Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-cq

May 08, 2002 - June 04, 2002



      Christian Bobka observed:
      
      > Building ribs is a delight with aerolite.  Put the pookey on the spruce
      and
      > I used a tooth brush for the activator and just coated the entire side of
      > the gusset with a toothbrush.
      
      Annoying as blazes, though, when you pull the staples and the gusset comes
      up with them, and it suddenly dawns on you that you forgot the activator.
      Someone suggested putting a little food dye in the activator so that it
      leaves
      visible evidence of its presence.  Not a bad idea.
      
      Do remember that the latest version of AC 43.13-1b specifically removes
      FAA approval from Aerolite-type glues, owing to the deterioration of
      joints in sun-baked areas.
      
      It's getting so I don't want to use anything but resorcinol.
      
      Owen (in sunny Florida)
      
      
      
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: wing ribs
Date: May 08, 2002
If you're doing the three-piece wing, don't forget the eight 2 inch x 5 foot pieces for the root reinforcements. With the 4x8 sheet, I had almost exactly enough for the L.E. and the root reinforcements. As it was, I had to piece together two of the root pieces (lower surface of the center section--used an inside doubler for strength--nobody will EVER see it...). There wouldn't have been enough left over for gussets. Gene -----Original Message----- From: Kip & Beth Gardner [mailto:kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net] Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing ribs > >Sounds pretty close to the way I did it. I'll expand on Kent's comments >about gusset material--I got a single 2x4 sheet and ran out. I wound up >using a lot of 1/16 inch plywood for gussets on the 1/2 x 1/2 root and tip >braces, and to make bearing plates where bolts would otherwise be in direct >contact with spruce members. You'll also eventually need a whole 4x8 sheet >for the leading edge sheath unless you're using cardboard. Shipping costs >are less of a problem if you get all of the really big stuff at the same >time. > >Have fun! > >Gene Hubbard >San Diego with a new motor mount! Hi Guys, I got 3 2x4' sheets when I bought my project. I cut each one into two 9"x4' pieces for leading edge, and one 6" wide piece for gussets. I figure I'm going to come up short both ways. I'll need another 9" x 4' piece for LE, and I figure at least another 6" x 4' piece for gussets, maybe twice that. If I were doing it from scratch, I'd go for the 4x8' piece - fewer joints in the LE that way, and still enough for the gussets, I think. Kip Gardner (cutting gusssets in OH; 224 down, 796 to go!) 426 Schneider St. SE North Canton, OH 44720 (330) 494-1775 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 08, 2002
Subject: Maybe you already knew this
Dick and other interested Pieters, Maybe someone out there is as unknowledgable about this airplane building as I was/am. For instance, I called to place an order with Wicks for the Brush and Spray I'll need for the covering of NX41CC. While talking to the lady at Wicks my blood began to rise in degrees while thinking about that damn hazard fee. When she told me it had jumped from 15 to 20 the 1st of the year I exploded. She CALMLY suggested that I might like to order the stuff in quarts. I asked what difference would that make. She again very calmly said, there's NO HAZARD FEE when you buy it by quarts. I of course said loud and clear, SEND IT IN QUARTS. Now I know most of you know this but by chance there might be a loner out there that's as dumb as I. I ordered enough Poly stuff Monday morning to take me through 3 sprays and 36 yards of 2.7 Dacron from Superlight. It was ALL on my porch this afternoon. Now if that Fedman will get up here and do what he is to do then I can begin to cover so my test pilot will be busy in July, I hope. Now if EAA and AOPA will get off their ---es and start pushing the Feds for the Sport pilot issue to be released ole Corky might just get to fly Charlie Charlie before his kids send him to the nursing home. I'm really afraid it's to be a big political splash at some big fly- in in August so credit can be claimed. Corky in La WHERE we were born and raised amoung some of the slickest politicos this great country has produced and it's very easy to spot those amateur slickers. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeffrey Wilcox" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: GLUE
Date: May 08, 2002
Ray, I used Aerolite years ago to build a Taylor Titch. Great stuff! Put some red food dye in the hardener so you KNOW you've put it on one side of the wood. If ya don't see pink, the joint will stink! Be sure when you mix the powder to use warm water - it mixes better. Mix it to a bit of a thick consistency, and it will fill any gaps you may have left. If you sand a joint, be sure to remove all dust - I usually used a file for this reason. Good luck and good flying! Craig ----- Original Message ----- From: raymond smith <badge784k(at)yahoo.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: GLUE > > > Anyone have any comments about aerolite (spelling?) glue? Any experiences, pros and cons, etc. I await your replies! > > Mike Hattaway > > > --------------------------------- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Dmott9(at)aol.com
Date: May 08, 2002
Subject: Re: wing ribs
In a message dated 5/8/02 8:02:12 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rodwooller(at)hotmail.com writes: > One thing I have been very careful with is getting a really accurate join > between the capstrips and braces. It takes a little more effort, but I think > > it is worth the extra time. One good thing about getting good accurate joint, there is more surface area there for glue to stick to. That can't help but make a good strong joint. The gusset should be good close fit too. Clamping pressure should not be so heavy that all the glue runs out of the joint either ! Little glue coming out is good sign of proper clamping though. Ever try testing to destruction one of your ribbs ? They are STRONG if built correctly. -dennis the menace ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: GLUE
Date: May 08, 2002
Did the whole plane with Aerolite, and other than getting it across the border into Canada, it was hassle free. Imagine two 1 kilo bags of "white powder" and a tough Customs Officer. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com
Date: May 08, 2002
Subject: "FORD" Model "D"
In a message dated 5/6/02 11:53:40 PM, pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com writes: << From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: NEW "FORD" Model D! >> I talked to Mrs Donovan this am, and she is sending me the latest info. Their primary product is the aluminum small and big-block Chevy engines. They make a run of Model "D' every few years. She did not know about Pietenpols. I think that the price is going to be about the same as a rebuilt C-200. But what a motor! Carl ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 08, 2002
From: "Brants" <tmbrant(at)uswest.net>
Subject: damp shop
This should get some interesting responses.... I have my piet project in my basement, which during heavy rains, gets "damp".... Very heavy rains and I see a little water in the corners on the floors. The shop area is the driest corner of my basement and that's where the piet is. I have a dehumidifier running constantly but I guess when I start to see a bit of dampness or even water in the corners I get bit nervous. I have put construction on hold until things improve but it's been pretty rainy here this week and today was very heavy. It's supposed to rain a bit over the next few days... So am I nervous for no reason or should I get the project into a more regulated environment? I haven't done any testing on the wood as far as moisture content, and I know that some people swear by this. Tom Brant, MPLS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
Date: May 09, 2002
Owen, The main reason for making a close fit in the joints is so the rib doesn't fall apart when I remove it from the jig as there are no gussets to keep everything together. I am probably making extra work for myself, but it's a labor of love. Rod W. >From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >To: >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing ribs >Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 09:09:12 -0400 > > >In describing his method of rib making, rod wooler said: > > > One thing I have been very careful with is getting a really accurate >join > > between the capstrips and braces. It takes a little more effort, but I >think > > it is worth the extra time. > >Depends on your criteria. Precise workmanship is always satisfying, >and you seem to be making an extra effort in one area so as to reduce >the time spent in another. They would do that just as efficiently if you >lopped the >ends off square and left big, triangular gaps between them and the >upper and lower capstrips. > >Owen Davies > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John_Duprey(at)vmed.org
Subject: Re: damp shop
Date: May 09, 2002
05/09/2002 07:54:58 AM Sounds like it is time to add a sump pump. The dryer you can keep the air the better. But you work with what you have. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: damp shop
The joys of Minnesota weather.... I wouldn't be too concerned about this Tom. Store wood and steel where air can circulate and keep it off the floor and away from walls. Humidity doesn't bother T-88 at all. Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis >>> tmbrant(at)uswest.net 05/08/02 11:44PM >>> This should get some interesting responses.... I have my piet project in my basement, which during heavy rains, gets "damp".... Very heavy rains and I see a little water in the corners on the floors. The shop area is the driest corner of my basement and that's where the piet is. I have a dehumidifier running constantly but I guess when I start to see a bit of dampness or even water in the corners I get bit nervous. I have put construction on hold until things improve but it's been pretty rainy here this week and today was very heavy. It's supposed to rain a bit over the next few days... So am I nervous for no reason or should I get the project into a more regulated environment? I haven't done any testing on the wood as far as moisture content, and I know that some people swear by this. Tom Brant, MPLS ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2002
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: damp shop
Tom---I'm with Greg Cardinal on this issue. I built 90% of my plane in the exact same kind of basement. (house from 1927) I just kept the wood off the floor, nice and level with blocks under the shipping crate. Kept the heat up in winter, kept the dehumidifier going in the summer sometimes. No biggie. I'll bet the outdoor barn where Pietenpol built his planes had some pretty good fluctuations in humidity levels. With the wonderful glues we have and good wood sources-----just have fun building and keep the common sense level up. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
Date: May 09, 2002
rod wooller wrote: > The main reason for making a close fit in the joints is so the rib doesn't > fall apart when I remove it from the jig as there are no gussets to keep > everything together. > I am probably making extra work for myself, but it's a labor of love. Understood. It's why I bothered to fit the uprights and diagonals so carefully, even though I was putting the gussets on in the jig and I know the extra effort doesn't give any practical benefit. Enjoy. Owen ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Borodent(at)aol.com
Date: May 09, 2002
Subject: Re: BPA publication
Pieters Can someone give me the adress I need to contact to renew my Broadhead Piet Assn. Newsletter-Magazine thanks - Henry Williams ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2002
From: mark boynton <marktboynton(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: GLUE
I started out with the intention of using Aerolite, but wasn't happy with the result. So, I switched to T-88. I think my dissatisfaction with Aerolite was more about me than the product, but T-88 sure is easy to work with. My Aerolite still sits on a shelf in my closet. Need some? Mark Boynton Gilbert, AZ --- raymond smith wrote: > > > > Anyone have any comments about aerolite (spelling?) > glue? Any experiences, pros and cons, etc. I await > your replies! > > Mike Hattaway > > > --------------------------------- > > > > Forum - > Contributions of > any other form > > latest messages. > other List members. > > http://www.matronics.com/subscription > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare > http://www.matronics.com/search > http://www.matronics.com/archives > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: damp shop
Date: May 09, 2002
Doug, Water vapor is heavier than air so you need to put the dehumidifier on the floor for maximum effectiveness. Chris Bobka Nice and dry in my now drain tiled basement with two sump baskets on the south side of Minneaplois -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: damp shop Tom---I'm with Greg Cardinal on this issue. I built 90% of my plane in the exact same kind of basement. (house from 1927) I just kept the wood off the floor, nice and level with blocks under the shipping crate. Kept the heat up in winter, kept the dehumidifier going in the summer sometimes. No biggie. I'll bet the outdoor barn where Pietenpol built his planes had some pretty good fluctuations in humidity levels. With the wonderful glues we have and good wood sources-----just have fun building and keep the common sense level up. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2002
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: "FORD" Model "D"
Is there a Web page, to see some photos? Saludos Gary Gower --- ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com wrote: > ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com > > > In a message dated 5/6/02 11:53:40 PM, > pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com > writes: > > << From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: NEW "FORD" Model D! >> > I talked to Mrs Donovan this am, and she is sending > me the latest info. Their > primary product is the aluminum small and big-block > Chevy engines. They make > a run of Model "D' every few years. She did not know > about Pietenpols. I > think that the price is going to be about the same > as a rebuilt C-200. But > what a motor! Carl > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 09, 2002
Subject: Re: wing ribs
From: catdesigns(at)juno.com
>Someone on the list ( I can't remember who ) glued up his ribs in > the jig > and then carefully removed them before fixing on the gussets. The > gussets > were then just glued on both sides at once and held with clothes > pegs. That is what I did. I used T-88 to glue the spruce then took the rib out of the jig and glued on the gussets. I used 1" binder clips to hold on the gussets. No nails no staples. Not a single glue joint failed and I was able to do two ribs a day. Chris Sacramento, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Borodent(at)aol.com
Date: May 09, 2002
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2002
Two Questions ( 1 ) What are the dates for the Broadhead convention this year? ( 2 ) I'm trying to remember the names of the motel/hotels nearby I think in Monroe Anyone know the name of 1 or 2 thanks Henry Williams ( about to try TIG welder for the first time ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2002
Date: May 09, 2002
Henry Keep at it with the TIG. I have been taking a welding class doing aluminum TIG. It takes a bit of adjustment but you will get it. Dick ----- Original Message ----- From: <Borodent(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Broadhead 2002 > > Two Questions > ( 1 ) What are the dates for the Broadhead convention this year? > ( 2 ) I'm trying to remember the names of the motel/hotels nearby I think in > Monroe > Anyone know the name of 1 or 2 > thanks > Henry Williams ( about to try TIG welder for the first time ) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca>
Subject: damp shop
Date: May 10, 2002
I have my piet in a basement as well. I read in I think "Hoadley's" book on wood, a great resource, about a simple device to monitor the changes in humidity of the wood. 1-cut a small block of the wood you are concerned about to about 1"x2"x 3" or whatever is close. 2- heat it in an oven to about 200 degrees weighing it occasionally until the drop in weight levels off. This should be "oven dry" no absorbed moisture. (Don't use the micro wave!) 3-hang the block on a first class lever made of coat hanger wire. make the fulcrum closer to the block. A cup hook screwed into the block allows it to be easily removed. ballast the opposite end with wrapped solder wire until the lever balances almost level the block end slightly high. 4- mount the fulcrum on a sheet of smooth plywood and mark the pointer's position when balanced. this is the "oven dry" reference point. 5- over a period of a few days mark the change in lever position as the block re-absorbs atmospheric moisture. 6- Weight the block and work out the change as a %. this will be the moisture content of the wood in its current environment. 7- when ever you get worried about the storage of your wood note the lever position and relax. John Mc -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian Bobka Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: damp shop Doug, Water vapor is heavier than air so you need to put the dehumidifier on the floor for maximum effectiveness. Chris Bobka Nice and dry in my now drain tiled basement with two sump baskets on the south side of Minneaplois -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: damp shop Tom---I'm with Greg Cardinal on this issue. I built 90% of my plane in the exact same kind of basement. (house from 1927) I just kept the wood off the floor, nice and level with blocks under the shipping crate. Kept the heat up in winter, kept the dehumidifier going in the summer sometimes. No biggie. I'll bet the outdoor barn where Pietenpol built his planes had some pretty good fluctuations in humidity levels. With the wonderful glues we have and good wood sources-----just have fun building and keep the common sense level up. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 10, 2002
Subject: Insurance
Pieters, Is there such a thing as liabity coverage for a Piet? If any of you have it I would appreciate the name and number of a company. I have covered a little elevator and rudder, charged the brakes and will call my test pilot today to execute some naked taxiing. The steerable scott should be enough to control it Corky in La still waiting to hear from the Fedman. ( Two weeks, no letter, no phone call) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "KenGailGriff" <kengg(at)texas.net>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
Date: May 10, 2002
Chris Was there any problem with the gussets slipping when you first squeezed them on? Also, how did you keep the rib flat when it had binder clips all over? Thanks Ken ----- Original Message ----- From: <catdesigns(at)juno.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing ribs > > >Someone on the list ( I can't remember who ) glued up his ribs in > > the jig > > and then carefully removed them before fixing on the gussets. The > > gussets > > were then just glued on both sides at once and held with clothes > > pegs. > > That is what I did. I used T-88 to glue the spruce then took the rib out > of the jig and glued on the gussets. I used 1" binder clips to hold on > the gussets. No nails no staples. Not a single glue joint failed and I > was able to do two ribs a day. > > Chris > Sacramento, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: OT - But aircraft related
