut some cost there though, with a wide margin of safety and reliability.
> This I know from experience in water rudders, which use a much stronger
> heavier liquid medium, denser than air.
> > There is a problem on eye bolts, in that they have an open gap around
> the eye. But if you buy some of that French underwater expoxy putty, from a
> marine store. Comes in tubes like the peppermint candy toothpaste stuff.
> Except it is gray paste, with a white hardner in the pepperment strips as
> you squeeze it out of the tube. About $9 around Ft. Lauderdale. You
> squeeze it out as a putty and start needing with your fingers as in kiddies
> plasticine. The hardner and the expoxy mix and you then just mold it on to
> whatever you have. It hardens up like steel, my mon! Not even a high speed
> grinder will move that stuff afterward in 48 hours. French product. I
> first found it in Point O' Pitre, in Guadalupe in the Eastern Caribbean,
> twenty five years ago. Used it many times since. Will fix a hole in a boat
> and can be put on underwater with a snorkel. In two days it will be the
> strongest part of the boat. Anyway use a little of that putty to close the
> eye hole gap on eyebol!
> > ts ( no welding ) and you would have a stronger fitting, lot easier and
> cheaper too.
> > --------------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > >
> > > Hi Ray,
> > >
> > > I have some opinions on the spar that I will offer you for free.
> (opinions
> > > are free, answers will cost you) I worry about this part of the
> airplane
> > > just like you. The greatest load on the spar is where the wing struts
> > > attach. Moving outward and inward from this point, the loading falls
> off
> > > quite quickly. Also, the spar carries the tension and compression
> loading
> > > along the top and the bottom edges. As you move from the top and bottom
> > > towards the center the loading becomes shear loading which is much less
> than
> > > the load that the top and bottom carry. I also thought about adding the
> > > carbon fiber tow along the spar, especially since this adds to strength
> > > where the stress is greatest.
> > >
> > > All that said, here are my opinions some of which are resulting from
> answers
> > > provided by others on this list while having similar discussions:
> > >
> > > 1) this is making something simple that is up to the task at hand, more
> > > complicated.
> > > 2) the one inch solid spar is way more than up to the task.
> > > 3) the only qualms that I have about a solid spar is the selection of
> the
> > > individual pieces of wood. I'm picking and choosing the wood myself
> every
> > > time I make a trip to Lowes. When I see a good piece on the heap that I
> can
> > > saw what I want out of it, then I pick it up.
> > > 4) I want perfect wood for my spars and sometimes defects may not be
> readily
> > > visible.
> > >
> > > Bernard had one excellent solution for this and it also reduced the cost
> of
> > > the spar. He laminated a spar out of 3/4 inch strips stacked one on
> another
> > > and glued into a solid spar. The smaller pieces of wood are cheaper.
> It is
> > > easier to find smaller dimensioned wood that has acceptable grain. If
> there
> > > is a hidden fault in an individual piece, it will only compromise a
> small
> > > portion of the strength of the spar.
> > >
> > > I feel much more assured of the overall quality of a laminated spar over
> a
> > > solid spar. (My opinion)
> > >
> > > Another way to laminate is using a thin piece of plywood the height of
> the
> > > spar with strips of solid wood along the top and bottom to carry the
> tension
> > > and compression stresses. The plywood serves to separate the top and
> bottom
> > > of the spar and to carry the shear stress, which plywood handles quite
> > > excellently. Strips of wood also span the plywood from top to bottom
> where
> > > the ribs attach. The spar is also strengthened with additional plywood
> > > where the struts attach.
> > >
> > > The latter is how I expect to construct my spar. I think that either
> method
> > > is to be highly recomended over using a solid spar for the security that
> a
> > > laminate has over the solid.
> > >
> > > Additionally, both are lighter.
> > >
> > > Mike
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________
> > 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: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's a
choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
(i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and finish
their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based adhesive.
All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about, and
you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
off getting some Zinc Chromate.
Robert Haines
> I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint. The
hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
that a standard spray can?
>
> The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum parts,
> not necessary for steel parts.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lycoming for sale |
| From: | "Philip Chapman" <chapmanp(at)us.ibm.com> |
02/08/2002 09:08:19 AM
Lycoming 0-235-C1 for sale. Half life, great condition, cleaned and ready
for installation$4K
Can be inspected in CT 203 662 9768.Phil
chapmanp(at)us.ibm.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it out.
Thanks Robert.
Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did not spray
anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
>
> The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
> aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's a
> choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
> (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and finish
> their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
> Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based adhesive.
> All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about, and
> you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
> compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
> off getting some Zinc Chromate.
>
> Robert Haines
>
>
> > I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint. The
> hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
> that a standard spray can?
> >
>
> > The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum parts,
> > not necessary for steel parts.
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | Corvair motor mount bushings |
-----Original Message-----
posted by: "Carl Loar"
> my corvair
> engine thats being mounted on the stock pietenpol motor mount.
Carl,
Do you mean to say you are using wood bearers like the stock model A
Pietenpol motor mount?
One of the great pictures on your web-site shows steel tubing used as
bearers.
I have wondered if wood bearers could be used with the Corvair.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | think before you varnish |
Fisherman----you speak of varnishing your ribs and then
assembling the wing. Just keep in mind that any wood-to-wood
glue joint need to be varnish-free. I had TONS of glue joints after
the ribs were slipped over the spars. Look at the plans---there is
more to glue to your wing than ribs.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Much better than the spray zinc chromate primer is epoxy primer, such as
Poly-Fiber or Randolph Epibond. Once cured the only way to remove it is by
sandblasting. At about $30 a quart it ain't cheap, but it sure is good.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it
out. Thanks Robert.
Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did
not spray anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
>
> The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
> aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's
a
> choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
> (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and
finish
> their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
> Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based
adhesive.
> All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about,
and
> you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
> compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
> off getting some Zinc Chromate.
>
> Robert Haines
>
>
> > I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint.
The
> hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
> that a standard spray can?
> >
>
> > The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum
parts,
> > not necessary for steel parts.
> >
>
>
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> |
| Subject: | Re: think before you varnish |
--- Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman----you speak of varnishing your ribs and
> then
> assembling the wing. Just keep in mind that any
> wood-to-wood
> glue joint need to be varnish-free. I had TONS of
> glue joints after
> the ribs were slipped over the spars. Look at the
> plans---there is
> more to glue to your wing than ribs.
>
> Mike C.
I think this depends on 3 piece wing or 1. I did the 1
and dipped the ribs ahead of time. there wasn't any
gluing to the ribs during assembly. I did'nt glue the
ribs to the spars, just nails in the upright pieces
that are against the spars. the ribs are heavier
though because of excess varnish with dipping. this is
recommended by charlie rubeck, the rib builder.
Del
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
Any place you are going to attach fabric should have epoxy primer. The
fabric adhesive dissolves the zinc chromate and regular primer so that any
steel underneath will not be protected and will rust.
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: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it
out. Thanks Robert.
Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did
not spray anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
>
> The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
> aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's
a
> choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
> (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and
finish
> their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
> Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based
adhesive.
> All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about,
and
> you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
> compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
> off getting some Zinc Chromate.
>
> Robert Haines
>
>
> > I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint.
The
> hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
> that a standard spray can?
> >
>
> > The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum
parts,
> > not necessary for steel parts.
> >
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Tail wire fittings |
I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
| Subject: | Tail wire fittings |
I think the answer to crushing the fabric is "yes" and "who cares?" If I
were doing it that way, I would put a washer between the fabric and both the
bolt head and the nut to keep from chewing up the fabric with the corners of
each, and I would expect the washers to cookie-cutter out a bit of fabric.
Since the fabric is well supported around the washer, the hole wouldn't make
much difference.
I don't see anything wrong with that mounting approach--it minimizes the
amount of exposed hardware. On the other hand, I'm planning to mount the
hardware externally to the fabric to keep as few inaccessable connections
possible. I like the idea that I can, at least in principle, inspect the
mounting without removing any fabric.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)charter.net> |
The same goes for Imron and other polyurethane based coatings. I have had to
repair rust in the tail section of a few planes where the Polytak or seam
cement had lifted the paint and exposed the bare steel to rust. Polytak does
the same thing to zinc chromate. Epoxy is impervious to these solvents.
Bottom line in my opinion is bite the bullet and get the epoxy.
TakeCare
-john - a kinda youngish guy who plays with old airplanes-
>
> Any place you are going to attach fabric should have epoxy primer. The
> fabric adhesive dissolves the zinc chromate and regular primer so that any
> steel underneath will not be protected and will rust.
>
> 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: "Fisherman Caye" <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
>
> Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it
> out. Thanks Robert.
>
> Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did
> not spray anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
>
>
> On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
>>
>
>>
>> The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
>> aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's
> a
>> choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
>> (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and
> finish
>> their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
>> Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based
> adhesive.
>> All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about,
> and
>> you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
>> compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
>> off getting some Zinc Chromate.
>>
>> Robert Haines
>>
>>
>>> I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint.
> The
>> hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
>> spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
>> that a standard spray can?
>>>
>>
>>> The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum
> parts,
>>> not necessary for steel parts.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wire fittings |
Since you aren't going to increase the airspeed by putting the hardware
under the fabric, why bother?
In addition, sealing the one bolt hole under your bracket is much easier
than both the bolt hole and the bracket hole.
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: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
I think the answer to crushing the fabric is "yes" and "who cares?" If I
were doing it that way, I would put a washer between the fabric and both the
bolt head and the nut to keep from chewing up the fabric with the corners of
each, and I would expect the washers to cookie-cutter out a bit of fabric.
Since the fabric is well supported around the washer, the hole wouldn't make
much difference.
I don't see anything wrong with that mounting approach--it minimizes the
amount of exposed hardware. On the other hand, I'm planning to mount the
hardware externally to the fabric to keep as few inaccessable connections
possible. I like the idea that I can, at least in principle, inspect the
mounting without removing any fabric.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Aileron Hinges |
I use Stainless Steel piano hinges, they are stronger
than aluminum and the diference in weight is very
little, and they are less expensive here, because the
6061 type have to be imported.
I have them made by order for the food carts I build
and sell.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> Kirk
>
>
> Thanks! I used it. Very good site. So good, I
> posted the link on my building workpage.
>
> The only curious thing is a year or more ago,
> message that said; they used eye bolts instead of
> welding up those plan fittings, for the rudder
> hinges.
>
> Now I constantly used galvanized eye bolts instead
> of bronze pintel and gudgeons on sailboat, or slow
> motor boats, for the rudder fittings. They do work.
> But I would like to know what the person who used
> them did, two years ago?
>
> On boats, I run a long rod through the different
> eye bolts. Is that how it is done on an airplane?
>
>
> On Wed, 06 February 2002, Kirk & Laura Huizenga
> wrote:
>
> >
> Huizenga <kirkh@unique-software.com>
> >
> > Fisherman,
> >
> > You can check the archives for aileron hinge and
> probably find most
> > info. Also, i know that budget is of concern, but
> along with the
> > Bingelis books, I would suggest getting Mike Cuy's
> video. It will not
> > only give the answers to many questions, but
> inspire one to keep
> > working
> >
> > Archives at
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/search/
> >
> > Have a great evening
> > Kirk
> >
> Caye
> > >
> > >
> > >Sam and I were discussing this subject today.
> Mostly right now the
> > >rudder hinges. Do they have to be as in the
> drawings, or have the
> > >many builders beforehand, come up with something
> off the shelf
> > >better than welding up stuff?
> > >
> > > The other hinges at some point that you
> mention below are of
> > >interest. I would like to see some photographs
> along with an
> > >explanation. Aluminum piano hinges from aviation
> parts supply? What
> > >size?
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | total 32 hours work this week on plane(by two buddies) |
TAIL WHEELS
From those who have built already. What tail wheel did you do and recommend?
If a non-steerable tailwheel, does it have to be free to rotate?
Where did you get your materials to build the tailwheel?
Ted had a humongous amount of car springs on his tail wheel, I recollect. About
5 springs. But I would think two would be enough? From what do you cut them?
What kind of wheel? Home Depot wheel for carts, or other?
Just to get a feel of the different ideas and types out there?
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: Pietenpol Air Camper plane |
What kind of weight is 1751 s in this message below from Raven Motors?
Anybody know the Geo Metro Suzuki 1300GS 80 hp?
Notice he doesn't recommend it, but just says somebody used it.
Comments from the experienced on the list serve please?
-------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Raven Design Inc." wrote:
>
> > I'm building a Pietenpol plane. Starting to think about an engine. Is
> >there anything suitable in your Geo Metro, Suzuki line for such a two
> >place? We have one customer installing our 1300GS 80 HP in his Pietenpol
> >
> > I calculate the propeller at 78 inches diameter, 42 pitch and maximum
> >rpm of 2978 rpm. We only recommend a 72 inch propellor.
> >
> > Concerned about getting torque delivered to the propellor and weight of
> >engine in total, Firewall forward. Torque is 80 ft lbs times drive ratio
> >of 2.11 to 1. Weight of that engine is 175ls dry without prop, radiator,
> >motor mount. Please call with your questions. Jeron Smith 303-440-6234
> >
> >Ray
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________
> >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: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wire fittings |
Well.....the dotted lines in the plans look like the fittings are supposed
to be under the fabric and I just thought it would look cleaner
without the extra hardware hanging out. If it's more common to have them
external for maintenance and inspection reasons maybe thats the way to go.
?? Ed
from: "Cy Galley"
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:19:07 -0600
>
>
>Since you aren't going to increase the airspeed by putting the hardware
>under the fabric, why bother?
>
>In addition, sealing the one bolt hole under your bracket is much easier
>than both the bolt hole and the bracket hole.
>
>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: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>
>
>
>
>I think the answer to crushing the fabric is "yes" and "who cares?" If I
>were doing it that way, I would put a washer between the fabric and both
>the
>bolt head and the nut to keep from chewing up the fabric with the corners
>of
>each, and I would expect the washers to cookie-cutter out a bit of fabric.
>Since the fabric is well supported around the washer, the hole wouldn't
>make
>much difference.
>
>I don't see anything wrong with that mounting approach--it minimizes the
>amount of exposed hardware. On the other hand, I'm planning to mount the
>hardware externally to the fabric to keep as few inaccessable connections
>possible. I like the idea that I can, at least in principle, inspect the
>mounting without removing any fabric.
>
>Gene
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
>fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
>all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
>then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
>fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
>fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
>
>
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
Sounds like you just need GLUVIT from the marine trade. Thick expoxy. But I
will look for
the epoxy primer.
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
> Much better than the spray zinc chromate primer is epoxy primer, such as
> Poly-Fiber or Randolph Epibond. Once cured the only way to remove it is by
> sandblasting. At about $30 a quart it ain't cheap, but it sure is good.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
> Caye
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
> Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it
> out. Thanks Robert.
>
> Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did
> not spray anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
>
>
> On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
> > aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc. It's
> a
> > choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering systems
> > (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and
> finish
> > their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
> > Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based
> adhesive.
> > All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about,
> and
> > you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
> > compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are better
> > off getting some Zinc Chromate.
> >
> > Robert Haines
> >
> >
> > > I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint.
> The
> > hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> > spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint? Is
> > that a standard spray can?
> > >
> >
> > > The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum
> parts,
> > > not necessary for steel parts.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: | "Hull, Don" <Don.C.Hull(at)msfc.nasa.gov> |
My guess is "1751s" is "175 lbs" as in 175 pounds.
Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
You can find it in Aircraft Spruce and Specialties catalog, either from
Stits Poly-Fiber (which I prefer) or Randolph. As I've said before, the
Aircraft Spruce catalog is free and should be on every homebuilder's
bookshelf, whether you buy from them or not. Their prices are not bad (for
aircraft prices) and thir selection is fabulous. You will need many parts
from them or Wicks Aircraft before you have gone much further with this
project.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
Sounds like you just need GLUVIT from the marine trade. Thick expoxy.
But I will look for
the epoxy primer.
On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Jack Phillips" wrote:
>
>
> Much better than the spray zinc chromate primer is epoxy primer, such as
> Poly-Fiber or Randolph Epibond. Once cured the only way to remove it is
by
> sandblasting. At about $30 a quart it ain't cheap, but it sure is good.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Fisherman
> Caye
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 9:39 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aileron Hinges
>
>
>
>
> Wow! What an interesting piece of technical information. I'm printing it
> out. Thanks Robert.
>
> Guess I just lost the cost of a brown can of spray paint. Lucky it did
> not spray anyway? Must have been sitting on the shelf for years, I guess.
>
>
> On Fri, 08 February 2002, "Robert Haines" wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> > The Zinc Chromate primer comes in a spray can and can be found in the
> > aircraft parts suppliers like Wicks, Aircraft Spruce & Supply, etc.
It's
> a
> > choice primer because it isn't effected by the MEK based covering
systems
> > (i.e. Stits). Some people plan to use latex house paint to fill and
> finish
> > their covering rather than the MEK stuff but you still have to glue the
> > Dacron fabric down. Traditionally this means using the MEK based
> adhesive.
> > All of the MEK based stuff dissolves the primers you are talking about,
> and
> > you end up with a gooey mess. So unless there is an adhesive that is
> > compatible with acrylic-enamel paints and primers, you probably are
better
> > off getting some Zinc Chromate.
> >
> > Robert Haines
> >
> >
> > > I notice all aircraft metal fittings have this pretty green paint.
> The
> > hardware store had primer, but only in versions of brown. Guess I will
> > spray the brackets with brown. But where do you get the green paint?
Is
> > that a standard spray can?
> > >
> >
> > > The green paint is probably Zinc Chromate. It is a primer for alum
> parts,
> > > not necessary for steel parts.
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: total 32 hours work this week on plane(by two buddies) |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2002 1:16 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: total 32 hours work this week on plane(by two
buddies)
TAIL WHEELS
From those who have built already. What tail wheel did you do and
recommend? If a non-steerable tailwheel, does it have to be free to
rotate?...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I used the yoke designed for the tail skid. I subsitiuted a steerable
wheel for the skid.
You can get the idea from a pic of my Piet on the Matronics photo
share.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Eldredge <Steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Tail wire fittings |
Even with them on top, at the plans length specified it is a tight fit
to get to the cotter pins on the clevis pins on the horiz. Stab. I'd
recommend on top of the fabric.
Steve E.
-----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: Tail wire fittings
Well.....the dotted lines in the plans look like the fittings are
supposed
to be under the fabric and I just thought it would look cleaner
without the extra hardware hanging out. If it's more common to have them
external for maintenance and inspection reasons maybe thats the way to
go.
?? Ed
from: "Cy Galley"
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2002 11:19:07 -0600
>
>
>Since you aren't going to increase the airspeed by putting the hardware
>under the fabric, why bother?
>
>In addition, sealing the one bolt hole under your bracket is much
easier
>than both the bolt hole and the bracket hole.
>
>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: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
>To:
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>
>
>
>
>I think the answer to crushing the fabric is "yes" and "who cares?" If
I
>were doing it that way, I would put a washer between the fabric and
both
>the
>bolt head and the nut to keep from chewing up the fabric with the
corners
>of
>each, and I would expect the washers to cookie-cutter out a bit of
fabric.
>Since the fabric is well supported around the washer, the hole wouldn't
>make
>much difference.
>
>I don't see anything wrong with that mounting approach--it minimizes
the
>amount of exposed hardware. On the other hand, I'm planning to mount
the
>hardware externally to the fabric to keep as few inaccessable
connections
>possible. I like the idea that I can, at least in principle, inspect
the
>mounting without removing any fabric.
>
>Gene
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wire fittings
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
>fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric.
drill
>all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers
and
>then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above
the
>fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
>fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
>
>
Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
=
=
=
http://www.matronics.com/browselist/pietenpol-list
=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail wire fittings |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Hi Ed
We did it the other way.
We built up the stabilizer spar even with the ribs. This will make it
easier to cover with fabric. Drill all the holes. Then cover the
stabilizers with fabric. Mount the brackets on top of the fabric. Other
wise you will have to cut holes in the fabric for all the tabs on the
brackets. Each hole you cut will have to be reinforced.
Dale Mpls.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Tail wire fittings |
In a message dated 2/8/02 7:55:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com writes:
> >
>
>
> I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
> fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
> all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
> then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
> fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
> fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
>
>
>
Ed,
I do them per the plans with the 3/16 inch dia iron rivet. Only the tab
protudes thru the fabric. Works well .
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail wire fittings |
I spent the afternoon looking at wire and turnbuckles, thimbles, yokes and what
have you. Went to Home Depot and then to an Aviation Supply house. They wanted
part numbers. Finally gave up there for the time being. They didn't have
enough turnbuckles, couldn't cut the wire ( 1/8 I think, or maybe 1/ 16 ? )
Did buy a can of zinc chromate, or whatever they call it.
Did anybody do anything different in wiring the vertical and horizontal tail
stabilizers together? There must be another solution? What did you people who
have built, use to construct your wire supports, for the vertical and horizontal
stabilizers?
Ray
On Fri, 08 February 2002, Doug413(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/8/02 7:55:10 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com writes:
>
>
> > >
> >
> >
> > I'm fixing to fitt up my tail wire fittings, I would like to put my
> > fittings in under the fabric, even with the underside of the fabric. drill
> > all the holes, epoxy the fittings in place, then cover the stabilizers and
> > then put in the bolts so that only the boltheads and nuts show above the
> > fabric. Is this acceptable or will the pressure of the bolts crush the
> > fabric under the washers?? Ed G.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ed,
>
> I do them per the plans with the 3/16 inch dia iron rivet. Only the tab
> protudes thru the fabric. Works well .
> Doug Bryant
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Air Camper plane |
In a message dated 2/8/02 1:27:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,
cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
<< What kind of weight is 1751 s in this message below from Raven Motors?
>>
Looks like a typo, was supposed to be (I think) 175 lbs and got typoed (error
between fingers and keys) to 175 ls, not 1751s . VERY subtle difference
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> |
Owen, I don't remember the exact prop size but it was small like 52-32. The
piet cruised at 65-70mph at 3000 to 3200 rpm. Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines
>
> Among other comments, Mark said:
>
> > I saw a Piet in Okla. flying great with a direct drive EA - 81.
>
> Gee, that surprises me. I'd have imagined that a direct drive
> installation would spin too fast to be efficient on such a draggy
> airframe. Any idea what it had for a prop?
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair motor mount bushings |
No Skip, I'm using the steel mount that Bernie designed for the corvair. I
don't believe anyone has tried the wood mount for that.
Welding up the mount was one of the more challenging tasks I've done on my
piet. The others were the controls and the gear.
The gear is a whole other story. :)
Carl
Please visit my website at
www.megsinet.net/skycarl
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gadd, Skip
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Corvair motor mount bushings
-----Original Message-----
posted by: "Carl Loar"
> my corvair
> engine thats being mounted on the stock pietenpol motor mount.
Carl,
Do you mean to say you are using wood bearers like the stock model A
Pietenpol motor mount?
One of the great pictures on your web-site shows steel tubing used as
bearers.
I have wondered if wood bearers could be used with the Corvair.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Vickery" <h2opilot(at)cwo.com> |
| Subject: | Zinc Chromate Primer |
Zinc Chromate primer is sprayed lightly (wet, about 1,000 square feet
per gallon) on aluminum and steel aircraft parts. It is the best,
time-proven primer to prevent corrosion and rust in all applications.
Available in green and yellow colors, it also provides maximum adhesion
for subsequent paints.
Zinc Chromate primer is also made in epoxy form for use on steel tube
airframes that will be covered with fabric.
Gene Vickery
Tehachapi, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Hello, low 'n' slow fliers;
If anyone is seriously considering restoring the cam bearing clearance on
their Continental by having the cam bearing surfaces welded back up and
isn't concerned about "certified engine" issues, may I recommend Delta
Camshaft of Tacoma, Washington? Website at http://www.deltacam.com and if
you call, ask for Jerry. These folks aren't afraid when you say "aircraft".
They do cam regrind work, and have done them for Subaru and Corvair
conversions (I just got mine back from them, a regrind of my stock 110HP
Corvair cam to a profile improved for "our" RPM range). Mine was under $75,
shipping both ways and all. Check out the "Services" and "Camshaft Grinding
Process" tabs on their website for info. I feel certain that restoring
bearing surfaces to new spec would be an easy job. Oh, and FWIW- I shipped
the cam off (UPS) on a Tuesday and it was back in my hands the following
Tuesday.
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | stabilizer wires and fittings |
Vertical and Horizontal stabilizer wires and fittings.
Nearly had a panic attack yesterday in the Aircraft Supply store. Fortunately
they couldn't find their wire cutters. Was toting up roughly in my head, the
money for multi-strand stainless steel wire, turnbuckles, clevis pins, shackles,
thimbles and it seemed to go on and on. At astronomical prices. Sam was
being his usual cheerful self, telling me that if you want to mess with planes
it is going to cost you, just like boats. At a hundred bucks for eight wires,
I said STOP! And we left without anything.
Guess what, today I actually found galvanized 14 guage solid wire, as the plans
call for, in a hardware store. Did try West Marine, but that place is just
as expensive mostly as the Aircraft Supply place. Went to K Mart next, looking
for heavy fishing leader, like for shark fishing, or barracuda. ( Didn't find
any! ) They just have weak wire stuff for bait fish.
The 14 guage wire is solid, galvanized and about 1/8 inch thick. Came in a
100 foot roll for $4.25. Right down my alley. Thick enough I figure, can skip
the thimbles and shackles and just wind a couple of loops around the bracket
holes. If it rusts, cheap enough to change easily. Going to have to spring
for those Aviation turnbuckles though. There are 8 of them. There must be another
way of doing that tightening? Look at the prices? Turnbuckle with two
screw in ends-(they sell the pieces separately) about $16 with tax EACH! You
need 8 of them! Thats a $128 for eight turnbuckles alone. They must be out of
their minds?
But you look at that 14 guage wire and you just know this is a barnyard airplane
built in a maintainance shed next to the hay rake and threshing machine.
Ray
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Among other things, Fisherman Caye wrote:
> The 14 guage wire is ... Thick enough I figure, can skip the thimbles and
shackles
> and just wind a couple of loops around the bracket holes.
Are you sure this isn't just a troll?
> Going to have to spring for those Aviation turnbuckles though.
> There are 8 of them. There must be another way of doing that tightening?
Well, maybe. Someone in the neighborhood once built a near-ultralight
that used some fittings from one of the U/L makers in the tail brace wires.
They were small steel rectangles (with the corners rounded off), with a
series of holes along the center line. The idea was, you'd put one of these
tabs on the attach fitting and another on the wire, pull things as tight as
they
needed to be, and put a small bolt through a matched pair of holes in the
overlapping tabs. The adjustment was not as fine as turnbuckles; the holes
were spaced perhaps half an inch apart. But the idea seemed to work fairly
well, and I don't see why it would not also work for control cables.
Wouldn't want to use the tabs in a high-stress application, but I doubt the
Pietenpol has any pieces that are too highly stressed for them. My only
real worry would be if they vibrated in the wind, but that did not seem to
be a problem. I think RANS supplied them.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | 2002 Edition of the Pietenpol Owner Directory |
The 2002 edition of the Pietenpol Owner Directory is now printed. It's 56
pages list over 500 registered (flying?) Pietenpols and Pietenpol
look-alikes worldwide, with over 416 in the USA, 49 in Canada, 34 in the
UK, and 13 in South Africa. No attempt is made to list unregistered Piets
in countless garages and barns ("95% complete 3 years ago").
Each year, hundreds of changes are made in the Directory. Airplanes are
deregistered, new ones are registered, Piets change owners, and owners get
new addresses. In addition, I find new information on what engines are
being used, the year of first flight, and the name of
the original builder and include that. Airplanes
are listed in tail number numerical order. A listing of Piets in each
state, an alphabetical listing of present owners, and an alphabetical
listing of original builders of registered airplanes are all part of the
Directory.
Order now, preferably on paper (mail or E-mail) I tend to mislay little
slips of paper about phone call orders (senior moments). I will send the
Directory to you by mail. Read it. If it's not worth $5, send it
back. If it is worth it, send me five bucks.
Doc Mosher
1071 Meadow Lane
Neenah WI 54956
docshop(at)tds.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Those tail wires are there to keep harmonics from vibrating the tail. There
really isn't much stress on the tail end of the airplanes we fly - they are
just too dadgimmed slow. But the pulses off the propellor blades seem to
pick that particular spot to thump on, so without the wires the horizontal
and vertical stabs would vibrate like a bees wings. John Powell,
designer/builder of the Acey Ducey (another parasol) said that when he first
flew his N12CP, he didn't have the wires on it, and the stabs were just a
blur. So, he put the wires on, and everything held still just like we like
it to.
In the absence of acro-type stresses, I think that Ray is on the right track
with his galvanized 14-ga. wire. Now, if he'll just go to Home Depot and
get some of those small, galvanized gate turnbuckles at about a buck each.
. . . . ;-)
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
> Among other things, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> > The 14 guage wire is ... Thick enough I figure, can skip the thimbles
and
> shackles
> > and just wind a couple of loops around the bracket holes.
>
> Are you sure this isn't just a troll?
>
> > Going to have to spring for those Aviation turnbuckles though.
> > There are 8 of them. There must be another way of doing that
tightening?
>
> Well, maybe. Someone in the neighborhood once built a near-ultralight
> that used some fittings from one of the U/L makers in the tail brace
wires.
> They were small steel rectangles (with the corners rounded off), with a
> series of holes along the center line. The idea was, you'd put one of
these
> tabs on the attach fitting and another on the wire, pull things as tight
as
> they
> needed to be, and put a small bolt through a matched pair of holes in the
> overlapping tabs. The adjustment was not as fine as turnbuckles; the
holes
> were spaced perhaps half an inch apart. But the idea seemed to work fairly
> well, and I don't see why it would not also work for control cables.
> Wouldn't want to use the tabs in a high-stress application, but I doubt
the
> Pietenpol has any pieces that are too highly stressed for them. My only
> real worry would be if they vibrated in the wind, but that did not seem to
> be a problem. I think RANS supplied them.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
In a message dated 2/9/02 3:39:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com writes:
> Those tail wires are there to keep harmonics from vibrating the tail. There
> really isn't much stress on the tail end of the airplanes we fly - they are
> just too dadgimmed slow. But the pulses off the propellor blades seem to
> pick that particular spot to thump on, so without the wires the horizontal
> and vertical stabs would vibrate like a bees wings. John Powell,
> designer/builder of the Acey Ducey (another parasol) said that when he
> first
> flew his N12CP, he didn't have the wires on it, and the stabs were just a
> blur. So, he put the wires on, and everything held still just like we like
> it to.
> In the absence of acro-type stresses, I think that Ray is on the right
> track
> with his galvanized 14-ga. wire. Now, if he'll just go to Home Depot and
> get some of those small, galvanized gate turnbuckles at about a buck each.
> . . . . ;-)
> Craig
>
Craig,
I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel with
the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft cable;
some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store should
not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some airplanes.
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Interesting comeback! I was trying to picture those fittings. I see what you
are saying, I theenk, senor?
On the troll question? Hmmnnnn! Do you know me, or subscribe to the list
I moderate, the Belize Culture List? You would sure have your answer then. ha!
Ha!
Going to think about your idea. Sounds reasonable. I used to make windvane
steering vanes, that fit off the back of a boat rudder like that. Two wooden
disks and lots of holes in which you adjusted and dropped in a 2 inch galvanized
nail. Worked like a charm.
I see what you are getting at though. Fixed wires and then adjustable through
lining up two tabs and holes, lock with a bolt.
On Sat, 09 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
>
> Among other things, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
> > The 14 guage wire is ... Thick enough I figure, can skip the thimbles and
> shackles
> > and just wind a couple of loops around the bracket holes.
>
> Are you sure this isn't just a troll?
>
> > Going to have to spring for those Aviation turnbuckles though.
> > There are 8 of them. There must be another way of doing that tightening?
>
> Well, maybe. Someone in the neighborhood once built a near-ultralight
> that used some fittings from one of the U/L makers in the tail brace wires.
> They were small steel rectangles (with the corners rounded off), with a
> series of holes along the center line. The idea was, you'd put one of these
> tabs on the attach fitting and another on the wire, pull things as tight as
> they
> needed to be, and put a small bolt through a matched pair of holes in the
> overlapping tabs. The adjustment was not as fine as turnbuckles; the holes
> were spaced perhaps half an inch apart. But the idea seemed to work fairly
> well, and I don't see why it would not also work for control cables.
> Wouldn't want to use the tabs in a high-stress application, but I doubt the
> Pietenpol has any pieces that are too highly stressed for them. My only
> real worry would be if they vibrated in the wind, but that did not seem to
> be a problem. I think RANS supplied them.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
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: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Actually, I had a box of junk from my buddies at EAA Chapter 37 the other day.
Looking through today, I found some nice thimbles, stainless steel and small
and three galvanized small turnbuckles. But I'm still not sure I want that
stuff flapping in the wind. We'll see Monday, when I start to assemble things,
what I end up with.
I would think you could get enough pressure with hand tightening and just cinching
it down. The only question in my mind would be the constant working with
the elevons. ( Gee! I'm actually remembering the terminology!, The medicine
must be taking?) For straight support hand tightening would be fine. But when
you start wobbling elevons off the back, that is a bit different. Structurally
drum tight would be nice? Anyway, play it by ear, when I assemble things.
On Sat, 09 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
> Those tail wires are there to keep harmonics from vibrating the tail. There
> really isn't much stress on the tail end of the airplanes we fly - they are
> just too dadgimmed slow. But the pulses off the propellor blades seem to
> pick that particular spot to thump on, so without the wires the horizontal
> and vertical stabs would vibrate like a bees wings. John Powell,
> designer/builder of the Acey Ducey (another parasol) said that when he first
> flew his N12CP, he didn't have the wires on it, and the stabs were just a
> blur. So, he put the wires on, and everything held still just like we like
> it to.
> In the absence of acro-type stresses, I think that Ray is on the right track
> with his galvanized 14-ga. wire. Now, if he'll just go to Home Depot and
> get some of those small, galvanized gate turnbuckles at about a buck each.
> . . . . ;-)
> Craig
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Owen Davies <owen(at)davies.mv.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
>
> >
> > Among other things, Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> >
> > > The 14 guage wire is ... Thick enough I figure, can skip the thimbles
> and
> > shackles
> > > and just wind a couple of loops around the bracket holes.
> >
> > Are you sure this isn't just a troll?
> >
> > > Going to have to spring for those Aviation turnbuckles though.
> > > There are 8 of them. There must be another way of doing that
> tightening?
> >
> > Well, maybe. Someone in the neighborhood once built a near-ultralight
> > that used some fittings from one of the U/L makers in the tail brace
> wires.
> > They were small steel rectangles (with the corners rounded off), with a
> > series of holes along the center line. The idea was, you'd put one of
> these
> > tabs on the attach fitting and another on the wire, pull things as tight
> as
> > they
> > needed to be, and put a small bolt through a matched pair of holes in the
> > overlapping tabs. The adjustment was not as fine as turnbuckles; the
> holes
> > were spaced perhaps half an inch apart. But the idea seemed to work fairly
> > well, and I don't see why it would not also work for control cables.
> > Wouldn't want to use the tabs in a high-stress application, but I doubt
> the
> > Pietenpol has any pieces that are too highly stressed for them. My only
> > real worry would be if they vibrated in the wind, but that did not seem to
> > be a problem. I think RANS supplied them.