I am building a small half-scale plane for my son and his friends to play in. Goes with the playhouse/fort. It is similar in box construction to the Piet (and half the other DIY planes built out there, but I think I will build an Eindecker for him). I am stuck on what to cover it with. I want to use a fabric, but don't want to spend the money for the real thing, just want the look. Will use house paint to cover it paint wise. Any thoughts on alternatives, etc? TIA Oh, calling it the McNeel and Son Kid's Plane for now, until it takes more form. Got one side done. Regards, Gary P. McNeel, Jr. MyKitPlane.com EAA 665957 gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/planeDetail.cfm?PlaneID=68 "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: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: Insurance
Date: May 10, 2002
Corky, I have liability insurance on my homebuilt ultralight through AVEMCO Insurance. 1 800 276 5207 www.avemco.com My coverage is limited to $100,000.00 Per accident and $50,000.00 property damage and $50,000.00 personal injury. That is not as much coverage as I would like but it was all they would sell me. They also had hull insurance but I did not check into it. The premium is $225.00 per year, it was more last year but I am on my 3rd year with them and I have not had any claims. Be sure you tell them everything truthfully because if you do not they will not pay your claim. For example they know my ultralight is too heavy to be legal and they know that it's stall speed is 3MPH faster than allowed. I am sure they will insure your Piet if you are qualified to fly it. If you want them to cover your test pilot you will have to tell them. They seem to be reasonable people. Wayne McIntosh Lafayette, IN ----- Original Message ----- From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Insurance > > Pieters, > Is there such a thing as liabity coverage for a Piet? If any of you have it I > would appreciate the name and number of a company. I have covered a little > elevator and rudder, charged the brakes and will call my test pilot today to > execute some naked taxiing. The steerable scott should be enough to control > it > Corky in La still waiting to hear from the Fedman. ( Two weeks, no letter, no > phone call) > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: OT - But aircraft related
Date: May 10, 2002
In the same edition of the Flying & Glider manual as the Piet are the plans for a "penguin," a flightless bird that nontheless has all of the same parts. I have always wanted to build one for kids (and adults) to learn to fly in without leaving the ground (these were used in WWI for just that purpose). Looks a lot like a Piet, if you are not too far along, you might think of one. As for fabric, I don't see why regular cotton bedsheet wouldn't work. As long as it is cotton, it would shrink with a coat of dope, then use your house paint. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: Gary McNeel, Jr. <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: OT - But aircraft related > > I am building a small half-scale plane for my son and his friends to play > in. Goes with the playhouse/fort. > > It is similar in box construction to the Piet (and half the other DIY planes > built out there, but I think I will build an Eindecker for him). I am stuck > on what to cover it with. I want to use a fabric, but don't want to spend > the money for the real thing, just want the look. Will use house paint to > cover it paint wise. > > Any thoughts on alternatives, etc? TIA > > Oh, calling it the McNeel and Son Kid's Plane for now, until it takes more > form. Got one side done. > > Regards, > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > MyKitPlane.com > EAA 665957 > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/planeDetail.cfm?PlaneID=68 > > "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: Borodent(at)aol.com
Date: May 10, 2002
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2002
Dick I wish I was taking a class, but I'll see if I can get it - I did a little at Oshkosh and Ive lots of metal to pratice on Henry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kent Hallsten" <hallstenokc(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
Date: May 10, 2002
All this talk about wing ribs has kept nagging me about what I did. Or, rather what I didn't do. I didn't scuff the mahogany plywood with sandpaper before cutting it up into gussets. Will this be a problem for me? Almost half the ribs are done now. Please comment. Kent Hallsten ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: OT - But aircraft related
Thanks Gene and others who replied directly to me. I was debating the cotton bed sheet, but it seemed so flimsy. And I wanted to stay away from dope which seems pretty flammable for it being a kids play toy. Maybe not that big a deal, just scares me a bit. Also, Gene, I got the idea from the Penguin. Have the book in the garage for reference. Using Gorilla glue to hold it together. That is some tough stuff and dries faster than T-88. A bit cheaper too. I have the one side done and am cutting all the pieces for the other side and will glue it up tomorrow. It is a hoot to build. I don't want it to be automotive or anything like that, just a play toy for my son and his friends. The Penguin may make the list of things to build though. I am constructing this rather heavy so that it is stable in the yard and tough. I will post pics as I go on www.mykitplane.com under manufacturer of McNeel and Son. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Gene > Rambo > Sent: Friday, May 10, 2002 9:28 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: OT - But aircraft related > > > In the same edition of the Flying & Glider manual as the Piet are > the plans > for a "penguin," a flightless bird that nontheless has all of the same > parts. I have always wanted to build one for kids (and adults) > to learn to > fly in without leaving the ground (these were used in WWI for just that > purpose). Looks a lot like a Piet, if you are not too far along, > you might > think of one. As for fabric, I don't see why regular cotton bedsheet > wouldn't work. As long as it is cotton, it would shrink with a coat of > dope, then use your house paint. > > Gene > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Gary McNeel, Jr. <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> > To: Pietenpol Group > Subject: Pietenpol-List: OT - But aircraft related > > > > > > > I am building a small half-scale plane for my son and his > friends to play > > in. Goes with the playhouse/fort. > > > > It is similar in box construction to the Piet (and half the other DIY > planes > > built out there, but I think I will build an Eindecker for him). I am > stuck > > on what to cover it with. I want to use a fabric, but don't > want to spend > > the money for the real thing, just want the look. Will use > house paint to > > cover it paint wise. > > > > Any thoughts on alternatives, etc? TIA > > > > Oh, calling it the McNeel and Son Kid's Plane for now, until it > takes more > > form. Got one side done. > > > > Regards, > > > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > > MyKitPlane.com > > EAA 665957 > > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 > > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/planeDetail.cfm?PlaneID=68 > > > > "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. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 10, 2002
From: "Warren D. Shoun" <wbnb(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: OT - But aircraft related
Gary, Check with your local ladies fabric shop for white poly for medical uniforms....or your local fiberglass supply shop for "deck cloth"...a light weight fine weave glass cloth. ~Cheers, ~Warren. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
Date: May 11, 2002
Kent Hallsten wrote: > I didn't scuff the mahogany plywood with sandpaper before cutting it up > into gussets. Will this be a problem for me? Not likely. The scuffing is needed more for birch plywood than for mahogany. Mahogany doesn't seem to "glaze" the way birch does. Couldn't hurt to scuff the rest of your gussets, but the ones you have should do fine. Owen Davies ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 11, 2002
Subject: Naked Inspection
Pieters both interested and disinterested, In todays mail I received a letter from the Fedman. Due to the lack of funds he will NOT be able to come to Shreveport for the proposed naked inspection and has instructed me to proceed toward completion of the aircraft at which time he will inspect same. Praise the LORD from whom all blessings flow. Just goes to show you that if you will be nice sometimes something good will surely happen. Why only yesterday I wrote AOPA a letter of apology, since I had been on their case pretty strong, after reading their position on the Sport Pilot issue. I'm beginning to realize that I might even be wrong once or twice in my short lifetime. I will begin bringing NX41CC to my home shop from Lucein Airport this afternoon and begin covering the feathers tonight or tomorrow. As I have said, I don't plan to make this covering business a long drawn out process. If things go you just might see Charlie Charlie at Benton in October. Corky in La NOT waiting for the Fedman anymore. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Naked Inspection
Date: May 11, 2002
Corky, Great news! Must be like a big weight is lifted. On to bigger and better. Just remember about the covering process,,,It's the most intimidating, but the most rewarding of all the processes. When you're covering your first piece, and you look at the fabric all baggy and loose. Then you hit it with the iron at 250 deg. And you're amazed. It's a cool process, no matter what kind of final finish you put on , even if it's 8 coats of hand rubbed Gumbo. And to think you were going to give this all up. Keep plugging! walt NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naked Inspection > > Pieters both interested and disinterested, > In todays mail I received a letter from the Fedman. Due to the lack of funds > he will NOT be able to come to Shreveport for the proposed naked inspection > and has instructed me to proceed toward completion of the aircraft at which > time he will inspect same. Praise the LORD from whom all blessings flow. Just > goes to show you that if you will be nice sometimes something good will > surely happen. Why only yesterday I wrote AOPA a letter of apology, since I > had been on their case pretty strong, after reading their position on the > Sport Pilot issue. I'm beginning to realize that I might even be wrong once > or twice in my short lifetime. > I will begin bringing NX41CC to my home shop from Lucein Airport this > afternoon and begin covering the feathers tonight or tomorrow. As I have > said, I don't plan to make this covering business a long drawn out process. > If things go you just might see Charlie Charlie at Benton in October. > Corky in La NOT waiting for the Fedman anymore. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2002
Subject: Re: Broadhead 2002
From: "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com>
There is a Super 8 in Monroe. The Super 8 # is 800 800 80000. Dale ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "rod wooller" <rodwooller(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: wing ribs
Date: May 12, 2002
Ken, I thought about the difficulty in gluing gussets to both sides at once, so I set up the rib on a couple of soup cans and glued the gussets on one side at a time using small spring clamps to hold them. Rod W. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2002
From: Norm Decou <normdecou(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Hi, There are differences between my photo copied full scale rib and the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year old and it may have distorted during the last year. My instinct is to go with the print but I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on the print before I proceed with building my jigs. My wife is planning on making the ribs and if she makes them in inaccurate jigs (which I will be making) and they have to be destroyed I think that my plane building days will be over. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Again Norm and Adrienne Decou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2002
Subject: Re: wing ribs
From: catdesigns(at)juno.com
No, not much slipping around. Just make sure as you clamp them you hold the gusset in place and get the binder clip to squeeze in the right direction (it will make sense when you try it). I only did one side at a time. Never thought of doing both sides at once. Make sure you use latex or some other type of glove when playing with epoxy. A box of 100 cost me 10 bucks. Chris Sacramento, CA writes: > > > Chris > > Was there any problem with the gussets slipping when you first > squeezed them > on? > > Also, how did you keep the rib flat when it had binder clips all > over? > > Thanks > > Ken > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <catdesigns(at)juno.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing ribs > > > > > > >Someone on the list ( I can't remember who ) glued up his ribs > in > > > the jig > > > and then carefully removed them before fixing on the gussets. > The > > > gussets > > > were then just glued on both sides at once and held with > clothes > > > pegs. > > > > That is what I did. I used T-88 to glue the spruce then took the > rib out > > of the jig and glued on the gussets. I used 1" binder clips to > hold on > > the gussets. No nails no staples. Not a single glue joint failed > and I > > was able to do two ribs a day. > > > > Chris > > Sacramento, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2002
Subject: Re: wing ribs
From: catdesigns(at)juno.com
I don't think it is a problem at all. My test pieces that I have broken have all had great penetration into the mahogany plywood. Scuffing, I think, applies to birch plywood because of its harder and smother surface. Mahogany is a open pore wood species and therefor you should get very good glue should penetrate as is. I read somewhere that scuffing may weaken the plywood because you are decreasing the material thickness of the outer ply. Try making a test piece and break it to prove the glue joint is satisfactory with out scuffing. I think you will be happy with it. Now the open pores will give you grief if you try to put a glass smooth finish on mahogany. You have to use special wood fillers to fill in the pores. Chris Sacramento, CA writes: > > > All this talk about wing ribs has kept nagging me about what I did. > Or, rather what I didn't do. I didn't scuff the mahogany plywood > with sandpaper before cutting it up into gussets. Will this be a > problem for me? Almost half the ribs are done now. Please > comment. > > Kent Hallsten > > > > > messages. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 11, 2002
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
From: catdesigns(at)juno.com
Norm wrote: There are differences between my photo copied full scale rib and the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year old and it may have distorted during the last year. My instinct is to go with the print but I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on the print before I proceed with building my jigs Norm, this is the same problem allot of people have noticed. I am starting to wonder if BHP changed something without telling anyone. I elected to redraw the wing rib per the plans. However I have heard of people who just use the full size drawing as is. It's up to you I guess. I did not use the full size drawing because the spacing of the spars was not the correct dimension and I think the rib was to long. It did not take me very long to plot out the points and connect them with a curved line. I use a spruce strip and bent it in the best-fit-line to all the dots and called it good. After I screwed that one up (tried to glue to to my jig with Elmers glue, can you say wet soggy warped piece of paper) the second one only took me about 30 minutes to draw. Glued it down with spray on contact cement. Then covered it with Plexiglas and used Plexiglas blocks to build the jig. T-88 does not like to stick to Plexiglas. Worked great. Chris Sacramento, CA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
"Martin Vandenbroek"
Subject: RE: water vapor
Date: May 12, 2002
Martin, I contend that as the water seeps through the floors and walls, it evaporates. Evaporation consumes heat and therefore the body of air with the vapor in it is colder than the air that does not have the vapor in it. So you different temperatures. All I know is that two friends of mine have identical reasonably sealed up hangars here in Mn. One has his dehumidifier on the wall about six feet up and the other has it on the floor. The one on the floor gets emptied two times a day. the one on wall gets emptied maybe once day. I also read somewhere that the dehumidifiers should go in the lowest spot. chris -----Original Message----- From: Martin Vandenbroek [mailto:mav(at)ece.ucsb.edu] Subject: water vapor Hello Chris. I am a GN-1 owner lurking on the Matronics list. I enjoy keeping up with all the banter. I always thought water vapour was lighter than air if temps are the same. Until dew point is reached the water vapor tends to rise through static air. Also high pressure areas are almost always drier and low pressure indicates moisture. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
This is the same issue I have been dealing with. Here is what I have found so far. First, paper is not dimensionally stable. The aircraft companies that I have worked for use vellum or mylar for prints instead. Paper does have the advantage that it is cheap. Also, photo copy machines and especially fax machines are not to be trusted. One trick that I have learned is to put a box or circle of a known size on the the print (in an otherwise empty corner) before copying. Later, when you want to use the print you can check the dimensions of your box and thus have confidence in it. As for the airfoil. The first thing I noticed is that it is dimensioned in a rather unconventional manner, so be very careful when plotting it out. Beyond that, I have noted differences between the Pietenpol airfoil printed with the Air Camper plans in the 32 manual and the airfoil printed with the sky scout plans in the 33 manual. This is interesting because according to the 33 manual the Sky Scout airfoil is the same as the Air Camper airfoil. There are two differences: 1. The 6.0 width dimension which the text in the 32 manual says should be 6.125 is back to 6.0 in the 33 manual (the 6.0 appears to give a better curve), 2. the dimensions at the trailing edge are slightly different in the 33 manual (in this case the 32 manual appears to give a better curve.) Like everything else in homebuilding there are some decisions that you will to make for yourself. Out of curiosity I have been playing with the airfoil in XFOIL (a great piece of 2d CFD software) in the hopes of figuring out how good the airfoil is/was. There are still a few more things I want to try in hopes of getting a more accurate solution, but so far it looks like the airfoil is an ok slow speed airfoil. Not suprising it has good lift, but not so good drag numbers. It also seems to have a very low pitching moment when compared with other airfoils. When I get numbers in which I have confidence I will probably post them on my web page. Best of luck with your project, Kevin Holcomb http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ----- Original Message ----- From: <catdesigns(at)juno.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > Norm wrote: > There are differences between my photo copied full scale rib > and the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year old and it may > have distorted during the last year. My instinct is to go with the > print > but I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on the print before > I proceed with building my jigs > > Norm, this is the same problem allot of people have noticed. I am > starting to wonder if BHP changed something without telling anyone. I > elected to redraw the wing rib per the plans. However I have heard of > people who just use the full size drawing as is. It's up to you I guess. > > > I did not use the full size drawing because the spacing of the spars was > not the correct dimension and I think the rib was to long. It did not > take me very long to plot out the points and connect them with a curved > line. I use a spruce strip and bent it in the best-fit-line to all the > dots and called it good. After I screwed that one up (tried to glue to > to my jig with Elmers glue, can you say wet soggy warped piece of paper) > the second one only took me about 30 minutes to draw. Glued it down with > spray on contact cement. Then covered it with Plexiglas and used > Plexiglas blocks to build the jig. T-88 does not like to stick to > Plexiglas. Worked great. > > Chris > Sacramento, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
I lofted my jig from the plan dimensional specifications. I found that when compared to this, that paper plans had warped. You could say that the paper plans had the less camber and the trailing edge was higher. Jim Markle and I compared ribs the other day and if I remember correctly, we found that his trailing edge, built from the paper plan was 3/8" higher than mine. Variances like this are pretty common, don't worry about it. Jim and I have decided that he's building the "speed wing" and I'm building the "Stol" version. These worries come up everywhere, I like to call it H&H time, for head scratching and hand wringing. But I'll bet that we won't see squat for difference when finished and also that most Piets for the last 70 years have been built off the paper plan. Larry (Turtledeck finished, working on seats) Kevin Holcomb wrote: > >This is the same issue I have been dealing with. Here is what I have found >so far. > >First, paper is not dimensionally stable. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
when I make wing ribs, I redraw the rib, using the dimensions given, right onto the wood that I use for the base of the jig. You can use two 2 foot straight edges for the chordline, sliding them against one another to keep the line straight. that is important. I convert all the dimensions from fractional to decimal and then use a short six inch rule that is calibrated in hundredths of an inch, and a drafting square to keep the plotting point proper in relation to the chordline and accurate in dimension. Make sure you use some wood that has been around a while so it is dimensionally stable. Just put the blocks to hold the capstrips and such at the plotting points along the top and bottom. Make these blocks 1/16 inch less in hieght than the capstrip is wide so you tend not to glue to them. Use a piece of wood that will be the same dimensions as your spars for where the spars are to go. I often wonder why anyone would go through the trouble and worry about using a paper pattern glued to the wood base? Transferring the dta from drawing to the wood allows you to become one with the airfoil and measuring discrepencies as we know exist, will jump right out at you. chris Bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Neal Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings I lofted my jig from the plan dimensional specifications. I found that when compared to this, that paper plans had warped. You could say that the paper plans had the less camber and the trailing edge was higher. Jim Markle and I compared ribs the other day and if I remember correctly, we found that his trailing edge, built from the paper plan was 3/8" higher than mine. Variances like this are pretty common, don't worry about it. Jim and I have decided that he's building the "speed wing" and I'm building the "Stol" version. These worries come up everywhere, I like to call it H&H time, for head scratching and hand wringing. But I'll bet that we won't see squat for difference when finished and also that most Piets for the last 70 years have been built off the paper plan. Larry (Turtledeck finished, working on seats) Kevin Holcomb wrote: > >This is the same issue I have been dealing with. Here is what I have found >so far. > >First, paper is not dimensionally stable. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
Kevin, Send us the data you discover. Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Holcomb Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings This is the same issue I have been dealing with. Here is what I have found so far. First, paper is not dimensionally stable. The aircraft companies that I have worked for use vellum or mylar for prints instead. Paper does have the advantage that it is cheap. Also, photo copy machines and especially fax machines are not to be trusted. One trick that I have learned is to put a box or circle of a known size on the the print (in an otherwise empty corner) before copying. Later, when you want to use the print you can check the dimensions of your box and thus have confidence in it. As for the airfoil. The first thing I noticed is that it is dimensioned in a rather unconventional manner, so be very careful when plotting it out. Beyond that, I have noted differences between the Pietenpol airfoil printed with the Air Camper plans in the 32 manual and the airfoil printed with the sky scout plans in the 33 manual. This is interesting because according to the 33 manual the Sky Scout airfoil is the same as the Air Camper airfoil. There are two differences: 1. The 6.0 width dimension which the text in the 32 manual says should be 6.125 is back to 6.0 in the 33 manual (the 6.0 appears to give a better curve), 2. the dimensions at the trailing edge are slightly different in the 33 manual (in this case the 32 manual appears to give a better curve.) Like everything else in homebuilding there are some decisions that you will to make for yourself. Out of curiosity I have been playing with the airfoil in XFOIL (a great piece of 2d CFD software) in the hopes of figuring out how good the airfoil is/was. There are still a few more things I want to try in hopes of getting a more accurate solution, but so far it looks like the airfoil is an ok slow speed airfoil. Not suprising it has good lift, but not so good drag numbers. It also seems to have a very low pitching moment when compared with other airfoils. When I get numbers in which I have confidence I will probably post them on my web page. Best of luck with your project, Kevin Holcomb http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ----- Original Message ----- From: <catdesigns(at)juno.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > Norm wrote: > There are differences between my photo copied full scale rib > and the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year old and it may > have distorted during the last year. My instinct is to go with the > print > but I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on the print before > I proceed with building my jigs > > Norm, this is the same problem allot of people have noticed. I am > starting to wonder if BHP changed something without telling anyone. I > elected to redraw the wing rib per the plans. However I have heard of > people who just use the full size drawing as is. It's up to you I guess. > > > I did not use the full size drawing because the spacing of the spars was > not the correct dimension and I think the rib was to long. It did not > take me very long to plot out the points and connect them with a curved > line. I use a spruce strip and bent it in the best-fit-line to all the > dots and called it good. After I screwed that one up (tried to glue to > to my jig with Elmers glue, can you say wet soggy warped piece of paper) > the second one only took me about 30 minutes to draw. Glued it down with > spray on contact cement. Then covered it with Plexiglas and used > Plexiglas blocks to build the jig. T-88 does not like to stick to > Plexiglas. Worked great. > > Chris > Sacramento, CA > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
Air foils are fairly forgiving for small errors. The important thing is the fastening to the spar is good and every rib have the same smooth profile. The you get a good structure and a smooth consistent airfoil. Some go so far as to make a router jig so that every rib is machined to be identical. Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings when I make wing ribs, I redraw the rib, using the dimensions given, right onto the wood that I use for the base of the jig. You can use two 2 foot straight edges for the chordline, sliding them against one another to keep the line straight. that is important. I convert all the dimensions from fractional to decimal and then use a short six inch rule that is calibrated in hundredths of an inch, and a drafting square to keep the plotting point proper in relation to the chordline and accurate in dimension. Make sure you use some wood that has been around a while so it is dimensionally stable. Just put the blocks to hold the capstrips and such at the plotting points along the top and bottom. Make these blocks 1/16 inch less in hieght than the capstrip is wide so you tend not to glue to them. Use a piece of wood that will be the same dimensions as your spars for where the spars are to go. I often wonder why anyone would go through the trouble and worry about using a paper pattern glued to the wood base? Transferring the dta from drawing to the wood allows you to become one with the airfoil and measuring discrepencies as we know exist, will jump right out at you. chris Bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Neal Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings I lofted my jig from the plan dimensional specifications. I found that when compared to this, that paper plans had warped. You could say that the paper plans had the less camber and the trailing edge was higher. Jim Markle and I compared ribs the other day and if I remember correctly, we found that his trailing edge, built from the paper plan was 3/8" higher than mine. Variances like this are pretty common, don't worry about it. Jim and I have decided that he's building the "speed wing" and I'm building the "Stol" version. These worries come up everywhere, I like to call it H&H time, for head scratching and hand wringing. But I'll bet that we won't see squat for difference when finished and also that most Piets for the last 70 years have been built off the paper plan. Larry (Turtledeck finished, working on seats) Kevin Holcomb wrote: > >This is the same issue I have been dealing with. Here is what I have found >so far. > >First, paper is not dimensionally stable. > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
I built a router jig for my ribs. To keep the ribs the same airfoil was one reason, but the primary reason was to keep the leading edge stick straight between ribs. I was finding that it was very difficult to keep the leading edge notch in the same location on each rib (remember, mine is a GN-1 rib which is a piet airfoil with different spar locations) I have seen framed up wings where the leading edge stick is pretty wavy when you look down from one end. While it doesn't end up mattering when covered with aluminum or wood leading edge, it's something that would have bothered me so I made the jig. Every wib is now within 1/64" of each other and it takes virtually no more time to do them that way. pics of my jig are here http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/02-04-02.htm DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> N74DV ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: who is...
Date: May 12, 2002
Who has the "pietpilot" id on ebay? Chris Bobka ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 12, 2002
Once I had made all my ribs, I slipped them on a couple of pieces af scrap spar material and gang sanded them, first on a belt sander, and then finish sanded them with a long sanding block until they were all identical. Took a total of less than an hour. Jack -----Original Message----- Air foils are fairly forgiving for small errors. The important thing is the fastening to the spar is good and every rib have the same smooth profile. The you get a good structure and a smooth consistent airfoil. Some go so far as to make a router jig so that every rib is machined to be identical. Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 12, 2002
From: clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: wing ribs
I plotted mine directly onto the jig base. I found that the paper pattern was 5/8" to long. I then plotted the thing out from both the 1932 and 33 manuals into a little program called RCAD, a model airplane design program. I realized that I could use the fuselage side view and plot the rib out as a "fuselage" then download the thing onto 8 1/2X 11" sheets and tape them together lining up the built in index's. It came out well but I only used it as a study and comparison with the hand plot on the board. Lots of fun and it made me understand the lines more thoroughly. The old measure twice and cut once thing. The board itself is a piece of 1" thick K3 board, same as flooring underlay, doesn't warp or change dimensions at all. One thing about the rib-you'll notice on both the plans and in the 1933 manual that the last diagonal brace goes from the TOP behind the rear spar down to the BOTTOM at the last upright. It is opposite to this in the 1932 man. Bernard changed it after finding it broken in previous wings. I have some pics of this jig at mykitplanes if it will help at all. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: who is...
Chris, This might be Dave Anderson from Fridley, MN. He has an Air Camper based at Anoka. He used that ID a couple of years ago. Don't know for sure if that is him now. Greg Cardinal >>> bobka(at)charter.net 05/12/02 04:54PM >>> Who has the "pietpilot" id on ebay? Chris Bobka = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
Norm, I wouldn't be too concerned about changes in the photocopy. I just glued the copy to the base of my jig and attached blocks and cams to hold the uprights as shown in an old BPA newsletter. Since we are all guessing at the dimensions of the leading edge slope and radius, slight discrepencies in the airfoil are of no consequence. Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis >>> normdecou(at)sympatico.ca 05/11/02 11:23PM >>> Hi, There are differences between my photo copied full scale rib and the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year old and it may have distorted during the last year. My instinct is to go with the print but I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on the print before I proceed with building my jigs. My wife is planning on making the ribs and if she makes them in inaccurate jigs (which I will be making) and they have to be destroyed I think that my plane building days will be over. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Again Norm and Adrienne Decou = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: wing ribs
It is common practice to scuff birch plywood prior to glueing. The hot press during munufacturing tends to seal the surface. I did some shear tests on birch ply gussets using Aerolite glue. Some were scuffed, others were left un-scuffed. In EVERY test sample the manufacturers glue joint failed, not the aerolite joint. My recommendation is to scuff if you want to. If you haven't, don't worry about it. Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis >>> catdesigns(at)juno.com 05/12/02 12:30AM >>> I don't think it is a problem at all. My test pieces that I have broken have all had great penetration into the mahogany plywood. Scuffing, I think, applies to birch plywood because of its harder and smother surface. Mahogany is a open pore wood species and therefor you should get very good glue should penetrate as is. I read somewhere that scuffing may weaken the plywood because you are decreasing the material thickness of the outer ply. Try making a test piece and break it to prove the glue joint is satisfactory with out scuffing. I think you will be happy with it. Now the open pores will give you grief if you try to put a glass smooth finish on mahogany. You have to use special wood fillers to fill in the pores. Chris Sacramento, CA writes: > > > All this talk about wing ribs has kept nagging me about what I did. > Or, rather what I didn't do. I didn't scuff the mahogany plywood > with sandpaper before cutting it up into gussets. Will this be a > problem for me? Almost half the ribs are done now. Please > comment. > > Kent Hallsten > > > messages. > > = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
Actually there is a concern. because mine was 3/4 inches off on the spacing of the spars, and an inch off on the entire cord width. I solved my dilemma by buying a set from charlie rubech. Del --- Greg Cardinal wrote: > Cardinal" > > Norm, > I wouldn't be too concerned about changes in the > photocopy. I just glued > the copy to the base of my jig and attached blocks > and cams to hold the > uprights as shown in an old BPA newsletter. > Since we are all guessing at the dimensions of the > leading edge slope and > radius, slight discrepencies in the airfoil are of > no consequence. > > Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis > > >>> normdecou(at)sympatico.ca 05/11/02 11:23PM >>> > > > Hi, > There are differences between my photo copied > full scale rib and > the wing rib print. My photo copy is over a year > old and it may have > distorted during the last year. My instinct is to > go with the print but > I wanted to make sure that there are no errors on > the print before I > proceed with building my jigs. My wife is planning > on making the ribs > and if she makes them in inaccurate jigs (which I > will be making) and > they have to be destroyed I think that my plane > building days will be > over. > Any advice would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks Again > Norm and Adrienne Decou > > > > > > > > > t > > > > > 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://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
Do you have contact information for him? Also, is that for 3/4" or 1" spar? -Gary ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 07:37:49 -0700 (PDT) > >Actually there is a concern. because mine was 3/4 >inches off on the spacing of the spars, and an inch >off on the entire cord width. I solved my dilemma by >buying a set from charlie rubech. >Del ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 13, 2002
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: wing rib drawings
I dont think that that little diference (caused by copier or paper humidity) will affect the Piet's performance... There are more significant variations in other process in the wing fabrication to worry about... Just with the normal diference in the wings airfoil caused by the heat shrinking betwen to ribs makes the airfoil diferent in that point of the cloth. Just build the best way you can, and decide if you want the airplane for you to fly in it safetly, or to win wormanship prices in the flyins... 15 years from today or later, when it is finished :-) :-) Saludos Gary Gower --- Larry Neal wrote: > > > I lofted my jig from the plan dimensional > specifications. I found that > when compared to this, that paper plans had warped. > You could say that > the paper plans had the less camber and the trailing > edge was higher. > Jim Markle and I compared ribs the other day and if > I remember > correctly, we found that his trailing edge, built > from the paper plan > was 3/8" higher than mine. > Variances like this are pretty common, don't worry > about it. Jim and I > have decided that he's building the "speed wing" and > I'm building the > "Stol" version. > These worries come up everywhere, I like to call it > H&H time, for head > scratching and hand wringing. > But I'll bet that we won't see squat for difference > when finished and > also that most Piets for the last 70 years have been > built off the paper > plan. > > Larry > (Turtledeck finished, working on seats) > > Kevin Holcomb wrote: > > Holcomb" > > > >This is the same issue I have been dealing with. > Here is what I have found > >so far. > > > >First, paper is not dimensionally stable. > > > > http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: My First Flight !!