> >
> > Owen Davies
> >
> >
>
>
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: stabilizer wires and fittings |
PIETENPOL, Stabilizer wires and fittings.
Doug has an interesting point there. Craig had me guessing what the word ferrule
means? Looked it up in the plans. It is on there, but I didn't know what
it meant. But it is soft lead or something you squeeze around the cable end
to stop it running. Two wraps around the metal clip hole should do that and
then some winds also. Actually, I looked at some of those ferrules in the hardware
store. They are big windage problems. But in the fishing gear store, I
saw some very tiny lead weights for very light casting line. You take a hacksaw
and widen the gap a bit, slip it over and clamp it down, you would get a very
small respectable ferrule that way? Along with two wraps around the hole
and then some turns on the wire itself, nothing going to pull that loose before
the wire breaks.
Doug's mention of 1/16 stainless aircraft wire ( multi-strand ) is nice, but
they didn't have anything smaller than 1/8. Which to me looked like I could
lift a 5000 lb. car with it. Overkill?
As to high carbon wire, versus low carbon wire, you got me pondering, but I can
only guess at what you are inferring? Isn't 14 guage hard wire, from the hardware
store the right thing? Why not? And what exactly in technical specifications
would the empirical scientific difference be? ( Breaking strength?)
Convince me the difference would be worth it, Doug? ( Low and high carbon 14
guage??? Is that anything like High and Low German? Ha! Ha! )
-----------------------------------
On Sat, 09 February 2002, Doug413(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/9/02 3:39:36 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com writes:
>
>
> > Those tail wires are there to keep harmonics from vibrating the tail. There
> > really isn't much stress on the tail end of the airplanes we fly - they are
> > just too dadgimmed slow. But the pulses off the propellor blades seem to
> > pick that particular spot to thump on, so without the wires the horizontal
> > and vertical stabs would vibrate like a bees wings. John Powell,
> > designer/builder of the Acey Ducey (another parasol) said that when he
> > first
> > flew his N12CP, he didn't have the wires on it, and the stabs were just a
> > blur. So, he put the wires on, and everything held still just like we like
> > it to.
> > In the absence of acro-type stresses, I think that Ray is on the right
> > track
> > with his galvanized 14-ga. wire. Now, if he'll just go to Home Depot and
> > get some of those small, galvanized gate turnbuckles at about a buck each.
> > . . . . ;-)
> > Craig
> >
>
> Craig,
>
> I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
> lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
> exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel with
> the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft cable;
> some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store should
> not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some airplanes.
> Doug Bryant
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
> Craig,
>
> I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
> lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
> exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel
with
> the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft
cable;
> some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store
should
> not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some
airplanes.
> Doug Bryant
Doug -
Plenty of room here for disagreement. Just wish that the oysters didn't bit
my fingers the other day so I could type better. Stitches keep getting in
the way!
But the biggest load on any tailplane is a small download, to counter the
lift provided elsewhere. That's why the spars in the tail section are so
small, and why we need to provide the correct incidence on that tailplane.
If it were otherwise, the spar would need to be much stronger, and the bolts
would need to be larger. I have no diagreement with what is on the plans,
and certainly my Duce uses 3/16" stainless rod, but that is more for
appearance than anything. I could use 1/16th" cable, and have no problems.
14 ga. galvanized wire, about 1/8" dia., is certainly plenty strong enough
here. Unfortunately, it is not flexible enough to go around our small
diameter pulleys, nor is it the right temper to refrain from cracks when
subjected to repeated bending.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | stabilizer wires and fittings |
Craig, I have to side with Doug. This is a wire braced airplane, strongly
related to the Curtiss JN-4D Jenny. It is similar to other wooden
wire-braced airplanes, in that having a wire break in flight is generally a
catastrophic failure. Have you built your tail yet and mounted it on the
fuselage? I have and even just sitting in my shop I have it braced so it
won't get broken or take a set just from its own weight. It is not a very
strong structure, unsupported. Once the bracing wires are in place, it is
quite strong.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Wilcox
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
> Craig,
>
> I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
> lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
> exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel
with
> the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft
cable;
> some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store
should
> not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some
airplanes.
> Doug Bryant
Doug -
Plenty of room here for disagreement. Just wish that the oysters didn't bit
my fingers the other day so I could type better. Stitches keep getting in
the way!
But the biggest load on any tailplane is a small download, to counter the
lift provided elsewhere. That's why the spars in the tail section are so
small, and why we need to provide the correct incidence on that tailplane.
If it were otherwise, the spar would need to be much stronger, and the bolts
would need to be larger. I have no diagreement with what is on the plans,
and certainly my Duce uses 3/16" stainless rod, but that is more for
appearance than anything. I could use 1/16th" cable, and have no problems.
14 ga. galvanized wire, about 1/8" dia., is certainly plenty strong enough
here. Unfortunately, it is not flexible enough to go around our small
diameter pulleys, nor is it the right temper to refrain from cracks when
subjected to repeated bending.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft quality). |
Fisherman,
Please don't use hardware store wire, turnbuckles, etc. on your
airplane. This stuff isn't aircraft quality and, since you are build-
ing an aircraft and intend to fly it, aircraft hardware must be used
for safety..
I know how costly aircraft quality materials and hardware are and,
like you, nearly have a panic attack when I go to buy this stuff. But
then I do some thinking and always come to the conclusion that it
is still pretty cheap insurance, and buy it (whimpering all the way
home).
I have been messing around with little airplanes, including a 8-year
stint on helicopters, since 1948, which puts me in the "geezer ca-
tegory".(Likely I wouldn't posting this message had I not been rely-
ing on aircraft quality items for all those years and hours in the air.)
In 1970 I first flew the Pietenpol I built, and am still flying it. The only
hardware store items on it are hinges for the ailerons as per the
plans, but the hinge pins are AN aircraft parts. All bolts, nuts, washers,
turnbuckles, etc. are aircraft quality because my Pietenpol can get
me in the air, along with all the certificated airplanes which must use
aircraft quality items, and it is too great a distance for any of us to
fall!
Sure it's expensive, but one of the great advantages of building an
airplane from plans is that one doesn't have spend all that money at
once. Spending-shock syndrome is not nearly so severe as it would
be when buying a kit or a complete flying airplane. The major single
expenditure is for an engine when "scratch building". Naturally I pre-
fer an aircraft engine because it is designed for aircraft use and its
performance in an aircraft is predictable
So grit your teeth and use the 3/32" stainless steel cable with aircraft
quality turnbuckles, clevis pins and split pins for your tail bracing. The
strength of the entire tail assembly depends on this bracing; without it,
the tailfeathers are quite weak. You bet your life on this bracing and a
lot of other stuff in your aircraft every time you leave the ground.
You seem to be an experienced sailor, so would appreciate this saying
from the very early days of aviation:
"If the sea is unforgiving, then the air is even more so."
The very best of luck with your project!
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
| Subject: | Piet tail feathers |
Hi gang, I need some help. I've finished 10 ribs and am also
starting on the tail group.
Now I'm confused. I'm looking at BHP's print (drawing #2).
Under the flipper they show the 'SECTIONS OF BEAMS USED
IN EMPENNAGE'. The leading edge I get. The center beam is the one
directly aft of the leading edge, I think. The diagonal I get.
Where is the main beam used?
Is the aft edge of the HS the same size wood as the leading edge?
It looks wider on the drawing. The same goes for the front edge of the
flipper.
What size wood is it? Is the wood the hinges are on the 'main beam'?
Thanks for the help, these prints are confusing.
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(Peitenpol builder)
(I'm an electrical and mechanical drafter/designer and these prints
could use
a little more finishing)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
Pieters
I'm getting ready to put in the torque tube and controlls.
I dont like the slack in the elevator cables especially in stick forward. I
couldnt see any way to improve this. Does anyone have a different placement
of pulleys or stick attachment or bell crank that will improve the situation?
Henry ( Borodent)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair cowling/eyebrows |
OK, I finally got somewhat caught up on back emails/digests and instead of
emailing the images of the cowling and cooling eyebrows on William Wynne's
Corvair-powered AirCamper to those who expressed interest, I just uploaded
them to my website so anybody could look at them. No text, just the photos-
but they should be self explanatory if you look at them a while. They are
not original with me; I snagged them off another site since they were so
good and clear.
Again, in my opinion William's cowling is far nicer looking than the usual
bulbous setups that are on Corvair-powered Piets. He did the top section
out of fiberglass, but it could be made of metal as well. The prop spinner
is what makes the lines all work, so if you don't think spinners have a
place on Piets, then just carry on! The page is at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/WWPiet.html
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: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Piet tail feathers |
George
the way I read it is that the aft edge of the HS and the leading edge of the
elevators are both made of the main beam
Henry W ( Borodent )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Zinc Chromate Primer |
Somewhere I have an article on primers,maybe even in the archives.
Apparently all primers except epoxy require paint over top to work
as the primer is porous and moisture will go right through it. Their
function is to help the bond between paint and metal, not provide
corrosion proofing by themselves. Prior to this I had never given
it much thought assuming it was just another paint.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Vickery <h2opilot(at)cwo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Zinc Chromate Primer
>
> Zinc Chromate primer is sprayed lightly (wet, about 1,000 square feet
> per gallon) on aluminum and steel aircraft parts. It is the best,
> time-proven primer to prevent corrosion and rust in all applications.
> Available in green and yellow colors, it also provides maximum adhesion
> for subsequent paints.
> Zinc Chromate primer is also made in epoxy form for use on steel tube
> airframes that will be covered with fabric.
> Gene Vickery
> Tehachapi, CA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet tail feathers |
You'd better be right, cause thats the way I built them a year ago. It's a
little
clearer in the Flying and Gliding manual.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Borodent(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet tail feathers
>
> George
> the way I read it is that the aft edge of the HS and the leading edge of
the
> elevators are both made of the main beam
> Henry W ( Borodent )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Thats the second time, somebody mentioned incidence on the tail plane, horizontal
stabilizer. The stabilizer has a fatter spar in the middle and is tapered
fore and aft, on the front and rear spars. So when you screw it down, which
I already have done. I wondered about the shimming? Lacking otherwise information,
I assumed that the horizontal stabilizer should be neutral and leveled
the plane, or the top longeron of the fuselage and the horizontal stabilizer
and shimmed the front piece and the back piece, so it was neutral or horizontal.
From what I am hearing in these conversations, is that I have it wrong? And
it should be pitched slightly, or lower to the rear, so the level bubble rises
to the front? How do we go here?
On Sat, 09 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
> > lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
> > exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel
> with
> > the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft
> cable;
> > some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store
> should
> > not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some
> airplanes.
> > Doug Bryant
>
> Doug -
>
> Plenty of room here for disagreement. Just wish that the oysters didn't bit
> my fingers the other day so I could type better. Stitches keep getting in
> the way!
>
> But the biggest load on any tailplane is a small download, to counter the
> lift provided elsewhere. That's why the spars in the tail section are so
> small, and why we need to provide the correct incidence on that tailplane.
> If it were otherwise, the spar would need to be much stronger, and the bolts
> would need to be larger. I have no diagreement with what is on the plans,
> and certainly my Duce uses 3/16" stainless rod, but that is more for
> appearance than anything. I could use 1/16th" cable, and have no problems.
> 14 ga. galvanized wire, about 1/8" dia., is certainly plenty strong enough
> here. Unfortunately, it is not flexible enough to go around our small
> diameter pulleys, nor is it the right temper to refrain from cracks when
> subjected to repeated bending.
>
> Craig
>
>
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: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft |
quality).
Good advice Graham, which I am going to ignore. Not sure this is the place for
tales. But I could give you some about yacht fittings of the most expensive
kind comparisons. I am however, intrigued by the idea of Craig and his stiff
3/16 stainless steel rod. Wondering right now reading this stuff, how you fasten
the ends?
If you want to know how to build a boat for a $1000 and be able to sail around
the world, get the book "Venturesome Voyages by Captain Voss". ( Inter-library
loan, FREE! ) Guy bought an old indian 36 ft., cedar dugout on Vancouver Island
around $50 and put a railway iron on the bottom, burlap bags of sand inside
for ballast, decked it over, cabin top, 3 short masts and cockpit. All Caribbean
fishing style rigging, ropes, bamboos and such. Not a yacht fitting anywhere.
Called the sailing vessel "Tilikum ". I sat on that in Vancouver Island
in the museum display in the 1950's and it changed and formed my life. Built
a copy on the beach in Portsmouth, on the island of Dominica 25 years ago
and did the cruising of the Eastern Caribbean Islands I had always wanted to
see. Total cost: $1800 for one year, including return plane tickets, cost of
materials ( cut my own trees and took them to the sawmill ) slept in a tent,
and cooked on a kerosene primus, with pressure cooker, and included the cost of
the boat. Sails from tarpaulin logging trucks, anchor chain same, anchor welded
by banana company machine shop and away we went. Great year!
Point of story? Make it strong, but you don't need expensive fittings, just
some horse sense.
Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage hardware wire. Seen that
happen and the two bends around the metal hole give me some pause for thought.
But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or stainless if you have bottomless
pockets. So Craig, how do you fit solid rod to the brackets?
Stabilizer wires!
-----------------------------------
On Sat, 09 February 2002, "Graham Hansen" wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman,
>
> Please don't use hardware store wire, turnbuckles, etc. on your
> airplane. This stuff isn't aircraft quality and, since you are build-
> ing an aircraft and intend to fly it, aircraft hardware must be used
> for safety..
>
> I know how costly aircraft quality materials and hardware are and,
> like you, nearly have a panic attack when I go to buy this stuff. But
> then I do some thinking and always come to the conclusion that it
> is still pretty cheap insurance, and buy it (whimpering all the way
> home).
>
> I have been messing around with little airplanes, including a 8-year
> stint on helicopters, since 1948, which puts me in the "geezer ca-
> tegory".(Likely I wouldn't posting this message had I not been rely-
> ing on aircraft quality items for all those years and hours in the air.)
>
> In 1970 I first flew the Pietenpol I built, and am still flying it. The only
> hardware store items on it are hinges for the ailerons as per the
> plans, but the hinge pins are AN aircraft parts. All bolts, nuts, washers,
> turnbuckles, etc. are aircraft quality because my Pietenpol can get
> me in the air, along with all the certificated airplanes which must use
> aircraft quality items, and it is too great a distance for any of us to
> fall!
>
> Sure it's expensive, but one of the great advantages of building an
> airplane from plans is that one doesn't have spend all that money at
> once. Spending-shock syndrome is not nearly so severe as it would
> be when buying a kit or a complete flying airplane. The major single
> expenditure is for an engine when "scratch building". Naturally I pre-
> fer an aircraft engine because it is designed for aircraft use and its
> performance in an aircraft is predictable
>
> So grit your teeth and use the 3/32" stainless steel cable with aircraft
> quality turnbuckles, clevis pins and split pins for your tail bracing. The
> strength of the entire tail assembly depends on this bracing; without it,
> the tailfeathers are quite weak. You bet your life on this bracing and a
> lot of other stuff in your aircraft every time you leave the ground.
>
> You seem to be an experienced sailor, so would appreciate this saying
> from the very early days of aviation:
>
> "If the sea is unforgiving, then the air is even more so."
>
> The very best of luck with your project!
>
> Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
>
>
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: Corvair cowling/eyebrows |
Oh Lordy! That is depressing Oscar. I haven't got anywhere near that stage
yet and your photographs overwhelm me with images of all the headaches and work
yet to be done. Yeesh!
Nice looking plane!
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Oscar Zuniga" wrote:
>
>
> OK, I finally got somewhat caught up on back emails/digests and instead of
> emailing the images of the cowling and cooling eyebrows on William Wynne's
> Corvair-powered AirCamper to those who expressed interest, I just uploaded
> them to my website so anybody could look at them. No text, just the photos-
> but they should be self explanatory if you look at them a while. They are
> not original with me; I snagged them off another site since they were so
> good and clear.
>
> Again, in my opinion William's cowling is far nicer looking than the usual
> bulbous setups that are on Corvair-powered Piets. He did the top section
> out of fiberglass, but it could be made of metal as well. The prop spinner
> is what makes the lines all work, so if you don't think spinners have a
> place on Piets, then just carry on! The page is at
> http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/WWPiet.html
>
> 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
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft quality). |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings
(aircraft quality).
........... Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage
hardware wire. Seen that happen and the two bends around the metal hole
give me some pause for thought. But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or
stainless if you have bottomless pockets. So Craig, how do you fit
solid rod to the brackets?............
____________________________________________________________
I used 4130 steel rods for the lower supports. I threaded the ends of
the rods. They were screwed into aircraft grade fork rod ends. A lock
nut fixed them in place. So far, after 14 years, no problems
Mike B Piet N687MB (Mr Sam)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Add me to the chorus that the tail is an externally-braced box structure
which would fail absent even one wire. With the discussion about what wire
to use, though, I have found that "music wire", also called spring wire, is
proper. It is sold in any catalog, AS&S, etc. Most good hardware stores
also stock it. It is not particularly expensive.
One word of caution: the wire comes in a small square box. The wire is
coiled up and tied off with soft wire. PLAN CAREFULLY when you cut the soft
wires off because the coil unravels with a vengeance. Once I tried holding
the coil by hand and cutting the wires off . . . BIG mistake, because you
cannot put it down. When the coil started to unravel in my hands and
cutting, I had to throw it down . . . got slapped by it three or four times
before it was through. Lesson learned.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jfelts101(at)aol.com |
The April issue of Custom Planes has a 3-4 page article on a Pietenpol,
pretty neat!
Jerry in South Dakota
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Fisherman: Those 8 turnbuckles are just for your tail plane. You still
need a gob of them on the ends of each control cable, lift strut
bracing, interplane bracing, and the X bracing inside of the wing. I
found mine at the Fly market (oshkosh) for $5 each, but took me 3 years
to collect enough for my Piet. The Piet is a cheap barnyard airplane
alright,--compared to other planes only. You still need to use proper
stuff and techniques if you want to stay alive. The space shuttle
Challenger used "hardware store" O-rings in it's fuel tanks, remember?
Grahm Hansen is 200% right on in his post. There is no way in the world
to build a cheap air plane trully cheap if you want it safe. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | tail brace wires |
Hello, Pieters;
I hesitate to bring this up because it's all been covered before... just go
to http://www.matronics.com, go to the Pietenpol list, and search on the
Pietenpol archives on any keyword you like: "tail braces", "tail brace
wires", "ferrules", whatever... it's all there, in rich detail.
But here's my point. Some folks feel rather strongly about using modern
aircraft materials and techniques over older, "antique" methods. After all,
we don't cover our airplanes with grade A cotton anymore, nor do we use
cambric for wire insulation. But for those who have the desire to use the
older methods and materials, there are the hard-wire tail braces with
ferrules. Even those (the ferrules) have been argued to death, since a
ferrule shaped over a round pin has a round hole in the center, but when it
is applied, it is slipped over two wires (the standing part and the running
part), so technically should have an oval or flat hole. Whatever. If
you're interested in looking at the "old timey" ferrules, Carl Loar has the
details on his website, and you can get a 1 lb. roll (about 58') of .080"
(12 ga.) hard stainless steel spring wire for $12.40 from McMaster-Carr and
make yourself some ferrules and brace wires.
Further sniffing around the archives will uncover discussions about how
tight to tension the brace wires (tight enough that they remain taut while
you lift the tail with them, but not drum-tight). Some said that "hand
tight" was good enough, or a couple of pounds of tension on each. You
musical guys: give us a note with your pitch pipe to indicate what key that
'twang' should be ;o)
There, I've said it. Now flame away, modernists!
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Leon
You gave me a good laugh and a shudder at the same time. I have been thinking
about all those control cables, turnbuckles and accessories, believe me? I think
it is going to run $500 to $600 easily. But in the meantime, I am not trying
to think about it.
But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside bracing wire,
rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store assorted galvanized
turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the aircraft ones.
Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite! Now AN grade turnbuckles
the same size are according to specs, 15 % stronger than hardware store
turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware store turnbuckle has a longer thread
shank though. More threads, same aluminum. The pulling weight says 45 lbs.
The AN one therefore would be + 15 % or 52 lbs pulling weight. But the hardware
one with a longer insert and more threads, should have more pulling strength
than the AN one then? Also, a leeetle three turns of tying wire to lock
the turnbuckle down in place, from one end to the other, should make it 100 %
stronger than the AN aircraft $16 one? And give peace of mind. I think the
hardware turnbuckles with reinforcing locking tying wire are plenty strong enough?
Wire stretches, so I can see why you would need turnbuckles. Even on yachts,
that 1/4 inch stainless pulpit guard rail wire stretches six inches in two
years or so.
But I like the comment on piano wire. Hmmmnn! What makes you say that is strong
enough? Anybody using it? The brass rod I saw was too short at 3 feet.
I think the distance is around 42 inches on mine, so you need around 52 inches
of rod at 3/16 to make eyes at the ends. Have not been able to find any 3/16
rod of any kind in Home Depot or Hardware stores long enough to do me any good.
Need eight pieces about 52 inches long, to work with, if I go that route.
The 1/8 rod, is the thickness of clothes hanger wire? But surely not as weak
as that? Though for compression and pull, it would be okay. Any further commentary
on different types of braces for rear tail external stabilizers?
On Sun, 10 February 2002, Leon Stefan wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman: Those 8 turnbuckles are just for your tail plane. You still
> need a gob of them on the ends of each control cable, lift strut
> bracing, interplane bracing, and the X bracing inside of the wing. I
> found mine at the Fly market (oshkosh) for $5 each, but took me 3 years
> to collect enough for my Piet. The Piet is a cheap barnyard airplane
> alright,--compared to other planes only. You still need to use proper
> stuff and techniques if you want to stay alive. The space shuttle
> Challenger used "hardware store" O-rings in it's fuel tanks, remember?
> Grahm Hansen is 200% right on in his post. There is no way in the world
> to build a cheap air plane trully cheap if you want it safe. Leon S.
>
>
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: tail brace wires |
Oscar
I submit to you, that you are now an eggspurt ( whoops! ) expert. Having built
already. Now I tried that search engine and used words like vertical stabilizer
and horizontal stabilizer and so on, in order to bring up old messages and
found very few. Less than three. So, I thought maybe it is a lousy search
engine. Subsequently, in my e-mail queries I made sure I mentioned the correct
terminology, so that in future, other searchers would be able to find experience.
Obviously as a layperson amateur with the correct technical jargon, my search
did not bring up any messages. You found them, under what lingo? Something
wrong here, and I am not either knowledgeable enough, or imaginative enough to
get that search engine to bring up results? What am I doing wrong?
Ray
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Oscar Zuniga" wrote:
>
>
> Hello, Pieters;
>
> I hesitate to bring this up because it's all been covered before... just go
> to http://www.matronics.com, go to the Pietenpol list, and search on the
> Pietenpol archives on any keyword you like: "tail braces", "tail brace
> wires", "ferrules", whatever... it's all there, in rich detail.
>
> But here's my point. Some folks feel rather strongly about using modern
> aircraft materials and techniques over older, "antique" methods. After all,
> we don't cover our airplanes with grade A cotton anymore, nor do we use
> cambric for wire insulation. But for those who have the desire to use the
> older methods and materials, there are the hard-wire tail braces with
> ferrules. Even those (the ferrules) have been argued to death, since a
> ferrule shaped over a round pin has a round hole in the center, but when it
> is applied, it is slipped over two wires (the standing part and the running
> part), so technically should have an oval or flat hole. Whatever. If
> you're interested in looking at the "old timey" ferrules, Carl Loar has the
> details on his website, and you can get a 1 lb. roll (about 58') of .080"
> (12 ga.) hard stainless steel spring wire for $12.40 from McMaster-Carr and
> make yourself some ferrules and brace wires.
>
> Further sniffing around the archives will uncover discussions about how
> tight to tension the brace wires (tight enough that they remain taut while
> you lift the tail with them, but not drum-tight). Some said that "hand
> tight" was good enough, or a couple of pounds of tension on each. You
> musical guys: give us a note with your pitch pipe to indicate what key that
> 'twang' should be ;o)
>
> There, I've said it. Now flame away, modernists!
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> Medford, Oregon
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Among other um, er, interesting comments, Fisherman Caye wrote:
> But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside bracing
wire,
> rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store assorted
> galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the aircraft
ones.
> Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite! Now AN grade
> turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 % stronger than
hardware
> store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware store turnbuckle has a
longer
> thread shank though. More threads, same aluminum. The pulling weight
says 45 lbs.
Sigh. I'm kicking myself for bothering to respond, but...
The same guy I mentioned in the last message, about the non-turnbuckle
adjusters, also tested out hardware store turnbuckles to see whether they
would be a viable substitute for AN hardware in his meant-to-be ultralight.
These weren't round-bodied, but the medium-sized ones with open, more
or less rectangular, aluminum bodies. He found that the weak point was
the eye of the bolts, which opened up under tension. By welding them
closed, he found he could reliably put 900 lb of tension on the turnbuckles
before they gave way. Don't recall whether the limiting factor was the
aluminum bodies or the welded eyes.
Owen Davies
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Sury <jimsury(at)fbtc.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Fisherman why don't you use the hardware store turnbuckles to apply the
tension and adjust the tail brace wires. 3/32 stainless aircraft cable is
.35 a foot, stainless thimbles are .16 each and Nicopress sleeves are.15
each. For just 2.67 you could make a 5 foot cable. For less than $25 you
could have all the tail brace wires. The catch is that you would have to
wait until the plane is covered and ready to go to the airport. Why?
Because you make the wires to fit and the turnbuckles are not installed.
What you need is 8 turnbuckles hardware store variety or 8 of the screen
door turnbuckles which ever is cheaper. If you are really tight with money
cut the cables 1 foot longer than the distance between the connections.
String all the cables using the thimbles and nicopress sleeves. On the tag
end of the cable crimp on an electrical connector. Do this for all eight
cables. Now take the turnbuckles and install them between the two
electrical connectors. Do this for all eight cables. Now adjust the cables
using the turnbuckles. When you are satisfied that the tail is square to
the fuselage and the vertical fin is vertical you compress the nicopress
sleeves. You cut the cable tag end off an inch above the nicopress sleeve
and put the second nicopress sleeve over the cable sharp end. It is easier
to do than to put in writing. You could probably do the same job using
bungie cord instead of turnbuckles. You want the cables tight but not so
tight you could play a tune on them. If you are concerned about the cable
stretching and you have no way to adjust them than install 2 flat washers
under the attachment tab. When the cable gets loose remove a washer. For
attachment tabs I used chain links. Like in motorcycle chain. They work
great. With this method you have all aircraft approved hardware and no 5
and dime store turnbuckles. Looks great too. Oh install the tag ends of the
cables down. Not really necessary but it looks better. Ok gang jump on
this. jas
>
>
>Leon
>
> You gave me a good laugh and a shudder at the same time. I have been
thinking about all those control cables, turnbuckles and accessories,
believe me? I think it is going to run $500 to $600 easily. But in the
meantime, I am not trying to think about it.
>
> But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside
bracing wire, rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store
assorted galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the
aircraft ones. Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite!
Now AN grade turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 %
stronger than hardware store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware
store turnbuckle has a longer thread shank though. More threads, same
aluminum. The pulling weight says 45 lbs. The AN one therefore would be +
15 % or 52 lbs pulling weight. But the hardware one with a longer insert
and more threads, should have more pulling strength than the AN one then?
Also, a leeetle three turns of tying wire to lock the turnbuckle down in
place, from one end to the other, should make it 100 % stronger than the AN
aircraft $16 one? And give peace of mind. I think the hardware
turnbuckles with reinforcing locking tying !
>wire are plenty strong enough? Wire stretches, so I can see why you would
need turnbuckles. Even on yachts, that 1/4 inch stainless pulpit guard
rail wire stretches six inches in two years or so.
> But I like the comment on piano wire. Hmmmnn! What makes you say that
is strong enough? Anybody using it? The brass rod I saw was too short at
3 feet. I think the distance is around 42 inches on mine, so you need
around 52 inches of rod at 3/16 to make eyes at the ends. Have not been
able to find any 3/16 rod of any kind in Home Depot or Hardware stores long
enough to do me any good. Need eight pieces about 52 inches long, to work
with, if I go that route. The 1/8 rod, is the thickness of clothes hanger
wire? But surely not as weak as that? Though for compression and pull, it
would be okay. Any further commentary on different types of braces for
rear tail external stabilizers?
>
>
>On Sun, 10 February 2002, Leon Stefan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Fisherman: Those 8 turnbuckles are just for your tail plane. You still
>> need a gob of them on the ends of each control cable, lift strut
>> bracing, interplane bracing, and the X bracing inside of the wing. I
>> found mine at the Fly market (oshkosh) for $5 each, but took me 3 years
>> to collect enough for my Piet. The Piet is a cheap barnyard airplane
>> alright,--compared to other planes only. You still need to use proper
>> stuff and techniques if you want to stay alive. The space shuttle
>> Challenger used "hardware store" O-rings in it's fuel tanks, remember?
>> Grahm Hansen is 200% right on in his post. There is no way in the world
>> to build a cheap air plane trully cheap if you want it safe. Leon S.
>>
>>
>
>
>FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
>http://www.FindLaw.com
>Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
>http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tail brace wires |
If anyone on here is adept at making the ferrules I'd like to know, I'll buy
them from you. I have made them and it is a great pain in the a**! I know
of some people that actually don't mind doing it, though. If any of you is
such a person, speak up!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tail brace wires |
You might check with the folks at "WW1 Aeroplanes"
www.ww1aeroplanesinc.org -- they should know of anyone that has old style
hardware for replicas / restorations.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: tail brace wires
>
> If anyone on here is adept at making the ferrules I'd like to know, I'll
buy
> them from you. I have made them and it is a great pain in the a**! I
know
> of some people that actually don't mind doing it, though. If any of you
is
> such a person, speak up!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Owen
Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff. Great, can go with hardware turnbuckles
then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix the eye gap.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
>
> Among other um, er, interesting comments, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> > But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside bracing
> wire,
> > rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store assorted
> > galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the aircraft
> ones.
> > Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite! Now AN grade
> > turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 % stronger than
> hardware
> > store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware store turnbuckle has a
> longer
> > thread shank though. More threads, same aluminum. The pulling weight
> says 45 lbs.
>
> Sigh. I'm kicking myself for bothering to respond, but...
>
> The same guy I mentioned in the last message, about the non-turnbuckle
> adjusters, also tested out hardware store turnbuckles to see whether they
> would be a viable substitute for AN hardware in his meant-to-be ultralight.
> These weren't round-bodied, but the medium-sized ones with open, more
> or less rectangular, aluminum bodies. He found that the weak point was
> the eye of the bolts, which opened up under tension. By welding them
> closed, he found he could reliably put 900 lb of tension on the turnbuckles
> before they gave way. Don't recall whether the limiting factor was the
> aluminum bodies or the welded eyes.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
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: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Wow Jim!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Are we getting a jury rigging education or what, finding out what other people
have done?
I loved that bit about the motorcycle links as fittings to attach the cables
too. I was just thinking of buying those galvanized right angle, two hole brackets
they sell in the hardware store and hitting them with a hammer until they
gave me the right angle.
I'm thinking! Really am! Probably get started tomorrow. Maybe install with
what I have, then change as I can find the parts to make it better. But so I
can get on with the progress next week.
Throwing away some 14 guage wire as called for in the plans won't hurt the budget,
if I rig with it, immediately.
Some great innovative ideas here, by different people. Love it when we use many
heads to solve problems. More heads make better solutions. Money not really
tight, but have Scotch ancestry and just my thrifty nature. Like stuff that
does the job, but it doesn't mean the most expensive is automatically the answer.
Built and run a lot of boats using 250 year old technology and left a
bunch of new stuff with all the expensive gadgets behind, waiting for broken parts
flown in at high expense. So expensive doesn't necessarily mean better.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, Jim Sury wrote:
>
>
>
> Fisherman why don't you use the hardware store turnbuckles to apply the
> tension and adjust the tail brace wires. 3/32 stainless aircraft cable is
> .35 a foot, stainless thimbles are .16 each and Nicopress sleeves are.15
> each. For just 2.67 you could make a 5 foot cable. For less than $25 you
> could have all the tail brace wires. The catch is that you would have to
> wait until the plane is covered and ready to go to the airport. Why?
> Because you make the wires to fit and the turnbuckles are not installed.
> What you need is 8 turnbuckles hardware store variety or 8 of the screen
> door turnbuckles which ever is cheaper. If you are really tight with money
> cut the cables 1 foot longer than the distance between the connections.
> String all the cables using the thimbles and nicopress sleeves. On the tag
> end of the cable crimp on an electrical connector. Do this for all eight
> cables. Now take the turnbuckles and install them between the two
> electrical connectors. Do this for all eight cables. Now adjust the cables
> using the turnbuckles. When you are satisfied that the tail is square to
> the fuselage and the vertical fin is vertical you compress the nicopress
> sleeves. You cut the cable tag end off an inch above the nicopress sleeve
> and put the second nicopress sleeve over the cable sharp end. It is easier
> to do than to put in writing. You could probably do the same job using
> bungie cord instead of turnbuckles. You want the cables tight but not so
> tight you could play a tune on them. If you are concerned about the cable
> stretching and you have no way to adjust them than install 2 flat washers
> under the attachment tab. When the cable gets loose remove a washer. For
> attachment tabs I used chain links. Like in motorcycle chain. They work
> great. With this method you have all aircraft approved hardware and no 5
> and dime store turnbuckles. Looks great too. Oh install the tag ends of the
> cables down. Not really necessary but it looks better. Ok gang jump on
> this. jas
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >Leon
> >
> > You gave me a good laugh and a shudder at the same time. I have been
> thinking about all those control cables, turnbuckles and accessories,
> believe me? I think it is going to run $500 to $600 easily. But in the
> meantime, I am not trying to think about it.
> >
> > But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside
> bracing wire, rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store
> assorted galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the
> aircraft ones. Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite!
> Now AN grade turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 %
> stronger than hardware store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware
> store turnbuckle has a longer thread shank though. More threads, same
> aluminum. The pulling weight says 45 lbs. The AN one therefore would be +
> 15 % or 52 lbs pulling weight. But the hardware one with a longer insert
> and more threads, should have more pulling strength than the AN one then?
> Also, a leeetle three turns of tying wire to lock the turnbuckle down in
> place, from one end to the other, should make it 100 % stronger than the AN
> aircraft $16 one? And give peace of mind. I think the hardware
> turnbuckles with reinforcing locking tying !
> >wire are plenty strong enough? Wire stretches, so I can see why you would
> need turnbuckles. Even on yachts, that 1/4 inch stainless pulpit guard
> rail wire stretches six inches in two years or so.
> > But I like the comment on piano wire. Hmmmnn! What makes you say that
> is strong enough? Anybody using it? The brass rod I saw was too short at
> 3 feet. I think the distance is around 42 inches on mine, so you need
> around 52 inches of rod at 3/16 to make eyes at the ends. Have not been
> able to find any 3/16 rod of any kind in Home Depot or Hardware stores long
> enough to do me any good. Need eight pieces about 52 inches long, to work
> with, if I go that route. The 1/8 rod, is the thickness of clothes hanger
> wire? But surely not as weak as that? Though for compression and pull, it
> would be okay. Any further commentary on different types of braces for
> rear tail external stabilizers?