Date: May 14, 2002
-----Original Message----- From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com [mailto:Rcaprd(at)aol.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: My First Flight !! YEEE HAAAWWW !!!! Sorry....I just had to get that out... I shall remember this day for the rest of my life !! This evening, 5/4/02, at 7:40pm, I took off for my first flight in NX770CG. YEEEE HAAAWWW !! Chuck Gantzer NX770CG YEEEEEEEEE HAAAAAAAWWWW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey Chuck, How's everything going with your Piet? Do you have any more stuff to post about your flights? Inquiring minds want to know! Kent Hallsten ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 14, 2002
Hi Guys, I have noticed that some builders make the ribs as per the full size drawing and others plot to the plans. One difference being is that the large plan shows only one side of the spar brace and the plans show both. I presume that only one side is fitted at the time of rib construction to enable an easier fit of the ribs to the spars. Is this the case? Peter. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: wing rib drawings
Date: May 14, 2002
My take on it was that the spar brace is there only for ease of assembly. The wedges on top of the spar give compression strength and there is plenty of glue surface to hold the spar to the rib once the wing is assembled. The F&G Manual plans don't show it on either side. I built my wing with the spar brace on one side only, and clamped that to the spar during assembly. Gene Hubbard San Diego -----Original Message----- From: Peter W Johnson [mailto:vk3eka(at)yahoo.com] Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings Hi Guys, I have noticed that some builders make the ribs as per the full size drawing and others plot to the plans. One difference being is that the large plan shows only one side of the spar brace and the plans show both. I presume that only one side is fitted at the time of rib construction to enable an easier fit of the ribs to the spars. Is this the case? Peter. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com>
Subject: damp shop
Date: May 14, 2002
Uhhh--Water vapor is lighter than air--molecular weight 18, as opposed to approx 29. That's why you get less lift out of damp air. But if the floor is damp, it starts near the floor and diffuses away as it rises. Gene Hubbard -----Original Message----- From: Christian Bobka [mailto:bobka(at)charter.net] Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: damp shop Doug, Water vapor is heavier than air so you need to put the dehumidifier on the floor for maximum effectiveness. Chris Bobka Nice and dry in my now drain tiled basement with two sump baskets on the south side of Minneaplois -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D Cuy Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: damp shop Tom---I'm with Greg Cardinal on this issue. I built 90% of my plane in the exact same kind of basement. (house from 1927) I just kept the wood off the floor, nice and level with blocks under the shipping crate. Kept the heat up in winter, kept the dehumidifier going in the summer sometimes. No biggie. I'll bet the outdoor barn where Pietenpol built his planes had some pretty good fluctuations in humidity levels. With the wonderful glues we have and good wood sources-----just have fun building and keep the common sense level up. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: May 15, 2002
Subject: Re: My First Flight !!
In a message dated 5/14/02 7:32:29 AM Central Daylight Time, KHallsten(at)governair.com writes: << How's everything going with your Piet? Do you have any more stuff to post about your flights? >> I still haven't done a 2nd flight in my plane. The time between opportunities to fly the Pietenpol seems few, and far between. The spring storms out here are ferocious, making the grass strip inop, then the winds come and dry it out, then the storms come back...springtime in Kansas !! It seems the only time I'll get to fly (after the strip dries out), is the early morning hours, when the winds are calm, or the late evenings on the weekends. I work 2nd shift. I have been doing some cosmetic stuff...clean and inspect, drilled out the static hole a little bigger, changed the main jet in the Model B carb, clean and check the mag, and adjusted the leading edge of the horizontal stab down about 3/4 turn on the turnbuckles and re-saftied them. Chuck Gantzer ~~ anticipation is killin' me !! NX770CG Wichita KS ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Kent Hallsten <KHallsten(at)governair.com>
Subject: My First Flight !!
Date: May 15, 2002
-----Original Message----- From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com [mailto:Rcaprd(at)aol.com] Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: My First Flight !! In a message dated 5/14/02 7:32:29 AM Central Daylight Time, KHallsten(at)governair.com writes: << How's everything going with your Piet? Do you have any more stuff to post about your flights? >> I still haven't done a 2nd flight in my plane. The time between opportunities to fly the Pietenpol seems few, and far between. You have my sympathy Chuck. Last night I watched Mike's video again, to fly vicariously with him. Kent ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Lindbegh and flying his "time off".......
Date: May 15, 2002
Among other comments, Kevin Holcomb said: > Today we have fancy computers, CAD and an army of specialist. Yet it takes > us years to design a product. Our tools have clearly not made us any more > efficient. My first impulse is to point out that many of the things we design these days are a whole lot more complicated than the equivalent products of the 1920s, where equivalents even existed back then. My second thought is about a piece of stock-market software I use. The competition is prettier--at the moment; the one I now use (and I've used both of the most popular competitors in the past) is due for a major upgrade of the interface in another month or two. But the one I now use is far more versatile than the big boys, is much better thought-out in its basic functions, and is capable of doing simple arithmetic accurately, something neither of the major competitors can say. Furthermore, where their customer support is mediocre to lousy, and their bugs and design flaws have survived for years, this company usually fixes bugs within a day or two after customers notice them and more than once has added features less than a week after I asked for them. The competition consists of multi-million-dollar corporations; one is owned by Reuters, which surely ought to be able to afford the best. The company now beating their socks off consists of one man. In a small industrial city in Poland! Maybe you're right after all. Something isn't working here. Owen Davies ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2002
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Lindbegh and flying his "time off".......
> My second thought is about a piece of stock-market > software I use. > Owen Davies > Is this software top secret or is it available to other interested people such as myself? Thanks Del-wisconsin http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 15, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Seat Stuff
About midway through the seats today. I finally realized that I could finish the seats before installing the control tube/aileron horn assembly. I looked for a while like this part would be captive under the seats for good, but you can thread it in from the rear pit under the front seat and into position. I checked the dimensions and I'm absolutely sure that Mr. P adjusted this to work out properly, job Bernie! I am making a mod to the seats though. Several struts under the seat pans butt-join against the forward and rear members. I'm going to run a long wood screw into these to give a metal part in shear. Just don't like butt joints, myself. Now I'm thinking about the fuel tank. I have a lovely big hole up front, could probably put thirty gallons up there, but I suppose ten or twelve will be enough as I don't have any plans to follow Corkie to his vacation spot in Yucatan. But what to do, should I weld it in steel, or $Pay$ someone to weld in aluminum? Sorry, I just can't bring myself to put in a fiberglass tank. No-way, not this airplane... First what thickness of steel? Oh, I guess I'll need a baffle! Match upright edges and weld down or pop rivet flat and solder? I'm now doing H&H work over Mike's, drawings, hmm. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Lindbegh and flying his "time off".......
Date: May 16, 2002
del magsam asked: > Is this software top secret or is it available to > other interested people such as myself? No secret. It was just off-topic, and I'd already gone too far out on that limb. AmiBroker. Go to www.amibroker.com You can download it for free, but as you will see there are good reasons to pay the trivial price. You might want to check the Yahoo groups as well, to get a feel for the product and the support. There were four of them, last I checked. Worth noting, AmiBroker is fairly specialized. Its function is technical analysis and the development of mechanical trading systems. This is not something most investors would feel they need. Owen Davies ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: Re: Compression Spring Shocks
Date: May 16, 2002
Piet'ers, I am building my landing gear like the 2nd to last original Piet, the one at Pioneer field OSH. Am currently working on the compression spring shock, think I have it figured out. There is a good illustration in the first Bingelis page 255. It appears to show the hole for pin located mid way up the slot for pin and sliding collar when the spring is at rest. To me it seems the hole should be located at the top of the slot when the spring is at rest so there would be no slop in the suspension, also then the spring could 'work' the full length of the slot. Bingelis may have drawn it this way so it would be easier to understand. Anyway some of you guys must have experience with this type of LG or even built one, please let me know if I am thinking on the right track or out in left field. Skip, looking forward to Brodhead. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craigo" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: Seat Stuff & Fuel Tank
Date: May 16, 2002
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Larry Neal wrote > But what to do, should I weld it in steel, or $Pay$ someone to weld in > aluminum? Sorry, I just can't bring myself to put in a fiberglass tank. > No-way, not this airplane... Larry - get some .050 or so 5052-H32 aluminum and make the tank from that. It is remarkably easy to cut and form into what you want, leaving flanges where the pieces join. Check with the shop doing the welding - they may even have you pop rivet it together to make the welding easier. Most shops will weld it up, including the filler neck, vent, and drain fittings, for a nominal fee. They will also pressure test it for you - be sure to specify 3 psi or less! As they charge by the hour, tho, do all the cutting and fitting before you take it to them. I've done several tanks this way and each has turned out to be everything I'd wanted. If you want a baffle, you can pop rivet it in with aluminum rivets - they weld right over them when they do the whole thing Craig Lake Worth, FL Bakeng Duce NX96CW PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 16, 2002
From: Mike Hardaway <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Seat Stuff
A rudder bar in the front cockpit, with pedals in the rear, does a great job of keeping tension on the rudder cables so they don't get snagged on something. However, it doesn't prevent a pilot under stress from standing on both pedals and straining the rudder control system, unless it has the push rod set up that Greg Cardinal describes. Despite that, a lot of airplanes are rigged so that it is possible to leg-press the rudder horn. Does anyone have actual knowledge of rudder horn failure in a Piet in that situation? Mike Hardaway (NOT Hattaway) on 5/16/02 7:24, Greg Cardinal at gcardinal(at)startribune.com wrote: > > To the issue of rudder pedals vs. rudder bar... > > There is a Pietenpol based at Glencoe, MN built by a gentleman who > preferred pedals instead of a bar. His solution was to install the rudder > bar in the FRONT cockpit and rudder pedals in the rear cockpit. Half inch > tubing with rod end bearings (instead of cables) connected the rudder bar > with the rudder pedals. > A very nice solution. > > Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis > >>>> llneal2(at)earthlink.net 05/16/02 09:01AM >>> > > This also means that if I "stand" on the pedals, the simultaneous pull > will put stress on the rudder horn and spar. > > Larry Neal ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Seat Stuff
Date: May 17, 2002
-----Original Message----- One other idea is to put the brake pedal on a rotating collar on the rudder bar, but I think the cable to this would be continual problem. Has anyone used heel brakes with the rudder bar? Larry Hi Larry, I used heel brakes with the rudder bar. I went through the same questions you are going through now, and finally decided in favor of the rudder bar. Then I planned to use a couple of Scott heel brake master cylinders from a J-3, but found they were too tall to fit under the rudder bar. I designed and built separate heel brake levers to fit under the rudder bar, actuating separate master cylinders. I haven't flown it yet, but it feels good in the many hours of "basement flying" I've put on it so far. I can send pictures if you are interested. Jack ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Seat Stuff
Date: May 17, 2002
Be nice to see some pictures Jack..... Peter. -----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: Seat Stuff -----Original Message----- One other idea is to put the brake pedal on a rotating collar on the rudder bar, but I think the cable to this would be continual problem. Has anyone used heel brakes with the rudder bar? Larry Hi Larry, I used heel brakes with the rudder bar. I went through the same questions you are going through now, and finally decided in favor of the rudder bar. Then I planned to use a couple of Scott heel brake master cylinders from a J-3, but found they were too tall to fit under the rudder bar. I designed and built separate heel brake levers to fit under the rudder bar, actuating separate master cylinders. I haven't flown it yet, but it feels good in the many hours of "basement flying" I've put on it so far. I can send pictures if you are interested. Jack ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2002
Subject: Covering
Pieters, Yes I am at this point. Question? Do/did you rib stitch on the ailerons? I poly-tacked my fabric to the ribs on the underside where that BHP angel curve is negative. Sure glad I did. It will make the stiching a bit easier. Also are the elevators and rudder stitched? Corky in La with Isabelle who has a heating iron in her hand ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2002
Subject: Fwd: Covering
In a message dated 5/17/2002 7:21:51 AM Central Daylight Time, Isablcorky writes: > > Pieters, > Yes I am at this point. Question? Do/did you rib stitch on the ailerons? I > poly-tacked my fabric to the ribs on the underside where that BHP angel > curve is negative. Sure glad I did. It will make the stiching a bit easier. > Also are the elevators and rudder stitched? > Corky in La with Isabelle who has a heating iron in her hand From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:21:51 EDT Subject: Covering Pieters, Yes I am at this point. Question? Do/did you rib stitch on the ailerons? I poly-tacked my fabric to the ribs on the underside where that BHP angel curve is negative. Sure glad I did. It will make the stiching a bit easier. Also are the elevators and rudder stitched? Corky in La with Isabelle who has a heating iron in her hand ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 17, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Seat Stuff
Jack, I think that does it for me, I've decided to follow your lead. I will be installing the rudder bar with mechanical heel brakes. The mechnical levers and cable routing will be simpler, so I don't see a space problem. I'd like to see your pictures as well, if you could send offline or post on one of the usual sites. Thanks, Larry Jack Phillips wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > >One other idea is to put the brake pedal on a rotating collar on the >rudder bar, but I think the cable to this would be continual problem. > Has anyone used heel brakes with the rudder bar? > >Larry > > >Hi Larry, > >I used heel brakes with the rudder bar. I went through the same questions >you are going through now, and finally decided in favor of the rudder bar. >Then I planned to use a couple of Scott heel brake master cylinders from a >J-3, but found they were too tall to fit under the rudder bar. I designed >and built separate heel brake levers to fit under the rudder bar, actuating >separate master cylinders. I haven't flown it yet, but it feels good in the >many hours of "basement flying" I've put on it so far. I can send pictures >if you are interested. > >Jack > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Craigo" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: Covering
Date: May 17, 2002
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote Also > are the elevators and rudder stitched? > Corky in La with Isabelle who has a heating iron in her hand Corky - On a slow flyer like the Piet, with no true airfoil to the tailfeathers, it is not generally necessary to ribstitch the stabs, rudder, or elevator. Of course, with isabel standing there with a hot iron in her hand, I'd do whatever she asked me to! Do cover the tail ribs with reinforcing tape, on the outside ofthe fabric covering. Craig Lake Worth, FL Bakeng Duce NX96CW PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart. http://www.peoplepc.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Covering
Date: May 17, 2002
Corky, Erring on the cautious side, I rib stitched everything: wings, ailerons, tailfeathers. Although you likely could omit stitch- ing the tail surfaces and ailerons on a Pietenpol, most light- planes use stitching in these places. If you rib stitch the tail surfaces, be careful to not overtighten the stitches lest you deform (pull inward) the capstrips (on the rudder, for example). When I recovered my Pietenpol, I glued in some small spruce blocks between the capstrips so they could resist this sort of thing. A trick similar to that employed by the Wright Brothers with their wing ribs. Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: N# height
Date: May 17, 2002
My " how to license an experimental aircraft" states 2" high lettering for the N # for the Piet. Just wanted to make sure this is still the case and nothing has been changed. Thanks walt NX140DL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gdascomb(at)aol.com
Date: May 17, 2002
Subject: Fuselage struts