> >
> >
> >On Sun, 10 February 2002, Leon Stefan wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Fisherman: Those 8 turnbuckles are just for your tail plane. You still
> >> need a gob of them on the ends of each control cable, lift strut
> >> bracing, interplane bracing, and the X bracing inside of the wing. I
> >> found mine at the Fly market (oshkosh) for $5 each, but took me 3 years
> >> to collect enough for my Piet. The Piet is a cheap barnyard airplane
> >> alright,--compared to other planes only. You still need to use proper
> >> stuff and techniques if you want to stay alive. The space shuttle
> >> Challenger used "hardware store" O-rings in it's fuel tanks, remember?
> >> Grahm Hansen is 200% right on in his post. There is no way in the world
> >> to build a cheap air plane trully cheap if you want it safe. Leon S.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >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
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
In a message dated 2/10/02 12:04:54 PM Pacific Standard Time,
cayecaulker(at)justice.com writes:
> You gave me a good laugh and a shudder at the same time. I have been
> thinking about all those control cables, turnbuckles and accessories,
> believe me? I think it is going to run $500 to $600 easily. But in the
> meantime, I am not trying to think about it.
>
> But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside
> bracing wire, rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store
> assorted galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the
> aircraft ones. Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite!
> Now AN grade turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 %
> stronger than hardware store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware
> store turnbuckle has a longer thread shank though. More threads, same
> aluminum. The pulling weight says 45 lbs. The AN one therefore would be +
> 15 % or 52 lbs pulling weight. But the hardware one with a longer insert
> and more threads, should have more pulling strength than the AN one then?
> Also, a leeetle three turns of tying wire to lock the turnbuckle down in
> place, from one end to the other, should make it 100 % stronger than the AN
> aircraft $16 one? And give peace of mind. I think the hardware
> turnbuckles with reinforcing locking tying !
> wire are plenty strong enough? Wire stretches, so I can see why you would
> need turnbuckles. Even on yachts, that 1/4 inch stainless pulpit guard
> rail wire stretches six inches in two years or so.
> But I like the comment on piano wire. Hmmmnn! What makes you say that
> is strong enough? Anybody using it? The brass rod I saw was too short at
> 3 feet. I think the distance is around 42 inches on mine, so you need
> around 52 inches of rod at 3/16 to make eyes at the ends. Have not been
> able to find any 3/16 rod of any kind in Home Depot or Hardware stores long
> enough to do me any good. Need eight pieces about 52 inches long, to work
> with, if I go that route. The 1/8 rod, is the thickness of clothes hanger
> wire? But surely not as weak as that? Though for compression and pull, it
> would be okay. Any further commentary on different types of braces for
> rear tail external stabilizers?
>
>
>
Guys,
I am using 8 of the cable tangs from RANS on the tail flying wires for my
Scout. This is my first attempt to use something other than turnbuckles
here. These tangs are used on all the externally braced RANS models. They
cost $1.50 ea and are .075 (14 ga) 300 series stainless. I have already
rigged the tail and the tangs are quite nice. I will list the part number if
any body wants it, however, I just called them and described what I wanted
without knowing the P/N. Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tail brace wires |
In a message dated 2/10/02 1:37:55 PM Pacific Standard Time, rambog(at)erols.com
writes:
> If anyone on here is adept at making the ferrules I'd like to know, I'll buy
> them from you. I have made them and it is a great pain in the a**! I know
> of some people that actually don't mind doing it, though. If any of you is
> such a person, speak up!
>
>
>
Gene,
Tha Kansas Aviation Museum has them made here in town somewhere at a cost of
1$ ea. I have the specs for them, but they are very difficult (for me
anyway) to make at home. They are made from hard wire (1095 high
carbon/music wire/piano wire) and are cold formed around an oval mandrel. I
tried to make some from 4130 welding rod an then heat treat, I still could
not get the form. I have seen the correct wire used with a nico press copper
swag, but do not recommend this method.
There is another issue with the hard wire type of installations and that is
they tend to break at the loop formed at the end of the wire. That is one
reason why the stranded cable became a good substitute as it was placed
around a thimble. I have spent years studying this stuff and find it all
very fascinating for sure Hard wire would be alright if one could
manufacture the correct ferrules, I don't believe they are as safe, however.
On my planes, I tend to go with what is easy today.
I would also like to be able to wire wrap and solder stranded cable as BHP
did on all his planes and was common in the early days of aviation. The spec
is in 43-13, but I cannot get solder to take; not sure why, I have tried
every flux in the book, so I just settle for nicopress.
Doug Bryant Wichita,Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Jack, I cannot disagree with you about the Piet needing the wires. I can
disagree with Doug's saying that the wires HAVE to be aircraft-quality 7x19
cable. My point is not that the wires aren't needed, but that 14 ga.
galvanized wire is sufficient to do the job.
Off-list I have replied to Fisherman (Ray) about what Nicos are, how they
are used, and to please not use fishing weights in their place.
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
> Craig, I have to side with Doug. This is a wire braced airplane, strongly
> related to the Curtiss JN-4D Jenny. It is similar to other wooden
> wire-braced airplanes, in that having a wire break in flight is generally
a
> catastrophic failure. Have you built your tail yet and mounted it on the
> fuselage? I have and even just sitting in my shop I have it braced so it
> won't get broken or take a set just from its own weight. It is not a very
> strong structure, unsupported. Once the bracing wires are in place, it is
> quite strong.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
> Wilcox
> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 8:07 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
>
>
>
> > Craig,
> >
> > I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if
it
> > lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should
be
> > exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel
> with
> > the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft
> cable;
> > some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store
> should
> > not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some
> airplanes.
> > Doug Bryant
>
> Doug -
>
> Plenty of room here for disagreement. Just wish that the oysters didn't
bit
> my fingers the other day so I could type better. Stitches keep getting in
> the way!
>
> But the biggest load on any tailplane is a small download, to counter the
> lift provided elsewhere. That's why the spars in the tail section are so
> small, and why we need to provide the correct incidence on that tailplane.
> If it were otherwise, the spar would need to be much stronger, and the
bolts
> would need to be larger. I have no diagreement with what is on the plans,
> and certainly my Duce uses 3/16" stainless rod, but that is more for
> appearance than anything. I could use 1/16th" cable, and have no
problems.
> 14 ga. galvanized wire, about 1/8" dia., is certainly plenty strong enough
> here. Unfortunately, it is not flexible enough to go around our small
> diameter pulleys, nor is it the right temper to refrain from cracks when
> subjected to repeated bending.
>
> Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: stabilizer wires and fittings |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
>
> Thats the second time, somebody mentioned incidence on the tail plane,
horizontal stabilizer. The stabilizer has a fatter spar in the middle and
is tapered fore and aft, on the front and rear spars. So when you screw it
down, which I already have done. I wondered about the shimming? Lacking
otherwise information, I assumed that the horizontal stabilizer should be
neutral and leveled the plane, or the top longeron of the fuselage and the
horizontal stabilizer and shimmed the front piece and the back piece, so it
was neutral or horizontal.
>
> From what I am hearing in these conversations, is that I have it wrong?
And it should be pitched slightly, or lower to the rear, so the level bubble
rises to the front? How do we go here?
>
Ray -
Horizontal stabilizers are generally - not always - installed with the
leading edge down just a bit, a negative incidence. This provides a bit of
downforce to counteract the rest of the airplane, keeping things in balance.
Additionally, a small tab added to the rear of the elevator, and working
opposite to it, provides a trimming influence for changes in airspeed or
lift. The little tab is called a trim tab, and is usually adjustable from
the cockpit.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft quality). |
>
> Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage hardware wire.
Seen that happen and the two bends around the metal hole give me some pause
for thought. But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or stainless if you have
bottomless pockets. So Craig, how do you fit solid rod to the brackets?
>
> Stabilizer wires!
Ray, you keep me busy and thinking!
The SS wires are threaded (1032) with one end having RH threads, the other
having LH threads. A small, female threaded fork called a clevis is then
installed on each end. Yes, you have to have one threaded LH and one
threaded RH. They are expensive. The opening in the fork, between the
"tines", fits over the tab bolted to the stabilizer. A little pin, called,
of all things, a clevis pin, fits through holes in the clevis and in the
fitting, and is secured with a very small cotter pin. Turning the SS rod
tightens or loosens the whole mess, then the lock nuts are tightened against
the clevis to keep anything from rotating.
You better plan on spending the day when you come up here. I'm looking
forward to it!
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tail brace wires |
Doug:
I disagree about the wire and ferrule being less safe than cable or any
propensity to break at the bend. Stranded cable replaced wires only because
cable will go around pulleys and wire won't. A well made wire and loop is
stronger than you would think. Please give me a name/number/address of
whoever makes the thimbles for $1 each and I will buy all they have.
As for the wrap-soldered method for control cables, forget 43.13, it is
wrong. I do it all the time and it is easy. I will have to get out to my
hangar to get you the name of the only flux I have found that works, though.
I'll get back to you on that one.
You could also do an Army-Navy 5 tuck splice on yours. Only takes about 20
minutes each once you get the hang of it.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tail brace wires |
In a message dated 2/10/02 6:01:09 PM Pacific Standard Time, rambog(at)erols.com
writes:
> Doug:
>
> I disagree about the wire and ferrule being less safe than cable or any
> propensity to break at the bend. Stranded cable replaced wires only
> because
> cable will go around pulleys and wire won't. A well made wire and loop is
> stronger than you would think. Please give me a name/number/address of
> whoever makes the thimbles for $1 each and I will buy all they have.
>
> As for the wrap-soldered method for control cables, forget 43.13, it is
> wrong. I do it all the time and it is easy. I will have to get out to my
> hangar to get you the name of the only flux I have found that works,
> though.
> I'll get back to you on that one.
>
> You could also do an Army-Navy 5 tuck splice on yours. Only takes about 20
> minutes each once you get the hang of it.
>
>
Gene,
Yes, I realize the hard wire installation is very strong. I heard about the
breakage issue when I got my A&P and from some antique airplane folks in
Little Rock. They have some great antiques there. One is an original Jenny
made in 1917. They let me sit in once when I was there on business; I sat in
it for two hours and took a bunch of great pictures. That aircraft has some
hard wire bracing on the tail and if you like I could send you some of these
close-ups for your files. I will call the Kansas Aviation Museum tomorrow
and get name of the place they use for the ferrules. I also have the spec
and the tool sketches for the loop. The 14 ga on the Piet plans is from the
Brown & Sharp wire gage spec. It is a little smaller than 1/16 dia.
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
I have a friend who built a Wolf Boredom Fighter who used the motorcycle
links on his tail section. They are very strong and designed to take a great
deal of abuse. He has been happy with them.
I got my plans last week and am reviewing them. I have one Spruce main spar
from an Aeronca that was given to me and will be using that to make the tail
section up first. I hate to cut into it, it's like every grain of sawdust is
money on the floor, like gold dust. No time at the moment though as I am on
a tight deadline at work, but maybe by months end. Pretty cool plans though.
Also, I received Mike Cuy's video. Nice amateur video with some cool
ideas/alterations (which I may be borrowing). About 2 1/2 hours long. So
like he says, pour a cup of coffee first. ;)
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom & Michelle Brant" <tmbrant(at)uswest.net> |
Hey guys...
The plans call out for spruce wedges to be used in between vertical and
diagonal members in the cocpit area... I am wondering if that is meant
to be at all vertical and diagonal joints. I can figure by looking at
the plans that the only reason they are where they are is the landing
gear, but really isn't the wedge there to increase glue area? Just
curious.
Tom Brant,
Mpls
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Where is there aluminum in a an AN turnbuckle? The barrel is Navy brass
with a class one fine thread and the steel parts are high tensile strength
steel.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fisherman
Caye
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 8 turnbuckles @ $128
Owen
Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff. Great, can go with hardware
turnbuckles then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix the eye gap.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
>
> Among other um, er, interesting comments, Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> > But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside
bracing
> wire,
> > rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store assorted
> > galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the
aircraft
> ones.
> > Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite! Now AN
grade
> > turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 % stronger than
> hardware
> > store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware store turnbuckle has a
> longer
> > thread shank though. More threads, same aluminum. The pulling weight
> says 45 lbs.
>
> Sigh. I'm kicking myself for bothering to respond, but...
>
> The same guy I mentioned in the last message, about the non-turnbuckle
> adjusters, also tested out hardware store turnbuckles to see whether they
> would be a viable substitute for AN hardware in his meant-to-be
ultralight.
> These weren't round-bodied, but the medium-sized ones with open, more
> or less rectangular, aluminum bodies. He found that the weak point was
> the eye of the bolts, which opened up under tension. By welding them
> closed, he found he could reliably put 900 lb of tension on the
turnbuckles
> before they gave way. Don't recall whether the limiting factor was the
> aluminum bodies or the welded eyes.
>
> Owen Davies
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | tail brace wires |
Oscar,
The ferrules are oval in cross section. THis gleaned from original Jenny
drawings that Doug Bryant has a copy of. To my knowledge, they have never
been or should never have been round. KeriAnn Price showed how to do it in
an old BPA newsletter using round ones but this is incorrect in my book.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Oscar
Zuniga
Subject: Pietenpol-List: tail brace wires
Hello, Pieters;
I hesitate to bring this up because it's all been covered before... just go
to http://www.matronics.com, go to the Pietenpol list, and search on the
Pietenpol archives on any keyword you like: "tail braces", "tail brace
wires", "ferrules", whatever... it's all there, in rich detail.
But here's my point. Some folks feel rather strongly about using modern
aircraft materials and techniques over older, "antique" methods. After all,
we don't cover our airplanes with grade A cotton anymore, nor do we use
cambric for wire insulation. But for those who have the desire to use the
older methods and materials, there are the hard-wire tail braces with
ferrules. Even those (the ferrules) have been argued to death, since a
ferrule shaped over a round pin has a round hole in the center, but when it
is applied, it is slipped over two wires (the standing part and the running
part), so technically should have an oval or flat hole. Whatever. If
you're interested in looking at the "old timey" ferrules, Carl Loar has the
details on his website, and you can get a 1 lb. roll (about 58') of .080"
(12 ga.) hard stainless steel spring wire for $12.40 from McMaster-Carr and
make yourself some ferrules and brace wires.
Further sniffing around the archives will uncover discussions about how
tight to tension the brace wires (tight enough that they remain taut while
you lift the tail with them, but not drum-tight). Some said that "hand
tight" was good enough, or a couple of pounds of tension on each. You
musical guys: give us a note with your pitch pipe to indicate what key that
'twang' should be ;o)
There, I've said it. Now flame away, modernists!
Oscar Zuniga
Medford, Oregon
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
In a message dated 2/10/02 7:15:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com writes:
> I have a friend who built a Wolf Boredom Fighter who used the motorcycle
> links on his tail section. They are very strong and designed to take a
> great
> deal of abuse. He has been happy with them.
>
> I got my plans last week and am reviewing them. I have one Spruce main spar
> from an Aeronca that was given to me and will be using that to make the
> tail
> section up first. I hate to cut into it, it's like every grain of sawdust
> is
> money on the floor, like gold dust. No time at the moment though as I am on
> a tight deadline at work, but maybe by months end. Pretty cool plans
> though.
>
> Also, I received Mike Cuy's video. Nice amateur video with some cool
> ideas/alterations (which I may be borrowing). About 2 1/2 hours long. So
> like he says, pour a cup of coffee first. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> MyKitPlane.com
> EAA 665957
> gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com
> http://www.mykitplane.com
>
>
Gary,
I used motocycle master link covers (removable part) for the first three
Piets, but now I can't seem to find any more large quantites. The ones I had
came from a surplus store here in Wichita called the Yard, but I bought and
consumed all they had. If you find a source, let me know, please. I have
not tried buying chain and breaking the links apart with a chain breaker, but
that might work fine. The link covers I used had convenient 3/16 holes.
They also have a part which looks like a heavy sheet metal shackle and that
is what I am using (by drilling the holes and doing some grinding) on the
Scout, which is in work now. There always seems to more than one way to skin
the cat. The spar wood will make a nice tail section. Doug Bryant
Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Owen Davies" <owen(at)davies.mv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Fisherman Caye wrote:
> Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff. Great, can go with hardware
turnbuckles
> then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix the eye gap.
Not as far as I am concerned! What you do is strictly between you,
your heirs, and the FAA inspector you hope will sign it off. As for
that last, my one firm bit of advice would be, don't hold your breath.
Owen
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: spruce wedges |
In a message dated 2/10/02 7:20:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
tmbrant(at)uswest.net writes:
> Hey guys...
>
> The plans call out for spruce wedges to be used in between vertical and
> diagonal members in the cocpit area... I am wondering if that is meant
> to be at all vertical and diagonal joints. I can figure by looking at
> the plans that the only reason they are where they are is the landing
> gear, but really isn't the wedge there to increase glue area? Just
> curious.
>
> Tom Brant,
>
>
Tom,
Those are for the landing gear area as shown. The landing gear bolts pass
thru that area. Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Zinc Chromate Primer |
I have read that Alkyd Enamel paint is dope proof.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Zinc Chromate Primer
Somewhere I have an article on primers,maybe even in the archives.
Apparently all primers except epoxy require paint over top to work
as the primer is porous and moisture will go right through it. Their
function is to help the bond between paint and metal, not provide
corrosion proofing by themselves. Prior to this I had never given
it much thought assuming it was just another paint.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Vickery <h2opilot(at)cwo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Zinc Chromate Primer
>
> Zinc Chromate primer is sprayed lightly (wet, about 1,000 square feet
> per gallon) on aluminum and steel aircraft parts. It is the best,
> time-proven primer to prevent corrosion and rust in all applications.
> Available in green and yellow colors, it also provides maximum adhesion
> for subsequent paints.
> Zinc Chromate primer is also made in epoxy form for use on steel tube
> airframes that will be covered with fabric.
> Gene Vickery
> Tehachapi, CA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "George Allen" <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet tail feathers |
Henry/Clif, thanks for the feedback.
Another question please.