I am thinking about using biscuit joiners on the white ash struts. Anyone have a comment on the use of these things ? They are small (1/2"x1") I have been watching Norm (TOH) use them on furniture for years....How about airplanes? Thanks for any advice. George ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Fuselage struts
Date: May 17, 2002
> > I am thinking about using biscuit joiners on the white ash struts. > I have been watching Norm (TOH) use them on furniture for years....How about > airplanes? > Thanks for any advice. > George George, Biscuits are great I have become addicted to them for edge gluing and butt joints. If you are talking about the two ash cross members between the lift strut attach points at the lower longeron, I don't think biscuits are needed, there is a huge gusset there called the floor. Also those ash struts are used mainly in compression. Now the smallest size biscuit may be useful in the butt joints in the seats. Skip, taking my Piet project for show and tell to chapter 1025 pancake breakfast tomorrow morning. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2002
From: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Fuselage struts
> > >> >> I am thinking about using biscuit joiners on the white ash struts. >> I have been watching Norm (TOH) use them on furniture for years....How >about >> airplanes? >> Thanks for any advice. >> George > >George, >Biscuits are great I have become addicted to them for edge gluing and butt >joints. >If you are talking about the two ash cross members between the lift strut >attach points at the lower longeron, I don't think biscuits are needed, >there is a huge gusset there called the floor. Also those ash struts are >used mainly in compression. >Now the smallest size biscuit may be useful in the butt joints in the seats. >Skip, taking my Piet project for show and tell to chapter 1025 pancake >breakfast tomorrow morning. George, Normally, I think they would be a good idea, but if you are proposing what I think you are, you would be cutting into the lower longeron. I'd be leery of doing that myself, even though the floor does provide reinforcement as a 'super gusset', as Skip mentioned. I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be real concerned about making cuts into any load-bearing member for the purpose of installing biscuits. Cheers! Kip Gardner (STILL cutting rib gussets in 'warm & sunny OH' - NOT:) 426 Schneider St. SE North Canton, OH 44720 (330) 494-1775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 18, 2002
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Fuselage struts
--- Kip & Beth Gardner wrote: > Gardner > > > > > > > Gdascomb(at)aol.com > >> > >> I am thinking about using biscuit joiners on the > white ash struts. > >> I have been watching Norm (TOH) use them on > furniture for years....How > >about > >> airplanes? > >> Thanks for any advice. > >> George > > > >George, > >Biscuits are great I have become addicted to them > for edge gluing and butt > >joints. > >If you are talking about the two ash cross members > between the lift strut > >attach points at the lower longeron, I don't think > biscuits are needed, > >there is a huge gusset there called the floor. Also > those ash struts are > >used mainly in compression. > >Now the smallest size biscuit may be useful in the > butt joints in the seats. > >Skip, taking my Piet project for show and tell to > chapter 1025 pancake > >breakfast tomorrow morning. > > George, > > Normally, I think they would be a good idea, but if > you are proposing what > I think you are, you would be cutting into the lower > longeron. I'd be leery > of doing that myself, even though the floor does > provide reinforcement as a > 'super gusset', as Skip mentioned. I guess what I'm > saying is that I'd be > real concerned about making cuts into any > load-bearing member for the > purpose of installing biscuits. > > Cheers! > > Kip Gardner (STILL cutting rib gussets in 'warm & > sunny OH' - NOT:) > > > 426 Schneider St. SE > North Canton, OH 44720 > (330) 494-1775 I have never been impressed with a bisquit joiner, the bisquit is not very strong. they are not consistant in thickness leaving a very sloppy fit. don't need them in edge glueing. the glue joint is stronger than the wood your glueing. I have a professional sharpening service and end up modifying the cutters width to fit the bisquits many times. whenever I need a spline joint I put a saw cut in it and have some thin hardwood laying around for the spline. I agree with the last post, that it is not a good place to use it. and not needed. Del http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: What are you building?
Date: May 18, 2002
Pieters, For some time I have been following the list an enjoyed it very much. Sometimes questions are asked about some of the construction details or problems have come up which need answers. On a number of occasions I have felt that I could be helpful but then upon reflection, have decided not to answer any of the inquires because I don't know what plans are being referred to. Is the plane that is being built a GN-1, or is it a Pietenpol? And if it is a Pietenpol, is it from the plans published in the Flying and Glider Manual, or the 1933 plans, or the long or short version, and what engine is going to be used, etc? I might suggest that if we had this information from the builder, it would cut down on a lot of the confusion and make answering these questions easier and more accurate because the person answering has probably been through the same thing, building the same configuration. "Pietenpol" has become almost a generic term for any parasol design, and each individual makes little changes that he feels might make it better. If we could get on the same page, it would sure be more useful for those that follow don't you think? Let me have your thoughts about this. John Dilatush, NX114D "Finished the prop and run the engine up. Just have to do the lift struts now and go make like a bird!" ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Control cable exits
Date: May 19, 2002
Heres one I want to throw at you, Im covering the rear fuse area and was wondering on the best way to find the exit holes for my control cables. The way I came up with was to set the tail up with control surfaces, run the cables out and then mark the area of exit with tape. I then have taken measurements for each hole. Does anyone have a better method of doing this? Carl L. trying to eliminate fabric patching Please visit my website at www.megsinet.net/skycarl ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: What are you building?
Date: May 19, 2002
The problem with this is that, at least in my case, my airplane is an interpolation of all of the Piet plans. I have a '33 plans fuselage, but I want the spreader bar gear from the F&G Manual. There are also differences between the F&G and '32 plans. I don't even know if we are sure how many different plans there are out there . . . aaaaarrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh. In short, I don't think your question can be answered that easily. Gene working from four different plans, picking and choosing the best parts . . . going a little crazy ----- Original Message ----- From: John Dilatush <dilatush(at)amigo.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: What are you building? > > Pieters, > > For some time I have been following the list an enjoyed it very much. > Sometimes questions are asked about some of the construction details or > problems have come up which need answers. > > On a number of occasions I have felt that I could be helpful but then > upon reflection, have decided not to answer any of the inquires because > I don't know what plans are being referred to. Is the plane that is > being built a GN-1, or is it a Pietenpol? And if it is a Pietenpol, is > it from the plans published in the Flying and Glider Manual, or the 1933 > plans, or the long or short version, and what engine is going to be > used, etc? > > I might suggest that if we had this information from the builder, it > would cut down on a lot of the confusion and make answering these > questions easier and more accurate because the person answering has > probably been through the same thing, building the same configuration. > > "Pietenpol" has become almost a generic term for any parasol design, and > each individual makes little changes that he feels might make it better. > If we could get on the same page, it would sure be more useful for > those that follow don't you think? > > Let me have your thoughts about this. > > John Dilatush, NX114D "Finished the prop and run the engine up. Just > have to do the lift struts now and go make like a bird!" > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Control cable exits
Date: May 19, 2002
Carl, That's how I did it. Layed a straight edge over formers to simulate fabric and took measurements from longerons and rear tip of fuse. but I have yet to cut the holes thru. walt ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control cable exits > > Heres one I want to throw at you, Im covering the rear fuse area and was > wondering on the best way to find the exit holes for my control cables. The > way I came up with was to set the tail up with control surfaces, run the > cables out and then mark the area of exit with tape. I then have taken > measurements for each hole. Does anyone have a better method of doing this? > Carl L. trying to eliminate fabric patching > > Please visit my website at > www.megsinet.net/skycarl > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Control cable exits
Date: May 19, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Control cable exits > > Heres one I want to throw at you, Im covering the rear fuse area and was > wondering on the best way to find the exit holes for my control cables. The > way I came up with was to set the tail up with control surfaces, run the > cables out and then mark the area of exit with tape. I then have taken > measurements for each hole. Does anyone have a better method of doing this? > Carl L. trying to eliminate fabric patching > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carl, Try and using a piece of paper before you cover and then "cut, fit and try" until you have the exit holes right. You of course have to have your cables temporarily installed first. Then mark carfully and measure the placement of the paper pattern relative to the uprights and longerons. Go ahead and cover, then place the paper in the same location has you had determined before. Then go ahead and punch your holes. The holes can then be reinforced with some thin leather patches with fabric holding the patches in place, of course use plenty of glue. That's it! John +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ,======================================================================= > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2002
Subject: Re: Biscuit joints
From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Biscuits are an excellent alternative for edge gluing, but read on. They are supposed to be loose when fitted into the slot. The biscuit is made of compressed wood. When used properly with a water borne glue (Elmer's Carpenter Glue) they swell up to fill the slots--no need to grind the cutter to make a thinner slot. I doubt that there is a good structural application for them in aircraft, mainly because the adhesives (Epoxy, resorcinol, plastic resin) are not compatible with the biscuit system. Dick Hartwig ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 19, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Piets hiding in the woods
I was towing gliders today and got called out to an off field retrieve. Landing at a small grass strip a couple miles east of RioVista Texas, I noticed the owner had a beautiful Starduster in his hanger. I told him I was building too and mentioned my Piet, at which time he got excited and waved over his friend on a tractor. It turns out that Mark, (if I remember right) is building a Pietenpol. Better yet, he's on the list. Then to top off the whole deal, he casually mentions that his buddy next door is building a Piet as well! Larry (In Texas, where you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a Piet builder ;-) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 19, 2002
I have completed my examination of the Pietenpol Airfoil. I started with the coordinates in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual with the exception that I used two mid chord upper surface coordinates from the 1933 manual (sky scout) as they provided a much smoother curve. Using an engineers scale and a pair of dividers I took my best guess on the leading edge based on the curve shown in the 1932 manual. Then I keyed the points into the computer and used several lofting features in unigraphics to get a best fit through the points. By allowing the software to move the points around by up to 1/32 I was able to get a much smoother curve. As the dimensions shown were only to the nearest 1/32 some smoothing was required. From there I normalized the airfoil (divided the x and y by the chord length) and created a number of additional points on the curve to provide better definition for XFOIL (the airfoil analysis package that I used.) XFOIL is interactive program for the development/analysis of airfoils developed by Mark Drela at MIT (thanks Mark). Best of all it is freeware (http://raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/). XFOIL can provide both viscous and inviscid solutions. Based on this analysis I can say that the Pietenpol airfoil isnt bad, but its not great either. It has good lift characteristics, however it is a high drag airfoil. Here is a sumary of my results: At Reynolds number 1,600,000 (35 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord): 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8087, Cm=-.0929, Cd=.00691, L/D=116.96 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0248, Cm=-.0939, Cd=.00881, L/D=116.35 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.4898, Cm=-.0702, Cd=.02173, L/D=68.56 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5361, Cm=-.0578, Cd=.03447, L/D=44.56 At Reynolds number 3,500,000 (75 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord) 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8177, Cm=-.0949, Cd=.00790, L/D=103.54 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0357, Cm=-.0960, Cd=.00753, L/D=137.57 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5665, Cm=-.0813, Cd=.01685, L/D=92.95 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.6723, Cm=-.0697, Cd=.02303, L/D=72.62 For comparison I ran a few modern airfoils also using XFOIL and divided the pietenpol numbers by the modern airfoil numbers. Here is a summary of those results: Piet/NACA4412 at Re=1,600,000, angle of attack=12 deg (i.e. take off / landing performace) : Cl= 97% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil provides more lift), Cm=84% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil has a higher pitching moment which is generally considered bad), Cd=170% (higher than 100% means the pietenpol airfoil is higher drag, high is bad.) NACA 4412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack=2 deg (cruise performance): Cl=116%, Cm=90%, Cd=144%. NACA 2412, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=106%, Cm=177%, Cd=196%. NACA 2412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg: Cl=175%, Cm=179%, Cd=156% NACA 23012, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=108%, Cm=932%, Cd=243%. NACA 23012, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg, Cl=234%, Cm=999%, Cd=141%. Bottom line is that it is easy to see why this airfoil is not in use on current production airplanes. That said, it does in general provide above average lift. The Cm is high, but is within that of the NACA 4412 which is a well accepted low speed airfoil. Cd is very high; however, if speed is what you desire, you probably are not building a Pietenpol. For further study I would like to repeat the process with the Clark Y and the Eiffel 36 to better understand how this airfoil compares with other contemporary airfoils. Just for grins I used the Clmax computed by XFOIL to predict stall speed and came up with 43 mph at 1010 lbs and just barely under 45 mph at 1080 lbs. Actual numbers may be slightly worse than these as they are based on 2 dimensional airfoils. These numbers are just within the 45 mph limit in the Sport Pilot NPRM. These numbers are probably good enough for rough order of magnitude calculations, however beyond that they should not be taken as anything more than an educated guess. Also, as with everything else, your milage will vary. Kevin Holcomb http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > Kevin, > > Send us the data you discover. > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
Kevin, Are you suggesting alternatives to the traditional Piet airfoil(s)? Robert Haines Du Quoin, Illinois ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: aifoil
Date: May 20, 2002
Kevin's erudite & precise analysis of the Piet airfoil is much appreciated. It confirms what we have known for over 60 years. The Piet is a low & slow airplane. Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: June 1st Fly-in
All, Just a reminder of the fly-in at Midway airport in Midlothian Texas, Saturday June 1st. We now have a Midway-sponsored pancake breakfast beginning at 8:00am ($5), along with a hotdog lunch (Free for all Piet builders). Most of the heavy stuff and homebuilts will be concentrated in the morning timeframe, so show up early. After lunch, we will have a Piet discussion in the hanger if we can find room. So far we expect a sampling of Piet's or two and GN-1's, along with many other homebuilts and classics. The Confederate Airforce is making a concerted effort to show up with R 4-D, B-25 and maybe, just maybe a Corsair, but no promises. So far though, the only builder/owner that has committed to arrive is Mike King. You guys are making us nervous, anyone with a flying Piet in range of Midway, let us know and come on down. Regardless, this thing has pretty much gotten out of hand and is growing on it's own, totally out of control. It should be lots of fun right up until the riot police arrive. I have name badges for Piet builders, so we can finally meet one another, I'll be wearing a black baseball cap with "TSA 1992" on it, so look me up and we'll start making introductions! Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
Nope. I can't imagine building a Pietenpol with anyone elses airfoil. That said, it does suggest that there is room for a new plane along the same lines as a Pietenpol. Perhaps a future project; I seem to have no trouble finding intersting projects for the future. For now I have a large enough project just deciding between the various options in the existing plans. Long fuselage or short? Steel tube or wood? Change the wing ribs to 1/4 x 1/4 instead of the 1/2 x 1/4? Fir or Spruce? Tail wheel or skid? Darn, if I add a steerable tailwheel I need brakes, and the rudder horn probably needs to be moved to the bottom. Speaking of brakes, should they be toe, heel or actuated by a lever on the stick? Jury struts or heavier struts? Should I add a door to the forward cockpit? At the Pietenpol flyin last Sunday (Arthur Dunn Airpark), my old lady saw that other builders put them in and is being most persistant in her demands for a door (that is one thing it would have been better if she hadn't seen.) Should I raise the turtle deck to allow for the shoulder harness ancors to be above my shoulders? And most of all, model A or A-65. Worst of all is if I went with a model A I would probably want to relocate the radiator (howabout beneath the fuselage like on several OX-5 airplanes with a header tank in the wing leading edge) as it is darn hot most of the year here in Florida. Anyway, those questions right now are my own personal hell. I settled on the Piet because it has 2 seats, is a reasonable first project and has the look and feel of an antique. That said, I want to make it as close to prints as possible, but which prints? The tail wheel is very tempting as there are so few grass strip destinations but the cascading design changes are enough to drive me to drink. I ran the numbers for my own understanding. What is interesting is it does explain how the Pietenpol gets away with a fairly small wing (140 sq ft) for a two seater. The drag numbers are not quite as bad if you compare the Piet at 0 deg (Cl=.6) to the other airfoils at the same Cl value (the 23012 would need to be at a bit over 4 deg angle of attack). However, the Piet is still a high drag airplane even if you look at it from that point of view. At best it has 25% more drag than you would expect from a modern airfoil. As drag is a product of velocity squared and the Pietenpol has so little velocity, I am not sure it matters. I'll keep it close to the plans and be prepared to descend rapidly when the engine fails. Although the high drag will preclude much of a glide, the high lift will allow you to use smaller fields should you have to. I cant imagine trying to use the airplane for serious transportation (serious recreation is more my speed.) I suppose you could clean it up, replace the cables with streamline wires, use internal pushrods instead of external wires, change the airfoil, fair everything in sight and pick up a bit of speed. Thats more of a project than I want, and I cant help but wonder 'why bother'? If thats what I wanted I suppose I would build a Bakeing Duce. Best Regards, Kevin Holcomb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > Kevin, > > Are you suggesting alternatives to the traditional Piet airfoil(s)? > > > Robert Haines > Du Quoin, Illinois > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2002
From: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
> > >Nope. I can't imagine building a Pietenpol with anyone elses airfoil. That >said, it does suggest that there is room for a new plane along the same >lines as a Pietenpol. Perhaps a future project; I seem to have no trouble >finding intersting projects for the future. For now I have a large enough >project just deciding between the various options in the existing plans. >Worst of all is if I went with a model A I >would probably want to relocate the radiator (howabout beneath the fuselage >like on several OX-5 airplanes with a header tank in the wing leading edge) >as it is darn hot most of the year here in Florida. Anyway, those questions >right now are my own personal hell. I settled on the Piet because it has 2 >seats, is a reasonable first project and has the look and feel of an >antique. >Best Regards, >Kevin Holcomb Kevin, I have an old copy of KitPlanes that has a picture of a Piet with the radiator up front, like on a Model A (the car). The prop shaft goes through the radiator. This makes a lot of sense to me, the radiator gets the maximum flow of cooling air, is vertical (proprerly oriented to airflow) & probably wouldn't need a header. Always wondered why more 'A' builders dont do it this way. Cheers! Kip Gardner (got my wing rib jig plotted & drawn out last night) 426 Schneider St. SE North Canton, OH 44720 (330) 494-1775 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
Kip Gardner pointed out: > I have an old copy of KitPlanes that has a picture of a Piet with the > radiator up front, like on a Model A (the car). The prop shaft goes through > the radiator. There have been Piets as well in which the radiator was mounted under the engine, tilted to minimize the vertical size, with air ducted through it and exiting the bottom of the cowl. The radiator itself was half as high as usual and with two layers. Can't remember whether the water ran through them in parallel or in series. I believe The Master himself built one such, but you've already seen what my memory is like. No idea whether it worked well enough, or whether the improved visibility was useful enough, to justify going to all the work. Owen Davies ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
Kevin, Excellent analysis. I need to reread. Did you mean knots at the end when referencing sport pilot? Chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Holcomb Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties I have completed my examination of the Pietenpol Airfoil. I started with the coordinates in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual with the exception that I used two mid chord upper surface coordinates from the 1933 manual (sky scout) as they provided a much smoother curve. Using an engineers scale and a pair of dividers I took my best guess on the leading edge based on the curve shown in the 1932 manual. Then I keyed the points into the computer and used several lofting features in unigraphics to get a best fit through the points. By allowing the software to move the points around by up to 1/32 I was able to get a much smoother curve. As the dimensions shown were only to the nearest 1/32 some smoothing was required. From there I normalized the airfoil (divided the x and y by the chord length) and created a number of additional points on the curve to provide better definition for XFOIL (the airfoil analysis package that I used.) XFOIL is interactive program for the development/analysis of airfoils developed by Mark Drela at MIT (thanks Mark). Best of all it is freeware (http://raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/). XFOIL can provide both viscous and inviscid solutions. Based on this analysis I can say that the Pietenpol airfoil isnt bad, but its not great either. It has good lift characteristics, however it is a high drag airfoil. Here is a sumary of my results: At Reynolds number 1,600,000 (35 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord): 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8087, Cm=-.0929, Cd=.00691, L/D=116.96 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0248, Cm=-.0939, Cd=.00881, L/D=116.35 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.4898, Cm=-.0702, Cd=.02173, L/D=68.56 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5361, Cm=-.0578, Cd=.03447, L/D=44.56 At Reynolds number 3,500,000 (75 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord) 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8177, Cm=-.0949, Cd=.00790, L/D=103.54 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0357, Cm=-.0960, Cd=.00753, L/D=137.57 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5665, Cm=-.0813, Cd=.01685, L/D=92.95 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.6723, Cm=-.0697, Cd=.02303, L/D=72.62 For comparison I ran a few modern airfoils also using XFOIL and divided the pietenpol numbers by the modern airfoil numbers. Here is a summary of those results: Piet/NACA4412 at Re=1,600,000, angle of attack=12 deg (i.e. take off / landing performace) : Cl= 97% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil provides more lift), Cm=84% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil has a higher pitching moment which is generally considered bad), Cd=170% (higher than 100% means the pietenpol airfoil is higher drag, high is bad.) NACA 4412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack=2 deg (cruise performance): Cl=116%, Cm=90%, Cd=144%. NACA 2412, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=106%, Cm=177%, Cd=196%. NACA 2412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg: Cl=175%, Cm=179%, Cd=156% NACA 23012, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=108%, Cm=932%, Cd=243%. NACA 23012, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg, Cl=234%, Cm=999%, Cd=141%. Bottom line is that it is easy to see why this airfoil is not in use on current production airplanes. That said, it does in general provide above average lift. The Cm is high, but is within that of the NACA 4412 which is a well accepted low speed airfoil. Cd is very high; however, if speed is what you desire, you probably are not building a Pietenpol. For further study I would like to repeat the process with the Clark Y and the Eiffel 36 to better understand how this airfoil compares with other contemporary airfoils. Just for grins I used the Clmax computed by XFOIL to predict stall speed and came up with 43 mph at 1010 lbs and just barely under 45 mph at 1080 lbs. Actual numbers may be slightly worse than these as they are based on 2 dimensional airfoils. These numbers are just within the 45 mph limit in the Sport Pilot NPRM. These numbers are probably good enough for rough order of magnitude calculations, however beyond that they should not be taken as anything more than an educated guess. Also, as with everything else, your milage will vary. Kevin Holcomb http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > Kevin, > > Send us the data you discover. > > Chris > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: fuselage stiffeners
Date: May 20, 2002
Hey guys, on the original Piet plans the forward top-of-the-fuselage stiffener is 7" wide and the rear is 6". On the newer, extended fuselage plans, these are reversed. Why? Is it to allow a little more room for instruments for the rear cockpit? Jeff in TX working with wood MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
Thanks, I did it for myself, however I am glad that others are interested. Please let me know if you find any errors as there is much that I can learn. I meant 39 knots/45 mph. I believe that is the requirement for stall speed in the landing configuration. Folks with flaps also have to worry about 45 knots/52 mph which applies to the cruise configuration, but thats not a Pietenpol problem. Are these numbers incorrect? I must admit I didnt go to the source (the actuall NPRM) when I grabbed those numbers, I pulled them out of an EAA publication. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > Kevin, > > Excellent analysis. I need to reread. > > Did you mean knots at the end when referencing sport pilot? > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin > Holcomb > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > > > > I have completed my examination of the Pietenpol Airfoil. I started with > the coordinates in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual with the exception that > I used two mid chord upper surface coordinates from the 1933 manual (sky > scout) as they provided a much smoother curve. Using an engineers scale > and a pair of dividers I took my best guess on the leading edge based on the > curve shown in the 1932 manual. Then I keyed the points into the computer > and used several lofting features in unigraphics to get a best fit through > the points. By allowing the software to move the points around by up to > 1/32 I was able to get a much smoother curve. As the dimensions shown were > only to the nearest 1/32 some smoothing was required. From there I > normalized the airfoil (divided the x and y by the chord length) and created > a number of additional points on the curve to provide better definition for > XFOIL (the airfoil analysis package that I used.) XFOIL is interactive > program for the development/analysis of airfoils developed by Mark Drela at > MIT (thanks Mark). Best of all it is freeware > (http://raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/). XFOIL can provide both viscous and > inviscid solutions. > > Based on this analysis I can say that the Pietenpol airfoil isnt bad, but > its not great either. It has good lift characteristics, however it is a > high drag airfoil. Here is a sumary of my results: > > At Reynolds number 1,600,000 (35 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord): > > 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8087, Cm=-.0929, Cd=.00691, L/D=116.96 > 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0248, Cm=-.0939, Cd=.00881, L/D=116.35 > 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.4898, Cm=-.0702, Cd=.02173, L/D=68.56 > 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5361, Cm=-.0578, Cd=.03447, L/D=44.56 > > At Reynolds number 3,500,000 (75 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord) > > 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8177, Cm=-.0949, Cd=.00790, L/D=103.54 > 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0357, Cm=-.0960, Cd=.00753, L/D=137.57 > 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5665, Cm=-.0813, Cd=.01685, L/D=92.95 > 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.6723, Cm=-.0697, Cd=.02303, L/D=72.62 > > For comparison I ran a few modern airfoils also using XFOIL and divided the > pietenpol numbers by the modern airfoil numbers. Here is a summary of those > results: > > Piet/NACA4412 at Re=1,600,000, angle of attack=12 deg (i.e. take off / > landing performace) : Cl= 97% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil > provides more lift), Cm=84% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil has a > higher pitching moment which is generally considered bad), Cd=170% (higher > than 100% means the pietenpol airfoil is higher drag, high is bad.) > > NACA 4412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack=2 deg (cruise performance): > Cl=116%, Cm=90%, Cd=144%. > > NACA 2412, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=106%, Cm=177%, > Cd=196%. > > NACA 2412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg: Cl=175%, Cm=179%, Cd=156% > > NACA 23012, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=108%, Cm=932%, > Cd=243%. > > NACA 23012, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg, Cl=234%, Cm=999%, > Cd=141%. > > Bottom line is that it is easy to see why this airfoil is not in use on > current production airplanes. That said, it does in general provide above > average lift. The Cm is high, but is within that of the NACA 4412 which is > a well accepted low speed airfoil. Cd is very high; however, if speed is > what you desire, you probably are not building a Pietenpol. For further > study I would like to repeat the process with the Clark Y and the Eiffel 36 > to better understand how this airfoil compares with other contemporary > airfoils. > > Just for grins I used the Clmax computed by XFOIL to predict stall speed and > came up with 43 mph at 1010 lbs and just barely under 45 mph at 1080 lbs. > Actual numbers may be slightly worse than these as they are based on 2 > dimensional airfoils. These numbers are just within the 45 mph limit in the > Sport Pilot NPRM. These numbers are probably good enough for rough order of > magnitude calculations, however beyond that they should not be taken as > anything more than an educated guess. Also, as with everything else, your > milage will vary. > > Kevin Holcomb > http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> > To: > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > > > > > > Kevin, > > > > Send us the data you discover. > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 20, 2002
We have been waiting for someone to do this a long time. can you compare it to a Munk M-6 in addition to the clark Y? Also maybe the USA 35B used on the J-3 cub? -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Holcomb Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties Thanks, I did it for myself, however I am glad that others are interested. Please let me know if you find any errors as there is much that I can learn. I meant 39 knots/45 mph. I believe that is the requirement for stall speed in the landing configuration. Folks with flaps also have to worry about 45 knots/52 mph which applies to the cruise configuration, but thats not a Pietenpol problem. Are these numbers incorrect? I must admit I didnt go to the source (the actuall NPRM) when I grabbed those numbers, I pulled them out of an EAA publication. Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > Kevin, > > Excellent analysis. I need to reread. > > Did you mean knots at the end when referencing sport pilot? > > Chris > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin > Holcomb > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > > > > I have completed my examination of the Pietenpol Airfoil. I started with > the coordinates in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual with the exception that > I used two mid chord upper surface coordinates from the 1933 manual (sky > scout) as they provided a much smoother curve. Using an engineers scale > and a pair of dividers I took my best guess on the leading edge based on the > curve shown in the 1932 manual. Then I keyed the points into the computer > and used several lofting features in unigraphics to get a best fit through > the points. By allowing the software to move the points around by up to > 1/32 I was able to get a much smoother curve. As the dimensions shown were > only to the nearest 1/32 some smoothing was required. From there I > normalized the airfoil (divided the x and y by the chord length) and created > a number of additional points on the curve to provide better definition for > XFOIL (the airfoil analysis package that I used.) XFOIL is interactive > program for the development/analysis of airfoils developed by Mark Drela at > MIT (thanks Mark). Best of all it is freeware > (http://raphael.mit.edu/xfoil/). XFOIL can provide both viscous and > inviscid solutions. > > Based on this analysis I can say that the Pietenpol airfoil isnt bad, but > its not great either. It has good lift characteristics, however it is a > high drag airfoil. Here is a sumary of my results: > > At Reynolds number 1,600,000 (35 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord): > > 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8087, Cm=-.0929, Cd=.00691, L/D=116.96 > 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0248, Cm=-.0939, Cd=.00881, L/D=116.35 > 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.4898, Cm=-.0702, Cd=.02173, L/D=68.56 > 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5361, Cm=-.0578, Cd=.03447, L/D=44.56 > > At Reynolds number 3,500,000 (75 mph, Sea Level, 60 inch chord) > > 2 deg angle of attack: Cl=.8177, Cm=-.0949, Cd=.00790, L/D=103.54 > 4 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.0357, Cm=-.0960, Cd=.00753, L/D=137.57 > 10 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.5665, Cm=-.0813, Cd=.01685, L/D=92.95 > 12 deg angle of attack: Cl=1.6723, Cm=-.0697, Cd=.02303, L/D=72.62 > > For comparison I ran a few modern airfoils also using XFOIL and divided the > pietenpol numbers by the modern airfoil numbers. Here is a summary of those > results: > > Piet/NACA4412 at Re=1,600,000, angle of attack=12 deg (i.e. take off / > landing performace) : Cl= 97% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil > provides more lift), Cm=84% (higher than 100% means pietenpol airfoil has a > higher pitching moment which is generally considered bad), Cd=170% (higher > than 100% means the pietenpol airfoil is higher drag, high is bad.) > > NACA 4412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack=2 deg (cruise performance): > Cl=116%, Cm=90%, Cd=144%. > > NACA 2412, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=106%, Cm=177%, > Cd=196%. > > NACA 2412, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg: Cl=175%, Cm=179%, Cd=156% > > NACA 23012, Re=1,600,000, angle of attack = 12 deg: Cl=108%, Cm=932%, > Cd=243%. > > NACA 23012, Re=3,500,000, angle of attack = 2 deg, Cl=234%, Cm=999%, > Cd=141%. > > Bottom line is that it is easy to see why this airfoil is not in use on > current production airplanes. That said, it does in general provide above > average lift. The Cm is high, but is within that of the NACA 4412 which is > a well accepted low speed airfoil. Cd is very high; however, if speed is > what you desire, you probably are not building a Pietenpol. For further > study I would like to repeat the process with the Clark Y and the Eiffel 36 > to better understand how this airfoil compares with other contemporary > airfoils. > > Just for grins I used the Clmax computed by XFOIL to predict stall speed and > came up with 43 mph at 1010 lbs and just barely under 45 mph at 1080 lbs. > Actual numbers may be slightly worse than these as they are based on 2 > dimensional airfoils. These numbers are just within the 45 mph limit in the > Sport Pilot NPRM. These numbers are probably good enough for rough order of > magnitude calculations, however beyond that they should not be taken as > anything more than an educated guess. Also, as with everything else, your > milage will vary. > > Kevin Holcomb > http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> > To: > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: wing rib drawings > > > > > > > Kevin, > > > > Send us the data you discover. > > > > Chris > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: The NPRM says