I take it that the side/end piece of wood is also the same as the leading
edge. The bottom of the 'T' shape of the leading edge is 1/2" thick, but the
corresponding edge on the main beam is 5/8". How do you mate them up
and put a gusset at the corner? I can't bring myself to cut the wood. It
just
doesn't seem right.
Horiz. stab.
______________________
1 1
1--------------------------------1
1 1
1 1
1-------------------------------------1<-------------------this corner?
I hate it when I can't figure this stuff out.
Thanks guys,
George Allen
Harrisburg, PA
GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
(Peitenpol builder)
>
> George
> the way I read it is that the aft edge of the HS and the leading edge of
the
> elevators are both made of the main beam
> Henry W ( Borodent )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | stabilizer wires and fittings |
Jack,
Actually, the jenny was so successful since it unknowingly incorporated
multiple load paths into its design. Lose a wire here or there and no big
deal.
chris bobka
Jenny replica team member
MNANG Museum
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jack
Phillips
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
Craig, I have to side with Doug. This is a wire braced airplane, strongly
related to the Curtiss JN-4D Jenny. It is similar to other wooden
wire-braced airplanes, in that having a wire break in flight is generally a
catastrophic failure. Have you built your tail yet and mounted it on the
fuselage? I have and even just sitting in my shop I have it braced so it
won't get broken or take a set just from its own weight. It is not a very
strong structure, unsupported. Once the bracing wires are in place, it is
quite strong.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeffrey
Wilcox
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
> Craig,
>
> I must nicely, strongly disagree, the tail would brake off the Piet if it
> lost just one wire. It is an externally braced system. The wire should be
> exactly what is on the plans, either hard wire (1095 high carbon steel
with
> the correct ferrules, very difficult to find today) or 1/16 aircraft
cable;
> some use 3/32 cable. The low carbon steel wire from the harware store
should
> not be used, even though it looks the part and may even be on some
airplanes.
> Doug Bryant
Doug -
Plenty of room here for disagreement. Just wish that the oysters didn't bit
my fingers the other day so I could type better. Stitches keep getting in
the way!
But the biggest load on any tailplane is a small download, to counter the
lift provided elsewhere. That's why the spars in the tail section are so
small, and why we need to provide the correct incidence on that tailplane.
If it were otherwise, the spar would need to be much stronger, and the bolts
would need to be larger. I have no diagreement with what is on the plans,
and certainly my Duce uses 3/16" stainless rod, but that is more for
appearance than anything. I could use 1/16th" cable, and have no problems.
14 ga. galvanized wire, about 1/8" dia., is certainly plenty strong enough
here. Unfortunately, it is not flexible enough to go around our small
diameter pulleys, nor is it the right temper to refrain from cracks when
subjected to repeated bending.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Zinc Chromate Primer |
In a message dated 2/10/02 7:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bobka(at)charter.net writes:
> I have read that Alkyd Enamel paint is dope proof.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
Chris,
I use ACE oil based spar varnish (not polyurathane) with excellent results.
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Doug,
If the master links from chains you use are what I think they are, we can
buy them here at the farm supply store called mills fleet farm in there
tractor parts area.
Should have million more in kansas
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Doug413(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 8 turnbuckles @ $128
In a message dated 2/10/02 7:15:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com writes:
> I have a friend who built a Wolf Boredom Fighter who used the motorcycle
> links on his tail section. They are very strong and designed to take a
> great
> deal of abuse. He has been happy with them.
>
> I got my plans last week and am reviewing them. I have one Spruce main
spar
> from an Aeronca that was given to me and will be using that to make the
> tail
> section up first. I hate to cut into it, it's like every grain of sawdust
> is
> money on the floor, like gold dust. No time at the moment though as I am
on
> a tight deadline at work, but maybe by months end. Pretty cool plans
> though.
>
> Also, I received Mike Cuy's video. Nice amateur video with some cool
> ideas/alterations (which I may be borrowing). About 2 1/2 hours long. So
> like he says, pour a cup of coffee first. ;)
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> MyKitPlane.com
> EAA 665957
> gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com
> http://www.mykitplane.com
>
>
Gary,
I used motocycle master link covers (removable part) for the first three
Piets, but now I can't seem to find any more large quantites. The ones I
had
came from a surplus store here in Wichita called the Yard, but I bought and
consumed all they had. If you find a source, let me know, please. I have
not tried buying chain and breaking the links apart with a chain breaker,
but
that might work fine. The link covers I used had convenient 3/16 holes.
They also have a part which looks like a heavy sheet metal shackle and that
is what I am using (by drilling the holes and doing some grinding) on the
Scout, which is in work now. There always seems to more than one way to
skin
the cat. The spar wood will make a nice tail section. Doug Bryant
Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Zinc Chromate Primer |
Home depot was closing out their Behr brand alkyd enamal and I bought about
12 quart cans in grey and white. Still need to do a test.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Doug413(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Zinc Chromate Primer
In a message dated 2/10/02 7:40:10 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bobka(at)charter.net writes:
> I have read that Alkyd Enamel paint is dope proof.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
Chris,
I use ACE oil based spar varnish (not polyurathane) with excellent results.
Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
In a message dated 2/10/02 8:04:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,
bobka(at)charter.net writes:
> Doug,
>
> If the master links from chains you use are what I think they are, we can
> buy them here at the farm supply store called mills fleet farm in there
> tractor parts area.
>
> Should have million more in kansas
>
> Chris
>
>
Chris,
The ones I found were just the master link cover, I did not have to buy the
whole master link. There may be some other way though. I tried a bearing
and chain supply here and all they offered was the entire link and it takes
quite a few for an aircraft. Now I am using the part that looks like an
undrilled shackle. I will try some more locations for the link. I bought a
thousand clevis bolts and castlated nuts surplus and need to use them.
Thanks for the info. Doug Bryant
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet tail feathers |
] [ [ Does this help? You could reverse the cutout,
] [ [ doesn't matter under the gussets or you could
] [ [__________________do a 45 degree joint instead.
]
] [ [
] [____[___________________
]_[________________________
As to the beam side discrepency I shaved the large piece from 3" back
down to the nose piece top and bottom.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: George Allen <GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet tail feathers
>
> Henry/Clif, thanks for the feedback.
> Another question please.
> I take it that the side/end piece of wood is also the same as the leading
> edge. The bottom of the 'T' shape of the leading edge is 1/2" thick, but
the
> corresponding edge on the main beam is 5/8". How do you mate them up
> and put a gusset at the corner? I can't bring myself to cut the wood. It
> just
> doesn't seem right.
> Horiz. stab.
> ______________________
> 1 1
> 1--------------------------------1
> 1 1
> 1 1
> 1-------------------------------------1<-------------------this corner?
>
> I hate it when I can't figure this stuff out.
> Thanks guys,
> George Allen
> Harrisburg, PA
> GeorgeA(at)PAonline.com
> (Peitenpol builder)
>
>
> >
> > George
> > the way I read it is that the aft edge of the HS and the leading edge of
> the
> > elevators are both made of the main beam
> > Henry W ( Borodent )
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Have you guys checked the archives? There was a considerable amount
of discussion on master links some time ago. I can't remember when.
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one. I
don't have his address. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
Really? An FAA Inspector would presume to tell an Experimental builder what materials
to use?
That sounds exceedingly strange? How the heck did Burt Rutan try so many new
things then?
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
>
> Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
> > Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff. Great, can go with hardware
> turnbuckles
> > then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix the eye gap.
>
> Not as far as I am concerned! What you do is strictly between you,
> your heirs, and the FAA inspector you hope will sign it off. As for
> that last, my one firm bit of advice would be, don't hold your breath.
>
> Owen
>
>
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: spruce wedges |
I used that canned foam stuff, sold at Home Depot, to fill between gussets and
all the spaces on the lower longeron fuselage framework. My logic told me that
rot and dirt and water would get in there. So I used that stuff to fill the
spaces. Looks like hell, but going to cover with fabric anyway and you can
trim it with a hacksaw blade easily enough. It also, albeit weakly provides some
strength to the joint. Tough stuff that.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, Doug413(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 2/10/02 7:20:47 PM Pacific Standard Time,
> tmbrant(at)uswest.net writes:
>
>
> > Hey guys...
> >
> > The plans call out for spruce wedges to be used in between vertical and
> > diagonal members in the cocpit area... I am wondering if that is meant
> > to be at all vertical and diagonal joints. I can figure by looking at
> > the plans that the only reason they are where they are is the landing
> > gear, but really isn't the wedge there to increase glue area? Just
> > curious.
> >
> > Tom Brant,
> >
> >
>
> Tom,
>
> Those are for the landing gear area as shown. The landing gear bolts pass
> thru that area. Doug Bryant
>
>
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: | 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
You may be right indeed Chris on the AN turnbuckle. I noticed the fine threads,
which add lots of strength. But the metal part, I have no idea. I just picked
them and felt them and they looked like aluminum with a kind of bronze paint
color. So probably you are right. But brass is soft against steel. Wouldn't
know how to guage that without a stress test? But what the heck, it doesn't
look like the pull on those braces, all eight is to exceed 50 lbs anyway
on any individual wire. I doubt if that much, including elevon working? Though
I suspect the elevon working would put the most stress on the stabilizer.
But this is not an aerobatic airplane.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Christian Bobka" wrote:
>
>
> Where is there aluminum in a an AN turnbuckle? The barrel is Navy brass
> with a class one fine thread and the steel parts are high tensile strength
> steel.
>
> chris bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Fisherman
> Caye
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 8 turnbuckles @ $128
>
>
>
>
> Owen
>
>
> Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff. Great, can go with hardware
> turnbuckles then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix the eye gap.
>
>
> On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Among other um, er, interesting comments, Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> > > But getting back to the horizontal and vertical stabilizer outside
> bracing
> > wire,
> > > rod, or what have you. Today, I found in the Hardware store assorted
> > > galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each, almost exactly like the
> aircraft
> > ones.
> > > Round body, smooth and aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite! Now AN
> grade
> > > turnbuckles the same size are according to specs, 15 % stronger than
> > hardware
> > > store turnbuckles at $16 a pop! This hardware store turnbuckle has a
> > longer
> > > thread shank though. More threads, same aluminum. The pulling weight
> > says 45 lbs.
> >
> > Sigh. I'm kicking myself for bothering to respond, but...
> >
> > The same guy I mentioned in the last message, about the non-turnbuckle
> > adjusters, also tested out hardware store turnbuckles to see whether they
> > would be a viable substitute for AN hardware in his meant-to-be
> ultralight.
> > These weren't round-bodied, but the medium-sized ones with open, more
> > or less rectangular, aluminum bodies. He found that the weak point was
> > the eye of the bolts, which opened up under tension. By welding them
> > closed, he found he could reliably put 900 lb of tension on the
> turnbuckles
> > before they gave way. Don't recall whether the limiting factor was the
> > aluminum bodies or the welded eyes.
> >
> > Owen Davies
> >
> >
>
>
> 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: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft |
quality).
When you think about it, rods for braces are much better than wires, if you start
hollering about breakings, stress and strains and AN gear.
I'm an amateur, but wire braces are only good in tension, so out of the eight
wires you only have four wires giving tension at any one moment in time. But
with rods, you would have double, or the full eight able to provide compression
and tension. While I may start with the 14 guage hardware wire to set up,
I will change to some kind of rods immediately I can find any.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage hardware wire.
> Seen that happen and the two bends around the metal hole give me some pause
> for thought. But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or stainless if you have
> bottomless pockets. So Craig, how do you fit solid rod to the brackets?
> >
> > Stabilizer wires!
> Ray, you keep me busy and thinking!
>
> The SS wires are threaded (1032) with one end having RH threads, the other
> having LH threads. A small, female threaded fork called a clevis is then
> installed on each end. Yes, you have to have one threaded LH and one
> threaded RH. They are expensive. The opening in the fork, between the
> "tines", fits over the tab bolted to the stabilizer. A little pin, called,
> of all things, a clevis pin, fits through holes in the clevis and in the
> fitting, and is secured with a very small cotter pin. Turning the SS rod
> tightens or loosens the whole mess, then the lock nuts are tightened against
> the clevis to keep anything from rotating.
> You better plan on spending the day when you come up here. I'm looking
> forward to it!
>
> Craig
>
>
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: stabilizer wires and fittings |
Yes! I guess then my horizontal stabilizer being neutral is okay then? I had
intended to bolt on some small trim tabs anyway, subject to any high speed (relative
term ) taxi test runs.
Anybody know where I can get a booklet that EAA put out, back in the 1960's that
covered all this design stuff? I had donated my collection back then and
it is no longer listed in the EAA booklet stuff they sent me. If I could get
the old book back, would love to have it.
EAA seem to have broken the subject matter up into more parts and are now selling
bunch of books to cover what the one book had back in the 1960's. I don't
feel like parting with a couple of hundred dollars for information, that was
in a $20 book 40 years ago.
I spent many pleasant hours and years, drawing planes and designing them by kerosene
lamp in a little wooden fisherman's shack, on rough white wrapping paper
from the island grocery store.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: stabilizer wires and fittings
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Thats the second time, somebody mentioned incidence on the tail plane,
> horizontal stabilizer. The stabilizer has a fatter spar in the middle and
> is tapered fore and aft, on the front and rear spars. So when you screw it
> down, which I already have done. I wondered about the shimming? Lacking
> otherwise information, I assumed that the horizontal stabilizer should be
> neutral and leveled the plane, or the top longeron of the fuselage and the
> horizontal stabilizer and shimmed the front piece and the back piece, so it
> was neutral or horizontal.
> >
> > From what I am hearing in these conversations, is that I have it wrong?
> And it should be pitched slightly, or lower to the rear, so the level bubble
> rises to the front? How do we go here?
> >
> Ray -
> Horizontal stabilizers are generally - not always - installed with the
> leading edge down just a bit, a negative incidence. This provides a bit of
> downforce to counteract the rest of the airplane, keeping things in balance.
> Additionally, a small tab added to the rear of the elevator, and working
> opposite to it, provides a trimming influence for changes in airspeed or
> lift. The little tab is called a trim tab, and is usually adjustable from
> the cockpit.
>
> Craig
>
>
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: | varnish and dope mixture turns into slush. |
Somebody mentioned that the Marine Spar Varnish from Home Depot will turn into
slush when the dope liquid hits it, when trying to lay down fabric. Or do you
glue first? Do I have to sand off varnish at points where the fabric and dope
contact wet?
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: spruce wedges |
Tom,
They are installed only where called for in the plans.
Greg Cardinal
>>> tmbrant(at)uswest.net 02/10 11:33 PM >>>
Hey guys...
The plans call out for spruce wedges to be used in between vertical and
diagonal members in the cocpit area... I am wondering if that is meant
to be at all vertical and diagonal joints. I can figure by looking at
the plans that the only reason they are where they are is the landing
gear, but really isn't the wedge there to increase glue area? Just
curious.
Tom Brant,
Mpls
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | eyebolts, no turnbuckles |
Hope this information goes over well, I feel like about to step in the line
of fire with all the recent emails about turnbuckles...
The method that my Pober SuperAce used to install the drag/anti-drag wires
in the wing was to use 1/4" x 5" eyebolts with the eye welded shut. Then
the bolt is installed through the spar at the same angle the wire will be
(so the wire pulls straight on the bolt). The drag/anti-drag wires are at
angles so this required a angled block on the back of the spar where the
washer and nut landed. This method not only generated an attachment fitting
but acted as a turnbuckle as well.
I think this methodology would work anywhere you wouldn't mind a bolt going
all the way through a member and having the end stick out the other side.
This may not work well for the bracing wires but I'm sure I consider it when
I get there.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft q |
uality).
Don't count on skinny rods like that to help any in compression. They'll
just bend. 10-32 is also a good deal larger (heavier) than 1/16 or 3/32
cable, though the turnbuckles may make up for any weight savings.
One thing I have seen, on an Air Camper (but Grega) that's been flying for
years, is to use turnbuckles only on the bottom and accept a slight bow in
the stabilizer when they're tightened. I wouldn't do it myself, but I can't
argue with the longevity of the plane it's on.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Fisherman Caye [mailto:cayecaulker(at)justice.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings (aircraft
quality).
When you think about it, rods for braces are much better than wires, if
you start hollering about breakings, stress and strains and AN gear.
I'm an amateur, but wire braces are only good in tension, so out of the
eight wires you only have four wires giving tension at any one moment in
time. But with rods, you would have double, or the full eight able to
provide compression and tension. While I may start with the 14 guage
hardware wire to set up, I will change to some kind of rods immediately I
can find any.
On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage hardware wire.
> Seen that happen and the two bends around the metal hole give me some
pause
> for thought. But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or stainless if you
have
> bottomless pockets. So Craig, how do you fit solid rod to the brackets?
> >
> > Stabilizer wires!
> Ray, you keep me busy and thinking!
>
> The SS wires are threaded (1032) with one end having RH threads, the other
> having LH threads. A small, female threaded fork called a clevis is then
> installed on each end. Yes, you have to have one threaded LH and one
> threaded RH. They are expensive. The opening in the fork, between the
> "tines", fits over the tab bolted to the stabilizer. A little pin,
called,
> of all things, a clevis pin, fits through holes in the clevis and in the
> fitting, and is secured with a very small cotter pin. Turning the SS rod
> tightens or loosens the whole mess, then the lock nuts are tightened
against
> the clevis to keep anything from rotating.
> You better plan on spending the day when you come up here. I'm looking
> forward to it!
>
> Craig
>
>
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> |
| Subject: | Re: eyebolts, no turnbuckles |
That's an excellent method of installing the drag/antidrag wires in the
wing. I rebuilt a 1941 Aeronca Chief about 15 years ago that ,as I recall,
used something very similar to the way you described. I'm certainly going to
consider doing it that way when I get to that point with my wings.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: eyebolts, no turnbuckles
>
>Hope this information goes over well, I feel like about to step in the line
>of fire with all the recent emails about turnbuckles...
>
>The method that my Pober SuperAce used to install the drag/anti-drag wires
>in the wing was to use 1/4" x 5" eyebolts with the eye welded shut. Then
>the bolt is installed through the spar at the same angle the wire will be
>(so the wire pulls straight on the bolt). The drag/anti-drag wires are at
>angles so this required a angled block on the back of the spar where the
>washer and nut landed. This method not only generated an attachment
fitting
>but acted as a turnbuckle as well.
>
>I think this methodology would work anywhere you wouldn't mind a bolt going
>all the way through a member and having the end stick out the other side.
>This may not work well for the bracing wires but I'm sure I consider it
when
>I get there.
>
>Robert Haines
>Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | eyebolts, no turnbuckles |
A lot of planes use this method (including the Pitts Special, I believe,
although it uses threaded flying wire type material protruding through the
spar with a nut on the far side rather than a screw eye). However, it might
be difficult to do on the outer bay of the Pietenpol since the outer
compression strut is the wingtip. I don't think you would have enough room
to bury the nut in the wingtip without it or the end of the screw eye
showing. Just think about it before committing to this approach. Most
planes that use this arrangement have the drag wires and anti-drag wires at
roughly 45 degrees to the spar. The Pietenpol is more like 25 degrees.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marinucci
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: eyebolts, no turnbuckles
That's an excellent method of installing the drag/antidrag wires in the
wing. I rebuilt a 1941 Aeronca Chief about 15 years ago that ,as I recall,
used something very similar to the way you described. I'm certainly going to
consider doing it that way when I get to that point with my wings.
Sam
-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 11, 2002 10:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: eyebolts, no turnbuckles
>
>Hope this information goes over well, I feel like about to step in the line
>of fire with all the recent emails about turnbuckles...
>
>The method that my Pober SuperAce used to install the drag/anti-drag wires
>in the wing was to use 1/4" x 5" eyebolts with the eye welded shut. Then
>the bolt is installed through the spar at the same angle the wire will be
>(so the wire pulls straight on the bolt). The drag/anti-drag wires are at
>angles so this required a angled block on the back of the spar where the
>washer and nut landed. This method not only generated an attachment
fitting
>but acted as a turnbuckle as well.
>
>I think this methodology would work anywhere you wouldn't mind a bolt going
>all the way through a member and having the end stick out the other side.
>This may not work well for the bracing wires but I'm sure I consider it
when
>I get there.
>
>Robert Haines
>Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | engines choices. |
What kind of car engine has more cubic inches, to give some torque and straight
drive, suitable for a conversion?
These high rpm automobile engines might be light and good, but with the reduction
gear it gets to be a problem. Anybody recommend anything in the last 12
years suitable, with big pistons, lower rpm and higher torque?
My buddy Kenny, down in Belize, says to stay away from those Lycombings and Continentals.
He says they have been rebuilt 5 or 6 times. Are old and the price
of the parts is astronomical. You could buy a half dozen automobile engines
and convert them for just the parts prices on an aviation rated motor.
---------------------------------
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: eyebolts, no turnbuckles |
> ""The method that my Pober SuperAce used to install the drag/anti-drag
wires
> in the wing was to use 1/4" x 5" eyebolts with the eye welded shut. Then
> the bolt is installed through the spar at the same angle the wire will be
> (so the wire pulls straight on the bolt). The drag/anti-drag wires are at
> angles so this required a angled block on the back of the spar where the
> washer and nut landed. This method not only generated an attachment
fitting
> but acted as a turnbuckle as well.""
Bob: This is similar to how the Steen Skybolt is done also, and I believe
the Pitts, too. In those wings, the drag/anti-drag is a thin rod which is
threaded on the ends (both right-hand, not opposites) The wires go through
the spar at an angle both because of the angle of the wire and because the
wings are swept. On the back side of the spar is a hardwood wedge block and
there is a large washer and double nuts on each wire. Easy to make, easy to
tighten.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
I hope someone has his number or a copy of the drawing, I'd love to know how
he did it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Leon Stefan <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
>
> Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
> forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
> the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
> threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one. I
> don't have his address. Leon S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
This does sound like something really worth finding out about. Does anyone
on this list know how to do a working follow-up to contact this guy?
~Cheers,
~Warren
Gene Rambo wrote:
>
> I hope someone has his number or a copy of the drawing, I'd love to know how
> he did it.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Leon Stefan <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
>
> >
> > Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
> > forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
> > the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
> > threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one. I
> > don't have his address. Leon S.
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Hi Piet builders
The secret to keeping the elevator cables tight is to make sure that the
holes in the bell crank goes through the center of the hinge point. Put a
straight edge from hole to hole
and adjust the bell crank than drill the holes to fasten it to the spar.
Dale Mpls.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
Where is Ken Perkins from? We could do a people search on him.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
>
> This does sound like something really worth finding out about. Does
anyone
> on this list know how to do a working follow-up to contact this guy?
> ~Cheers,
> ~Warren
>
> Gene Rambo wrote:
>
> >
> > I hope someone has his number or a copy of the drawing, I'd love to know
how
> > he did it.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Leon Stefan <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
> >
> > >
> > > Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
> > > forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
> > > the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
> > > threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one.
I
> > > don't have his address. Leon S.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines choices. |
Hey Fisherman
I looked at this long and hard. Asked around, studied weights and torque
curves. I found what I think are a couple of interesting prospects, most
notably the Toyota 22r you've mentioned before and the WWII-era Jeep engine,
which has been discussed on this list. Both could produce enough thrust
without a redrive, in my humble opinion.
And it sure would be nice to work a diesel like the little VW 4 cylinder
into a Pietenpol. What could be simpler than a direct drive diesel?
But I think the caveat that's been mentioned a lot on this list -- that
automobile engines take time and money to convert to aircraft use -- holds
true. There are hidden pitfalls, including that the crank might break.
I think in the end a proven conversion is the way to go.
Just my two cents.
Ken Chambers
in the early stages in Austin, Texas.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
>
> What kind of car engine has more cubic inches, to give some torque and
straight drive, suitable for a conversion?
>
> These high rpm automobile engines might be light and good, but with the
reduction gear it gets to be a problem. Anybody recommend anything in the
last 12 years suitable, with big pistons, lower rpm and higher torque?
>
>
> My buddy Kenny, down in Belize, says to stay away from those Lycombings
and Continentals. He says they have been rebuilt 5 or 6 times. Are old and
the price of the parts is astronomical. You could buy a half dozen
automobile engines and convert them for just the parts prices on an aviation
rated motor.
> ---------------------------------
>
>
> 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> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
I did buy a set of prints from him at brodhead two
years ago. I just looked at them and there is no
address or name on them. and they are too big for my
scanner. the aileron horn is redesigned and also the
bellcrank is redesigned, anybody have the latest copy
of Doc Moshes piet directory? his name might be in
there. or maybe I can redraw the sketches onto a
smaller scale and post them. It would take me a bit
though
Del
> I hope someone has his number or a copy of the
> drawing, I'd love to know how
> he did it.
> > Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken
> Perkins ( he put on a
> > forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem.
> As I recall he re did
> > the bell crank to get the geometry right and the
> cables remain tight
> > threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing.
> Wish I had bought one. I
> > don't have his address. Leon S.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: engines choices. |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
This is for the Fisherman
I hate to bring this up. But a few years ago there was a Piet at Oshkosh
with Mercedes
240 cc diesel engine in it. This is a all torque low rpm engine good for
1/2 million
miles. It also has altitude compensation ejector so it runs the same at
the top of pike
peak as at sea level. At lease mine did. No mags no card heat and good
mileage.
Dale Mpls.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines choices. |
Ken, does you Dad still have his aviation store in Greenville? Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
>
> Hey Fisherman
>
> I looked at this long and hard. Asked around, studied weights and torque
> curves. I found what I think are a couple of interesting prospects, most
> notably the Toyota 22r you've mentioned before and the WWII-era Jeep
engine,
> which has been discussed on this list. Both could produce enough thrust
> without a redrive, in my humble opinion.
>
> And it sure would be nice to work a diesel like the little VW 4 cylinder
> into a Pietenpol. What could be simpler than a direct drive diesel?
>
> But I think the caveat that's been mentioned a lot on this list -- that
> automobile engines take time and money to convert to aircraft use -- holds
> true. There are hidden pitfalls, including that the crank might break.
>
> I think in the end a proven conversion is the way to go.
>
> Just my two cents.
>
> Ken Chambers
> in the early stages in Austin, Texas.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
>
>
>
> >
> > What kind of car engine has more cubic inches, to give some torque and
> straight drive, suitable for a conversion?
> >
> > These high rpm automobile engines might be light and good, but with
the
> reduction gear it gets to be a problem. Anybody recommend anything in the
> last 12 years suitable, with big pistons, lower rpm and higher torque?
> >
> >
> > My buddy Kenny, down in Belize, says to stay away from those
Lycombings
> and Continentals. He says they have been rebuilt 5 or 6 times. Are old
and
> the price of the parts is astronomical. You could buy a half dozen
> automobile engines and convert them for just the parts prices on an
aviation
> rated motor.
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> >
> > FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> > http://www.FindLaw.com
> > Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> > http://mail.Justice.com
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lou Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
FYI:
Ken Perkins has a machine shop business in Olathe Kansas. He had his "long
nose" orange A powered Piet at Brodhead last year. He has custom water
pumps and other goodies for sale as well as the bell crank drawings.
Contact him at:
Perk's Aerowerks
1480 Martway
Olathe, KS 66061 Phone 764-6949 (no area code given)
Lou Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
>
> Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
> forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
> the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
> threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one. I
> don't have his address. Leon S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines choices. |
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 5:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
What kind of car engine has more cubic inches, to give some torque
and straight drive, suitable for a conversion?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ford A
My buddy Kenny, down in Belize, says to stay away from those
Lycombings and Continentals. He says they have been rebuilt 5 or 6
times. Are old and the price of the parts is astronomical. You could
buy a half dozen automobile engines and convert them for just the parts
prices on an aviation rated motor.
---------------------------------
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
only one answer comes to mind - BS
Mike B Piet N678MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net> |
| Subject: | Re: engines choices. |
Sure does, but he's not stocking spruce anymore. Got out of the business
just as I started to need him.
Still has lots of plywood and hardware. Got a web site now
http://alphaaviationsupply.com/ and a new location at the municipal airport
in Greenville.
Thanks for asking Mark. Gave me a chance for a little advertising.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
>
> Ken, does you Dad still have his aviation store in Greenville? Mark
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
>
>
> >
> > Hey Fisherman
> >
> > I looked at this long and hard. Asked around, studied weights and torque
> > curves. I found what I think are a couple of interesting prospects, most
> > notably the Toyota 22r you've mentioned before and the WWII-era Jeep
> engine,
> > which has been discussed on this list. Both could produce enough thrust
> > without a redrive, in my humble opinion.
> >
> > And it sure would be nice to work a diesel like the little VW 4 cylinder
> > into a Pietenpol. What could be simpler than a direct drive diesel?
> >
> > But I think the caveat that's been mentioned a lot on this list -- that
> > automobile engines take time and money to convert to aircraft use --
holds
> > true. There are hidden pitfalls, including that the crank might break.
> >
> > I think in the end a proven conversion is the way to go.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > Ken Chambers
> > in the early stages in Austin, Texas.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines choices.
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > What kind of car engine has more cubic inches, to give some torque
and
> > straight drive, suitable for a conversion?
> > >
> > > These high rpm automobile engines might be light and good, but with
> the
> > reduction gear it gets to be a problem. Anybody recommend anything in
the
> > last 12 years suitable, with big pistons, lower rpm and higher torque?
> > >
> > >
> > > My buddy Kenny, down in Belize, says to stay away from those
> Lycombings
> > and Continentals. He says they have been rebuilt 5 or 6 times. Are old
> and
> > the price of the parts is astronomical. You could buy a half dozen
> > automobile engines and convert them for just the parts prices on an
> aviation
> > rated motor.
> > > ---------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > 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> |
The trick is to have the same length levers on the bell crank as on the
elevator. The center pivot offset of the bell crank has to be duplicated at
the elevator hinge/horns. The Idea is to form a parallelogram. Try sketching
out your bell crank and the elevator hinge and horns. If you get it right
the cables do not go slack. It can be done.
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Leon
Stefan
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
Henry: Last year at Brodhead, a man named Ken Perkins ( he put on a
forum ) said he tackled the slack cable problem. As I recall he re did
the bell crank to get the geometry right and the cables remain tight
threw the whole deflection. He sold a drawing. Wish I had bought one. I
don't have his address. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | elevator cables - Ken Perkins |
Here is some info on Ken Perkins guys:
http://members.aol.com/bpanews/notes.html
Scroll down about half way or do a word search. There is a picture of him
and his plane. His email is/was:
kenvernaperkins(at)juno.com
and here too:
http://www.avweb.com/articles/piet3/
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.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings |
(aircraftquality).
Sorry, doesn't work that way. The rods are way too long to provide
any compression strength whatsoever. Maybe1/2" tubing , but too heavy
and too much drag.
----- Original Message -----
From: Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Stabilizer wires and fittings
(aircraftquality).
>
>
> When you think about it, rods for braces are much better than wires, if
you start hollering about breakings, stress and strains and AN gear.
>
> I'm an amateur, but wire braces are only good in tension, so out of the
eight wires you only have four wires giving tension at any one moment in
time. But with rods, you would have double, or the full eight able to
provide compression and tension. While I may start with the 14 guage
hardware wire to set up, I will change to some kind of rods immediately I
can find any.
>
>
> On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Jeffrey Wilcox" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Now I buy the flexible argument of this soft 14 guage hardware wire.
> > Seen that happen and the two bends around the metal hole give me some
pause
> > for thought. But I like the galvanized stiff rod, or stainless if you
have
> > bottomless pockets. So Craig, how do you fit solid rod to the brackets?
> > >
> > > Stabilizer wires!
> > Ray, you keep me busy and thinking!
> >
> > The SS wires are threaded (1032) with one end having RH threads, the
other
> > having LH threads. A small, female threaded fork called a clevis is
then
> > installed on each end. Yes, you have to have one threaded LH and one
> > threaded RH. They are expensive. The opening in the fork, between the
> > "tines", fits over the tab bolted to the stabilizer. A little pin,
called,
> > of all things, a clevis pin, fits through holes in the clevis and in the
> > fitting, and is secured with a very small cotter pin. Turning the SS
rod
> > tightens or loosens the whole mess, then the lock nuts are tightened
against
> > the clevis to keep anything from rotating.
> > You better plan on spending the day when you come up here. I'm looking
> > forward to it!
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
>
>
> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
> http://www.FindLaw.com
> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
> http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
----- Original Message -----
From: John McNarry
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 9:18 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: elevator cables
The trick is to have the same length levers on the bell crank as on
the
elevator. The center pivot offset of the bell crank has to be
duplicated at
the elevator hinge/horns. The Idea is to form a parallelogram. Try
sketching
out your bell crank and the elevator hinge and horns. If you get it
right
the cables do not go slack. It can be done.
John Mc
--------------------------------
Right. To get the geometry correct, I made a full scale mock up on the
table,( wood & string ) & played with it until it was right.
Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | One you never thought of? |
Braided dacron rigging stays?
I have the vertical stabilizer set up in the bottom alignment brackets. But
it needs some work on it yet today, including finishing and varnishing. Never
could find molding, had to make my own for the leading edge, with wood rasp,
and 3 inch sander, course grit paper.
But I tied it up with some string, to see the angles on brackets for the stays.
Took the wife out last night in the dark, to show her the progress. She fingered
the string and said, "you are not going to use this are you?"
Which got me thinking again. Of course not, the string was ordinary hemp style
cheap twine, very weak. Probably illegal in the USA now, as all Hemp industrial
products are now illegal. You might smoke the string, cook it in cookies
or something? I have no idea how the bureaucratic mind works, though it is
different from mine. But by golly! 1/8 inch braided, dacron line, would be
stronger than 14 guage hardware wire. You could lift 500 lbs with braided dacron
line, no sweat. All the braided dacron lines on my sailboat were 30 years
old, faded, exposed and still going strong. Just think, no turnbuckles, it does
not stretch, no clevis whatever you call em, thimbles, etc. What a solution?
What do you think?
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: | pietenpol accident statistics and list |
Was looking for an exclusive Pietenpol accident list set of statistics or something.
So far, have not found one? Anybody know of a site? Be an interesting
project for somebody if there is not one.
With the recent spate of evangelical hellfire ( you will die stuff ), if you
don't do it my way on the list, I was kind of interested in the statistics. It
says in my morning newspaper, that every three hours, a person dies in Florida
in a car accident. Just for comparisons sake.
Found some Pietenpol engine ideas over in the UK.
ENGINES
Speaking of C90s, these and O-200s are beginning to get thin on the ground.
Although still fairly cheap to buy, some of
the parts prices are pretty horrendous, and with a certified engine it all
has to be done a ccording to the book
(Crankshaft AD's anyone?). They are also heavy by today's standards (a C90
without exhaust, starter or generator
weighs 188 lb dry). It's also hard to be sure of the history of many units
offered for sale, whatever the log books say,
Alan James' recent fun with a cracked crankcase on G-BUCO being a good example.
Even so , for many of us they are
going to be the easiest solution. They are, after all, designed from scratch
for the job, have been around long enough for
the bugs to be ironed out, and their installation in Pietenpols is a well
established procedure.
However, there are a number of alternatives which are worth looking at:
ROTAX 912. 138 lb inc. exhaust, rad, water, starter, gen etc., 80 hp,
25 50 prop rpm and low fuel consumption.
Unfortunately, once you've included necessary extras like the radiator
the price is over 9000. Ouch! Of course,
problem is that it adds a further 4500 to the price.