Date: May 20, 2002
Kevin, Your numbers are close. Sport Pilot NPRM says Vso at 39 kts max (landing config with flaps down etc) Vs1 at 44 kts max (clean) I think the actual piet numbers are quite below this. chris ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 20, 2002
From: javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: rudder pedals
Hi group After to take a training on St. Louis MO, i had time to visit Creeve airport , there was friendly man that is building a Piet and have too a beautifull biplane, so a good museum with about 45 old planes, great visit. About the Piet, i change the rudder bar with two smallest bars joined by an "T" arm with pedals whit three pivot points so the arm for the peddals ever is 90 degrees with the longitudinal axe, i use standard aluminium pedal and brakes, about the weight is 700 grs. This bars not send pressure to the rudder , this is just experimental, but this fill god. Let my try a little draw of this.. ***** pedals pivot point || |||||| | T arm || small bars T arm ||=============|| ||||||| | | ||||||| ***** ||=============|| ***** If you put the pedals directly on the rudder bar, the pedal turn and maybe you have a toe pain, other you can't use cylinders brakes on the rear side so pedals with "I" support for the front side, joined with 3/8 4130 tubbing, i have all for brakes on the front, but because the planes like a Piet (with tail wheel)are brake sensitive , i let the front side whitout brakes, i know, whit my poor english this is hard to understand, if someone is interesting on the pedals i can e-mail directly some pictures of this so some cad drawings .. Saludos Javier Cruz http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Date: May 21, 2002
While I have no hard data on the stalling speed of the Pietenpol, it seems that each of the four different Pietenpols I have flown stalled at considerably less than 45 mph. Over the years, I have had many opportunities to test my Pietenpol's landing speed against that of other lightplanes. Back in the 1970's, I was able to compare its touchdown speed to that of my 65 hp.Taylorcraft BC12D and this was noticeably less than that of the T'Craft under the same conditons. How much, I cannot say, but it was less than the 38 - 40 mph stalling/landing speed of the T'Craft. I didn't compare ASI readings at the stall be- cause they were unreliable (position error, etc.). Only three-point, engine at idle, landings were made. Later on I owned a Luscombe 8E with a stated power-off stalling speed of 48 mph. Its touchdown speed was dramatically higher than that of my Pietenpol. My son had a rag wing Luscombe 8A, but it too landed somewhat faster than my Piet. At present I have a 65hp. Wag-A-Bond reproduction of a Piper PA 17 Vagabond which is pretty much stock. The advertised stalling speed of the PA 17 is 45 mph. Again, its touchdown speed is dramatically higher than that of my Piet under the same conditions of loading, etc. So my conclusion is that a Pietenpol should easily meet the 45 mph stalling speed requirement. Of course, if a Piet is too heavy its stalling speed could crowd that 45 mph figure. This analysis is great and finally we know how it compares with other airfoil types. BHP was looking for a section with good lift- ing capability and it seems he found it. He needed lots of lift on low power and speed wasn't a priority. Locally we have a saying that Pietenpols have a "hull speed", like that of a boat, and they cannot be forced to go much faster. Besides the obvious parasite drag, the airfoil analysis shows why this is so. Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: John_Duprey(at)vmed.org
Subject: Re: rudder pedals
Date: May 21, 2002
05/21/2002 07:51:56 AM Hi Javier: Please send me photos of this at: John_Duprey(at)vmed.org Thanks John javier cruz (at)matronics.com on 05/21/2002 12:55:50 AM Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com cc: Subject: Pietenpol-List: rudder pedals Hi group After to take a training on St. Louis MO, i had time to visit Creeve airport , there was friendly man that is building a Piet and have too a beautifull biplane, so a good museum with about 45 old planes, great visit. About the Piet, i change the rudder bar with two smallest bars joined by an "T" arm with pedals whit three pivot points so the arm for the peddals ever is 90 degrees with the longitudinal axe, i use standard aluminium pedal and brakes, about the weight is 700 grs. This bars not send pressure to the rudder , this is just experimental, but this fill god. Let my try a little draw of this.. ***** pedals pivot point || |||||| | T arm || small bars T arm ||=============|| ||||||| | | ||||||| ***** ||=============|| ***** If you put the pedals directly on the rudder bar, the pedal turn and maybe you have a toe pain, other you can't use cylinders brakes on the rear side so pedals with "I" support for the front side, joined with 3/8 4130 tubbing, i have all for brakes on the front, but because the planes like a Piet (with tail wheel)are brake sensitive , i let the front side whitout brakes, i know, whit my poor english this is hard to understand, if someone is interesting on the pedals i can e-mail directly some pictures of this so some cad drawings .. Saludos Javier Cruz http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike Bell" <mikebell(at)sc.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 05/20/02
Date: May 21, 2002
If you are comparing airfoils to the Piet, remember that the Piet is reflexed and if you compare the pitching moment the Piets is very low. If you change this, you have to compensate by changing something else such as the area of the tail surface and so on and so on and so on . . . . . . . . ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 21, 2002
From: mark boynton <marktboynton(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: rudder pedals
Javier, I'd like to see the pictures too. Thanks. My e-mail is markb(at)ci.gilbert.az.us. Mark Boynton --- John_Duprey(at)vmed.org wrote: > John_Duprey(at)vmed.org > > > Hi Javier: Please send me photos of this at: > John_Duprey(at)vmed.org > > Thanks > John > > > javier cruz (at)matronics.com on > 05/21/2002 12:55:50 AM > > Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > Sent by: > owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > cc: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: rudder pedals > > > > > Hi group > > After to take a training on St. Louis MO, i had time > to visit Creeve airport , there was friendly man > that > is building a Piet and have too a beautifull > biplane, > so a good museum with about 45 old planes, great > visit. > > About the Piet, i change the rudder bar with two > smallest bars joined by an "T" arm with pedals whit > three pivot points so the arm for the peddals ever > is > 90 degrees with the longitudinal axe, i use standard > aluminium pedal and brakes, about the weight is 700 > grs. This bars not send pressure to the rudder , > this > is just experimental, but this fill god. Let my > try > a little draw of this.. > > > ***** pedals > pivot point > > || > |||||| | T arm > || > > small bars > T arm ||=============|| > ||||||| | | ||||||| > ***** ||=============|| ***** > > > If you put the pedals directly on the rudder bar, > the > pedal turn and maybe you have a toe pain, other you > can't use cylinders brakes on the rear side so > pedals > with "I" support for the front side, joined with 3/8 > 4130 tubbing, i have all for brakes on the front, > but > because the planes like a Piet (with tail wheel)are > brake sensitive , i let the front side whitout > brakes, > i know, whit my poor english this is hard to > understand, if someone is interesting on the pedals > i > can e-mail directly some pictures of this so some > cad > drawings .. > > Saludos > Javier Cruz > > > http://launch.yahoo.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://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 05/20/02
Date: May 21, 2002
Yes, thats in there. You will note that the Pietenpol airfoil has a higher pitching moment than either the NACA 2412 or the NACA 23012. It has a slightly lower pitching moment than the NACA 4412. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Bell" <mikebell(at)sc.rr.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 05/20/02 > > If you are comparing airfoils to the Piet, remember that the Piet is > reflexed and if you compare the pitching moment the Piets is very low. If > you change this, you have to compensate by changing something else such as > the area of the tail surface and so on and so on and so on . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: fuselage stiffeners
Date: May 22, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuselage stiffeners > > > Hey guys, on the original Piet plans the forward top-of-the-fuselage > stiffener is 7" wide and the rear is 6". On the newer, extended fuselage > plans, these are reversed. Why? Is it to allow a little more room for > instruments for the rear cockpit? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Jeff, I have read where the longer fuselage version was done in order to provide more room in the rear cockpit and used with the Corvair engine.. I would guess that the wider crosspiece is the result of this change. Puzzled me too. John +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2002
Subject: FAA Reg
Pieters, Would someone in the know please give me the identity of the Regulation that allows the use of X in lieu of the EXPERIMENTAL on aircraft numbers. Corky in La trying to get as much covering done BEFORE our usual humility settles in. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: FAA Reg
Corky, It is in FAR 45.22(b) Do a Google search on "FAR" and search from there. Greg Cardinal >>> Isablcorky(at)aol.com 05/22/02 08:32AM >>> Pieters, Would someone in the know please give me the identity of the Regulation that allows the use of X in lieu of the EXPERIMENTAL on aircraft numbers. Corky in La trying to get as much covering done BEFORE our usual humility settles in. = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: FAA Reg
Date: May 22, 2002
Corky, It is section 45. 45.22 says that you can use an x after the n if you are registering an experimental. then 45.23 (b) says that if you use only an N on an experimental (without the X) then you MUST put the word EXPERIMENTAL in 2 inch letters near the cabin or cockpit entrance. SO, it you use NX, then you don't need the 2" experimental. chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Isablcorky(at)aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA Reg Pieters, Would someone in the know please give me the identity of the Regulation that allows the use of X in lieu of the EXPERIMENTAL on aircraft numbers. Corky in La trying to get as much covering done BEFORE our usual humility settles in. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: FAA Reg
Chris, What are the dimensions and locations for the big numbers on the wing panels if we want to look authentic? Greg Cardinal >>> bobka(at)charter.net 05/22/02 09:07AM >>> Corky, It is section 45. 45.22 says that you can use an x after the n if you are registering an experimental. then 45.23 (b) says that if you use only an N on an experimental (without the X) then you MUST put the word EXPERIMENTAL in 2 inch letters near the cabin or cockpit entrance. SO, it you use NX, then you don't need the 2" experimental. chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Isablcorky(at)aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA Reg Pieters, Would someone in the know please give me the identity of the Regulation that allows the use of X in lieu of the EXPERIMENTAL on aircraft numbers. Corky in La trying to get as much covering done BEFORE our usual humility settles in. = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 22, 2002
what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones be longer than the front or vice versa. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Brazing
Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this is fun! I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish I'd started on this end of things sooner. One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 22, 2002
Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. Not sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: J-3 struts on ebay
Date: May 22, 2002
Hi all, thought some of you may wish to know that there is a pair of J-3 struts (front & rear) on ebay right now. may be a good chance to get a set of struts for super cheap! I have my struts already but I know some of you still need them here's the link http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/ebayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1830386890&r=0 &t=0 DJ Vegh www.raptoronline.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ric Ryburn" <ric(at)srclink.net>
Subject: FAA Reg
Date: May 22, 2002
OK, let's get this one straight... Below see the regs, in their entirety, but first, the discussion. How is all this interpreted? Every GADO and FSDO that I've ever worked with say this: Even if you DO have the "NX" number displayed, you STILL must have the 2" "EXPERIMENTAL" on display where it is visible to each occupant entering the aircraft. Why? Several reasons, probably, but I imagine it comes down to these. "Gonna fly it in a movie?" or "It isn't an OLD airplane, you just built it" (Yep, it IS the same "external configuration" as Bernies originals, but they don't care) or else it's classic CYA... you may know more about this particular reg than the FAA rep that shows up to sign off your airplane.... but, legally, his is the final word. Remember, the 2" EXPERIMENTAL doesn't have to be on the OUTSIDE of the airplane... just visible to anyone that enters the airplane. Also, in any 2 seat airplane, like a Piet, remember that you have to have the "Passenger Warning" placard installed where it is in clear view of any passenger. A couple of quick tips... Go ahead and put the "EXPERIMENTAL" sign, somewhere, where it's visible.... it'll save an almost certain delay when the Friendly FAA Fellow shows up to sign off your airplane. Never tell the Friendly FAA Fellow that he's wrong, or you'll have a lengthy delay before the first flight. If you're absolutely certain that the Friendly FAA Fellow is wrong.... DON'T go over his head to his supervisor at the station, or, even worse, to Washington... or you'll probably be converting the Piet into a doghouse. Remember, when in doubt, be conservative.... and.... the Feds usually win. :) Ric Ryburn Technical Research/Maintenance Support Specialist/Aircraft Maintenance Technician Piedmont-Hawthorne Aviation Norfolk, VA The regs follow: Here is ALL of 45.22 45.22 Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules. (a) When display of aircraft nationality and registration marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 would be inconsistent with exhibition of that aircraft, a U.S.-registered aircraft may be operated without displaying those marks anywhere on the aircraft if: (1) It is operated for the purpose of exhibition, including a motion picture or television production, or an airshow; (2) Except for practice and test fights necessary for exhibition purposes, it is operated only at the location of the exhibition, between the exhibition locations, and between those locations and the base of operations of the aircraft; and (3) For each flight in the United States: (i) It is operated with the prior approval of the Flight Standards District Office, in the case of a flight within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for the takeoff airport, or within 4.4 nautical miles of that airport if it is within Class G airspace; or (ii) It is operated under a flight plan filed under either 91.153 or 91.169 of this chapter describing the marks it displays, in the case of any other flight. (b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if: (1) It displays in accordance with 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" followed by: (i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or (ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft ("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and (2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) No person may operate an aircraft under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section -- (1) In an ADIZ or DEWIZ described in Part 99 of this chapter unless it temporarily bears marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33; (2) In a foreign country unless that country consents to that operation; or (3) In any operation conducted under Part 121, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter. (d) If, due to the configuration of an aircraft, it is impossible for a person to mark it in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33, he may apply to the Administrator for a different marking procedure. [Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45-5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 45-13, 46 FR 48603, Oct. 1, 1981; Amdt. 45-19, 54 FR 39291, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 45-18, 54 FR 34330, Aug. 18, 1989; Amdt. 45-21, 56 FR 65653, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 45-22, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001] And now, for 45.23 45.23 Display of marks; general. (a) Each operator of an aircraft shall display on that aircraft marks consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" (denoting United States registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. Each suffix letter used in the marks displayed must also be a Roman capital letter. (b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words "limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as the case may be. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: FAA Reg