JABIRU 2200. 123 lb inc exhaust, gen, starter etc. 80 hp and low fuel
co nsumption. Unfortunately it's still very
expensive in Pietenpol terms at 6991, and PFA Engineering were unimpressed
with the efficiency of its 3300
rpm propellor at our modest cruise speeds. A reduction geared version
is apparently under development.
LIMBACH. Once again they offer 80 hp versions of their VW derived units.
I don't have current details of their
weights and prices, but they have a similar rpm problem to the Jabiru.
CAM 100. A Honda 4 cyl. car engine with belt reduction, giving the effective
layout of an inverted in-line (i.e.
prop at the top). This would permit a lovely cowl line. 100 hp, price
around 5500 (sorry, I don't have any recent
figures), and 2500 prop rpm. Unfortunately (there's always an unfortunately,
isn't there?) its installed weight is
around 250 lb, which would dig a big hole in the useful load.
WALTER MIKRON IIIA. Inverted in-line. 145 lb (hand-start version, w/o
ex haust). 2600 rpm. The price used
to be about 5000, but again I don't have any recent figures. Sadly only
65 hp, so your AUW would probably be
restricted to 1050 lb. (Cheaper at permit time though!)
MID WEST ROTARY. 100 hp and around 140 lb installed weight. Very compact
and very smooooth.
However, I believe the price is up at Rotax levels, and somehow it doesn't
seem appropriate for a 1929 aircraft
design.
SUBARU EA81. There are various modifications of this engine available,
the favourite in this country being the
NSI version with gearbox reduction. 98 hp, approx 180 lb installed weight
(electric start) but around 7500.
BMW R1100RS. This is the flat twin motorcycle engine, recently redesigned
by BMW to incorporate 4 valve
heads, fuel injection etc. Europa are currently looking at offering an
aero version with reduction gearbox. They
anticipate installed weight (electric start) of 160 lb, 90 hp @ 2665
prop rpm, and cost of about 7400 with a new
engine, or 400 0 based on a secondhand unit. This could be worth watching.
I've subscribed to their newsletter,
and will keep you informed.
MOTAVIA ULTRATEC. This was mentioned in the latest Popular Flying. 80
hp and claimed to weigh "little
more than existing two strokes". No more details except that it uses
some Ford car components. I'll find out more
BMW R100. A number of people have been adapting the older version of
the BMW flat twin. We had one in the
Homebuilders' Centre at this year 's PFA Rally, being built by Eifion
Howells for his Murphy Renega de. Most
builders (including Eifion) use the Rotax reduction gearbox and transmission
damper. Although some machined
parts are required, they are fairly straightforward. The Aug/Sep Pop
Flying had a classified ad. from Mike Hanley
(01872 560 771) offering conversion drawings for 15.00. The total weight
should be about 160 lb with electric
start, power 75-80 hp depending on spec. Good R100 engines are around
350- 400. Rotax used to sell the C
type gearbox for 630, though I don't know if you can still buy them new.
With the 4:1 reduction option, you
could have a prop rpm of 1750!
FOLAN V290. TCD, the Sherwood Ranger makers, are working out an adaptation
of this Swedish V twin
motorcycle engine. About 80 hp, and as it was designed as a competition
unit, it should be quite light; still in the
early stages though.
-----------------
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim <tbertw(at)tenbuckplans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: One you never thought of? |
List,
As a lurker still waiting to initiate my Piet, I feel that I should listen,
but not speak. I have listened to the discussion on rigging. I have about
33 years sailing experience. An old catamaran called a Phoenix had a
forestay that was 3/16th stainless. It terminated into a Nicopress eye with
a sleeve. The bow bridle was also 3/16th stainless with two wires joined
with a "D" shackle. They were separated by 3" when rigged. To join the two,
a piece of 1/8" braided dacron was repeatedly looped thru the Nico eye and
the bridles "D" shackle. I used about 6 loops and it gave a 5:1 advantage
to tighten the rig. The boat carried almost 300 square feet of sail and
sailed regularily in 25+ mile an hour winds. There is an enourmous strain
on boat rigging. The rig stayed in place for years. I have copied this
rigging concept on several boats with great success.
Advantages:
1. Is very adjustable and durable.
2. Can carry tremendous loads.
3. Very inexpensive and low tech - easy to inspect - easy to replace.
Disadvantages:
1. Is bulkier - more wind resistance.
2. Psychological impact on bystanders.
3. Inpector from FAA might be hesitant to approve.
Back to lurk mode.
Tim - Spring, TX
>
>Braided dacron rigging stays?
>
> I have the vertical stabilizer set up in the bottom alignment
> brackets. But it needs some work on it yet today, including finishing
> and varnishing. Never could find molding, had to make my own for the
> leading edge, with wood rasp, and 3 inch sander, course grit paper.
> But I tied it up with some string, to see the angles on brackets for
> the stays. Took the wife out last night in the dark, to show her the
> progress. She fingered the string and said, "you are not going to use
> this are you?"
> Which got me thinking again. Of course not, the string was ordinary
> hemp style cheap twine, very weak. Probably illegal in the USA now, as
> all Hemp industrial products are now illegal. You might smoke the
> string, cook it in cookies or something? I have no idea how the
> bureaucratic mind works, though it is different from mine. But by
> golly! 1/8 inch braided, dacron line, would be stronger than 14 guage
> hardware wire. You could lift 500 lbs with braided dacron line, no
> sweat. All the braided dacron lines on my sailboat were 30 years old,
> faded, exposed and still going strong. Just think, no turnbuckles, it
> does not stretch, no clevis whatever you call em, thimbles, etc. What a
> solution? What do you think?
>
>
>FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
>http://www.FindLaw.com
>Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
>http://mail.Justice.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: elevator cables |
Ref. John McNarry's post Feb.11/02 regarding elevator cable
slackening.
When I built my Pietenpol, I made the elevator control system in
accordace with the plans because I wasn't smart enough to rea-
lize that the geometry would promote cable slackening toward
the extremes of elevator travel.
As designed, there were no stops incorporated to to restrict the
elevator travel. I flew it for a couple of years like this and decided
to install adjustable stops on the torque tube, one ahead and the
other aft of the rear stick. (Ideally, stops should be installed at the
control surface itself. This was not an option because the tail sur-
faces of a Pietenpol have such light wood framing and mine were
already built, covered and flying).
For what it's worth, I settled on elevator travel of 32 degrees UP
and 25 degrees DOWN, plus or minus 2 degrees at both limits.
These settings have been in place for well over 600 hours of fly-
ing and have been completely satisfactory. The elevators no lon-
ger nearly touch the ground when the aircraft is parked without the
stick being tied back and the cable slackening at the travel limits
is hardly noticeable.
So if your a/c is finished and you don't want to rework the system,
this could be an option. It worked for me, but isn't guaranteed be-
cause no two Pietenpols will be exactly the same.
Graham Hansen (CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Fisherman----how bout building a nice set of floats for your
Piet since you like the water so much. What a great combo
for your plane.
PS-------Great posts Graham Hansen. You are a gem in our good group.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | 15 % differential |
Kip
Can't remember, but probably on the internet as that is my most common reference
source.
FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community
http://www.FindLaw.com
Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!
http://mail.Justice.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 15 % differential |
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)charter.net> |
If it's on the internet, it must be true. Nothing questionable has ever been
posted there.
>
>
> Kip
> Can't remember, but probably on the internet as that is my most common
> reference source.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
I have used motorcycle chain links for years to move
the control surfaces.
Even use a "8" form aluminum washer I make to keep the
cable and the conection piece centered.
Just imagine the force and movement that link has to
recieve in a motorcycle chain in a off road race...
The chain damages from elongating the space and
ruining the sprocket, but very rare from this link,
cost me about 0.25 US a piece...
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
> Wow Jim!!! Ha! Ha! Ha!
>
> Are we getting a jury rigging education or what,
> finding out what other people have done?
>
> I loved that bit about the motorcycle links as
> fittings to attach the cables too. I was just
> thinking of buying those galvanized right angle, two
> hole brackets they sell in the hardware store and
> hitting them with a hammer until they gave me the
> right angle.
>
> I'm thinking! Really am! Probably get started
> tomorrow. Maybe install with what I have, then
> change as I can find the parts to make it better.
> But so I can get on with the progress next week.
>
> Throwing away some 14 guage wire as called for in
> the plans won't hurt the budget, if I rig with it,
> immediately.
>
> Some great innovative ideas here, by different
> people. Love it when we use many heads to solve
> problems. More heads make better solutions. Money
> not really tight, but have Scotch ancestry and just
> my thrifty nature. Like stuff that does the job,
> but it doesn't mean the most expensive is
> automatically the answer. Built and run a lot of
> boats using 250 year old technology and left a bunch
> of new stuff with all the expensive gadgets behind,
> waiting for broken parts flown in at high expense.
> So expensive doesn't necessarily mean better.
>
>
> On Sun, 10 February 2002, Jim Sury wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >
> > Fisherman why don't you use the hardware store
> turnbuckles to apply the
> > tension and adjust the tail brace wires. 3/32
> stainless aircraft cable is
> > .35 a foot, stainless thimbles are .16 each and
> Nicopress sleeves are.15
> > each. For just 2.67 you could make a 5 foot cable.
> For less than $25 you
> > could have all the tail brace wires. The catch is
> that you would have to
> > wait until the plane is covered and ready to go to
> the airport. Why?
> > Because you make the wires to fit and the
> turnbuckles are not installed.
> > What you need is 8 turnbuckles hardware store
> variety or 8 of the screen
> > door turnbuckles which ever is cheaper. If you are
> really tight with money
> > cut the cables 1 foot longer than the distance
> between the connections.
> > String all the cables using the thimbles and
> nicopress sleeves. On the tag
> > end of the cable crimp on an electrical connector.
> Do this for all eight
> > cables. Now take the turnbuckles and install them
> between the two
> > electrical connectors. Do this for all eight
> cables. Now adjust the cables
> > using the turnbuckles. When you are satisfied that
> the tail is square to
> > the fuselage and the vertical fin is vertical you
> compress the nicopress
> > sleeves. You cut the cable tag end off an inch
> above the nicopress sleeve
> > and put the second nicopress sleeve over the cable
> sharp end. It is easier
> > to do than to put in writing. You could probably
> do the same job using
> > bungie cord instead of turnbuckles. You want the
> cables tight but not so
> > tight you could play a tune on them. If you are
> concerned about the cable
> > stretching and you have no way to adjust them than
> install 2 flat washers
> > under the attachment tab. When the cable gets
> loose remove a washer. For
> > attachment tabs I used chain links. Like in
> motorcycle chain. They work
> > great. With this method you have all aircraft
> approved hardware and no 5
> > and dime store turnbuckles. Looks great too. Oh
> install the tag ends of the
> > cables down. Not really necessary but it looks
> better. Ok gang jump on
> > this. jas
> >
> >
> Caye
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >Leon
> > >
> > > You gave me a good laugh and a shudder at the
> same time. I have been
> > thinking about all those control cables,
> turnbuckles and accessories,
> > believe me? I think it is going to run $500 to
> $600 easily. But in the
> > meantime, I am not trying to think about it.
> > >
> > > But getting back to the horizontal and vertical
> stabilizer outside
> > bracing wire, rod, or what have you. Today, I
> found in the Hardware store
> > assorted galvanized turnbuckles around $1.69 each,
> almost exactly like the
> > aircraft ones. Round body, smooth and
> aerodynamic, etc. Small and petite!
> > Now AN grade turnbuckles the same size are
> according to specs, 15 %
> > stronger than hardware store turnbuckles at $16 a
> pop! This hardware
> > store turnbuckle has a longer thread shank though.
> More threads, same
> > aluminum. The pulling weight says 45 lbs. The AN
> one therefore would be +
> > 15 % or 52 lbs pulling weight. But the hardware
> one with a longer insert
> > and more threads, should have more pulling
> strength than the AN one then?
> > Also, a leeetle three turns of tying wire to lock
> the turnbuckle down in
> > place, from one end to the other, should make it
> 100 % stronger than the AN
> > aircraft $16 one? And give peace of mind. I
> think the hardware
> > turnbuckles with reinforcing locking tying !
> > >wire are plenty strong enough? Wire stretches,
> so I can see why you would
> > need turnbuckles. Even on yachts, that 1/4 inch
> stainless pulpit guard
> > rail wire stretches six inches in two years or so.
> > > But I like the comment on piano wire. Hmmmnn!
> What makes you say that
> > is strong enough? Anybody using it? The brass
> rod I saw was too short at
> > 3 feet. I think the distance is around 42 inches
> on mine, so you need
> > around 52 inches of rod at 3/16 to make eyes at
> the ends. Have not been
> > able to find any 3/16 rod of any kind in Home
> Depot or Hardware stores long
> > enough to do me any good. Need eight pieces about
> 52 inches long, to work
> > with, if I go that route. The 1/8 rod, is the
> thickness of clothes hanger
> > wire? But surely not as weak as that? Though for
> compression and pull, it
> > would be okay. Any further commentary on
> different types of braces for
> > rear tail external stabilizers?
> > >
> > >
> > >On Sun, 10 February 2002, Leon Stefan wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
> > >>
> > >> Fisherman: Those 8 turnbuckles are just for
> your tail plane. You still
> > >> need a gob of them on the ends of each control
> cable, lift strut
> > >> bracing, interplane bracing, and the X bracing
> inside of the wing. I
> > >> found mine at the Fly market (oshkosh) for $5
> each, but took me 3 years
> > >> to collect enough for my Piet. The Piet is a
> cheap barnyard airplane
> > >> alright,--compared to other planes only. You
> still need to use proper
> > >> stuff and techniques if you want to stay alive.
> The space shuttle
> > >> Challenger used "hardware store" O-rings in
> it's fuel tanks, remember?
> > >> Grahm Hansen is 200% right on in his post.
> There is no way in the world
> > >> to build a cheap air plane trully cheap if you
> want it safe. Leon S.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
>
=== message truncated ===
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I am ready to bungee my axel to gear and am considering the best methods
of securing the ends of the bungees. Does anyone have insights on this
point?
Thanks
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | vertical stabilizer |
Varnished the vertical stabilizer and started to screw it down. Quit with painting
the upper brackets in zinc chromate ( I know it will turn to sludge, when
I dope it ).
But with six brackets on the bottom of that vertical stabilizer, it is fairly
solid. If you consider the rudder hinges go at the mid, or bottom, the top
and on the hull stern post, I don't think that stabilizer would tear off if you
lost a wire? You can fly without using a rudder if you had too. Just leave
it neutral, if you lost a wire. The elevators would probably work, if you were
gentle and careful about it. There does not seem to be any pressure much on
either the vertical or horizontal stabilizer. It is all in the elevators and
rudders to the hinges. ( I'm still waiting for those expensive aluminum hinge
fittings.)
Same with the elevators. I doubt if one wire broken would cause a catastrophe.
I guess you would need a rear view mirror though, to know what was going on
back there? Anybody have experience with rear view mirrors on the Pietenpol?
I don't turn around so easily anymore, so I never put in that little box compartment
behind the pilot's rear seat. But I have cut a long hole in the bulkhead
box forward of the front seat. Can store a few small things up there.
Also I cut two knee holes on either side of the instrument panels. Ted's Pietenpol
was a tight fit for knees. Getting in, would be fine, but boy if you ditched
in water, getting out would be a problem. But this has opened up new possibilities.
I am going to use bending plywood and just stick a little 1/2 inch
combing around the knee cutouts and VOILA! Can store a pencil, small map,
or notebook under the instruments now.
You consider the wood those stabilizers are made out of, and the wires that brace
it. It sure doesn't look like there is going to be a whole lot of pressure
on those surfaces. Still, I think a check, each time you fly would not be
a bad idea at those fittings. Which we do anyway, right?
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> |
| Subject: | Re: 8 turnbuckles @ $128 |
And Molt Taylor's Paper (kraft paper) Glass
(fiberglass)airplane?
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Fisherman Caye wrote:
>
>
>
> Really? An FAA Inspector would presume to tell an
> Experimental builder what materials to use?
>
> That sounds exceedingly strange? How the heck did
> Burt Rutan try so many new things then?
>
>
> On Sun, 10 February 2002, "Owen Davies" wrote:
>
> >
> Davies"
> >
> > Fisherman Caye wrote:
> >
> > > Very good mon! Lovely technical stuff.
> Great, can go with hardware
> > turnbuckles
> > > then, if I decided to go with them? Just fix
> the eye gap.
> >
> > Not as far as I am concerned! What you do is
> strictly between you,
> > your heirs, and the FAA inspector you hope will
> sign it off. As for
> > that last, my one firm bit of advice would be,
> don't hold your breath.
> >
> > Owen
> >
> >
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
http://greetings.yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | JEFFREY WILCOX <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: vertical stabilizer |
On Tue, 12 February 2002, Fisherman Caye wrote:
"Anybody have experience with rear view mirrors on the Pietenpol? I don't turn
around so easily anymore, so I never put in that little box compartment behind
the pilot's rear seat. But I have cut a long hole in the bulkhead box forward
of the front seat. Can store a few small things up there."
Ray -
The little catch-all in the turtle deck is where you can keep your gloves, leather
helmet, and white silk scarf. Also your aircraft papers.
Most of us with open cockpit planes do use a rear view mirror mounted under the
center section somewhere. It's nice to watch the big grin on your face as you
fly, so get one of those convex mirrors.
The white silk scarf is necessary in case you spot a broken flying wire - you can
crawl back and tie it into place with the scarf!
Craig
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fisherman Caye <cayecaulker(at)justice.com> |
| Subject: | Re: vertical stabilizer |
Now there is a common sense set of ideas and instructions!
I'll buy that! Where do you buy white scarfs and what kind of material should
they be made of? Got to stay technically correct for the purists, you know.
On Wed, 13 February 2002, JEFFREY WILCOX wrote:
February 04, 2002 - February 13, 2002
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-cj