Date: May 22, 2002
Ric, You might think so but the reg is the reg and many an FAA has been embarrassed by not knowing his own rules. Any EAA tech counselor like myself knows the rules pertaining to homebuilts as well as anyone else. Start looking for the NXs at the flyins and note the lack of the experimental. chris bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ric Ryburn Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: FAA Reg OK, let's get this one straight... Below see the regs, in their entirety, but first, the discussion. How is all this interpreted? Every GADO and FSDO that I've ever worked with say this: Even if you DO have the "NX" number displayed, you STILL must have the 2" "EXPERIMENTAL" on display where it is visible to each occupant entering the aircraft. Why? Several reasons, probably, but I imagine it comes down to these. "Gonna fly it in a movie?" or "It isn't an OLD airplane, you just built it" (Yep, it IS the same "external configuration" as Bernies originals, but they don't care) or else it's classic CYA... you may know more about this particular reg than the FAA rep that shows up to sign off your airplane.... but, legally, his is the final word. Remember, the 2" EXPERIMENTAL doesn't have to be on the OUTSIDE of the airplane... just visible to anyone that enters the airplane. Also, in any 2 seat airplane, like a Piet, remember that you have to have the "Passenger Warning" placard installed where it is in clear view of any passenger. A couple of quick tips... Go ahead and put the "EXPERIMENTAL" sign, somewhere, where it's visible.... it'll save an almost certain delay when the Friendly FAA Fellow shows up to sign off your airplane. Never tell the Friendly FAA Fellow that he's wrong, or you'll have a lengthy delay before the first flight. If you're absolutely certain that the Friendly FAA Fellow is wrong.... DON'T go over his head to his supervisor at the station, or, even worse, to Washington... or you'll probably be converting the Piet into a doghouse. Remember, when in doubt, be conservative.... and.... the Feds usually win. :) Ric Ryburn Technical Research/Maintenance Support Specialist/Aircraft Maintenance Technician Piedmont-Hawthorne Aviation Norfolk, VA The regs follow: Here is ALL of 45.22 45.22 Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules. (a) When display of aircraft nationality and registration marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 would be inconsistent with exhibition of that aircraft, a U.S.-registered aircraft may be operated without displaying those marks anywhere on the aircraft if: (1) It is operated for the purpose of exhibition, including a motion picture or television production, or an airshow; (2) Except for practice and test fights necessary for exhibition purposes, it is operated only at the location of the exhibition, between the exhibition locations, and between those locations and the base of operations of the aircraft; and (3) For each flight in the United States: (i) It is operated with the prior approval of the Flight Standards District Office, in the case of a flight within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for the takeoff airport, or within 4.4 nautical miles of that airport if it is within Class G airspace; or (ii) It is operated under a flight plan filed under either 91.153 or 91.169 of this chapter describing the marks it displays, in the case of any other flight. (b) A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under 21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if: (1) It displays in accordance with 45.21(c) marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" followed by: (i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or (ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft ("C", standard; "R", restricted; "L", limited; or "X", experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and (2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter "N" anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. (c) No person may operate an aircraft under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section -- (1) In an ADIZ or DEWIZ described in Part 99 of this chapter unless it temporarily bears marks in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33; (2) In a foreign country unless that country consents to that operation; or (3) In any operation conducted under Part 121, 133, 135, or 137 of this chapter. (d) If, due to the configuration of an aircraft, it is impossible for a person to mark it in accordance with 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33, he may apply to the Administrator for a different marking procedure. [Doc. No. 8093, Amdt. 45-5, 33 FR 450, Jan. 12, 1968, as amended by Amdt. 45-13, 46 FR 48603, Oct. 1, 1981; Amdt. 45-19, 54 FR 39291, Sept. 25, 1989; Amdt. 45-18, 54 FR 34330, Aug. 18, 1989; Amdt. 45-21, 56 FR 65653, Dec. 17, 1991; Amdt. 45-22, 66 FR 21066, Apr. 27, 2001] And now, for 45.23 45.23 Display of marks; general. (a) Each operator of an aircraft shall display on that aircraft marks consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" (denoting United States registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. Each suffix letter used in the marks displayed must also be a Roman capital letter. (b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words "limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as the case may be. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Brazing
Date: May 22, 2002
I thought we pounded through this a while back...if it is 4130 no brazing allowed.... chris bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry Neal Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brazing Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this is fun! I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish I'd started on this end of things sooner. One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: FAA Reg
Date: May 22, 2002
45.23 Display of marks; general. (a) Each operator of an aircraft shall display on that aircraft marks consisting of the Roman capital letter "N" (denoting United States registration) followed by the registration number of the aircraft. Each suffix letter used in the marks displayed must also be a Roman capital letter. (b) When marks that include only the Roman capital letter "N" and the registration number are displayed on limited or restricted category aircraft or experimental or provisionally certificated aircraft, the operator shall also display on that aircraft near each entrance to the cabin or cockpit, in letters not less than 2 inches nor more than 6 inches in height, the words "limited," "restricted," "experimental," or "provisional airworthiness," as the case may be. Cy Galley Editor, EAA Safety Programs cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: FAA Reg Corky, It is section 45. 45.22 says that you can use an x after the n if you are registering an experimental. then 45.23 (b) says that if you use only an N on an experimental (without the X) then you MUST put the word EXPERIMENTAL in 2 inch letters near the cabin or cockpit entrance. SO, it you use NX, then you don't need the 2" experimental. chris -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Isablcorky(at)aol.com Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA Reg Pieters, Would someone in the know please give me the identity of the Regulation that allows the use of X in lieu of the EXPERIMENTAL on aircraft numbers. Corky in La trying to get as much covering done BEFORE our usual humility settles in. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
Subject: Re: FAA Reg
From: John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)charter.net>
Chris is correct. If the DAR or Corky's FedMan is in doubt, have a copy of the reg handy. It is the final rule. I know of several who when faced with this very situation have stated "they did not know that" and the NX, as stated, has stood (stated has stood? where be my Englich). -john- > > Ric, > > You might think so but the reg is the reg and many an FAA has been > embarrassed by not knowing his own rules. Any EAA tech counselor like > myself knows the rules pertaining to homebuilts as well as anyone else. > Start looking for the NXs at the flyins and note the lack of the > experimental. > > chris bobka > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
Subject: Re: Brazing
From: "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com>
I hope you are not brazing 4130 . Dale Mpls ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Brazing
Date: May 22, 2002
Larry, Yeah, it seems that on the old steel tubing it was great. But if you're using chromoly, the braze isn't compatible with either the chromium or the molibdenum, I forget which. Seems to be common knowledge out there. Thats one of the first things my mentor told me while looking over my new plans. one of the things that pushed me to learn Oxy-Acet. welding, and I'm glad I did. A few on this list are really good on the metalurgy , and posted some really good notes on this. Check the archives. walt NX140DL ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Brazing > > I thought we pounded through this a while back...if it is 4130 no brazing > allowed.... > > chris bobka > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry > Neal > To: piet list > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brazing > > > Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this > is fun! > I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night > made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish > I'd started on this end of things sooner. > One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a > bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? > > Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2002
Subject: Re: Brazing
In a message dated 5/22/02 9:58:55 AM Pacific Daylight Time, llneal2(at)earthlink.net writes: > Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this > is fun! > I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night > made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish > I'd started on this end of things sooner. > One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a > bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? > > Larry > > Larry, Boiling water will remove the flux. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: J-3 struts on ebay
Date: May 22, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: J-3 struts on ebay > > Hi all, > > thought some of you may wish to know that there is a pair of J-3 struts > (front & rear) on ebay right now. may be a good chance to get a set of > struts for super cheap! +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pieters, There was and AD on Cub struts a few years ago due to corrosion. Before bidding on these, you might check this out and see if these struts comply. I do understand, however, that one might cut the ends off and the center that is left is still long enough for a Piet. John +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Gdascomb(at)aol.com
Date: May 22, 2002
Subject: Fuselage braces
How are the 1/2 x 1 fuse braces aft of the rear seat orientated ? Is the 1" vertical or horizontal? Either way looks OK to me. Thanks for any help. George ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 22, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Brazing
Chris, I must have missed this discussion during one of my work induced off-list comas. Jeez, yes, I've just done up every braze in the ship with 4130, #@$% &! I'll go back and search the archives, so everyone doesn't have to repeat it to me, but I'll bet it's a metal chemical reaction and I've got to scrap everything. Like most of us trying to do a good job, the 4130 selection is a natural and seems right when faced with the choice of old gas pipe or broomsticks. I'm going to start a list of suggestions for Don P. I think this should be close to the top. Damn, Damn, Rats! But thanks Chris, Dale, Walt, Doug, et al for the quick heads-up. Larry (Throwing tools and swearing are an important part of the homebuilding process...) Christian Bobka wrote: > >I thought we pounded through this a while back...if it is 4130 no brazing >allowed.... > >chris bobka > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry >Neal >To: piet list >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brazing > > >Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this >is fun! >I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night >made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish >I'd started on this end of things sooner. >One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a >bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? > >Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ric Ryburn" <ric(at)srclink.net>
Subject: FAA Reg
Date: May 23, 2002
>Ric, >Start looking for the NXs at the flyins and note the lack of the >experimental. > >chris bobka Yep, you're right... I've seen it a lot. I've also been involved in building about a dozen homebuilts, and have worked in the industry, off and on, since the 70s. Yep, the reg is the reg. But the FAA employee on the scene is the interpretation of the reg you have to worry about. Yes, you can certainly show it to the Friendly FAA Fellow when he's there. And he can certainly find 143 problems with your airplane that need to be rectified before he'll hand over the AW. Next time I'm back in my old neck of the woods, I'll take a picture of the $25,000 planter. It took the guy 10 years to build, and started life as an airplane. Never got it licensed. I work in a Part 145 repair station. Truth is, most of the people that we deal with every day that work for the FAA are extremely friendly, helpful and courteous. Another truth is that many in the FAA don't like homebuilts. It's unfortunate, but true. Fortunately, we have advocacy groups on our side. The EAA keeps the FAA largely off of our backs, and has done wonders for helping to prevent some very BAD policies from going into effect over the years, and has gotten some other changed. Unfortunately, there are also other advocacy groups, such as PAMA, the various business aviation groups, and the airlines, that have more clout, that don't like homebuilts, for various reasons. Good bet is to actually talk to YOUR local FAA guys, and ask the ones who'll be doing your inspection what THEIR take is on it. Get it in writing, and carry it in the aircraft. That way, if you get ramp checked, you can show that he blessed it. The only point to my post was that it's easy to satisfy even the most nit-picky inspector without ruining the pretty paint job. And it's real cheap insurance. Your mileage may vary. :) Me, I'm putting the "Experimental" on mine. Ric (Currently planning TWO projects... Corby Starlet and Air Camper) (And yes... I LIKE wooden airplanes with car engines. :) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Brazing
Date: May 23, 2002
Steve Wittman I believe Brazed the tail feathers on his tailwind. I could be wrong so I am sending this message on to the tailwind group. Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Larry Neal" <llneal2(at)earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brazing Chris, I must have missed this discussion during one of my work induced off-list comas. Jeez, yes, I've just done up every braze in the ship with 4130, #@$% &! I'll go back and search the archives, so everyone doesn't have to repeat it to me, but I'll bet it's a metal chemical reaction and I've got to scrap everything. Like most of us trying to do a good job, the 4130 selection is a natural and seems right when faced with the choice of old gas pipe or broomsticks. I'm going to start a list of suggestions for Don P. I think this should be close to the top. Damn, Damn, Rats! But thanks Chris, Dale, Walt, Doug, et al for the quick heads-up. Larry (Throwing tools and swearing are an important part of the homebuilding process...) Christian Bobka wrote: > >I thought we pounded through this a while back...if it is 4130 no brazing >allowed.... > >chris bobka > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com >[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Larry >Neal >To: piet list >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brazing > > >Well, I didn't have any trouble remembering how to braze, in fact this >is fun! >I put together my control tube a couple of weeks back and last night >made up the elevator bell crank. It was easier than it looks, I wish >I'd started on this end of things sooner. >One question though, my brazing rod leaves a glass-like slag that's a >bear to get off afterwards. Does anyone have any tips on how to remove it? > >Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2002
From: Mpj01(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: rudder pedals
hi, I've thought of a similar set up.... as long as you're sending photos thanks mike mpj01(at)aol.com ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 23, 2002
From: Steven Schaefer <srs1(at)techline.com>
Subject: Stiffener Dims?
I think that stiffener dim is because el maestro needed room for His vacuum tube radio! Steve in WA ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com>
Subject: Turnbuckles
Date: May 23, 2002
Pieters, What size are the turnbuckles used in the control system, cross braces, and wing drag wires. The plans call for 326SF but I couldn't find that size listed in the Aircraft Spruce catalog. The closest I can find is the AN 130 listed on page 135 of their latest catalog. I just want to make sure I'm ordering the correct ones before spending a small fortune. Has anyone found a different (read less expensive) source for these? I'm figuring I'll need at least 20 turnbuckles. I've also been checking eBay but haven't found any yet. Sam Marinucci NX115SM (reserved number) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Plywood in SW FLA
Date: May 23, 2002
Does anyone know of anyone who sells 1/16" marine or aircraft plywood in SW FL? Like Tampa or south? Also, is 1/16 Okume going to work for the leading edge? I know it is light, but does it have the strength? Anyone used it? Thanks, Ted Brousseau Naples, FL ________________________________________________________________________________
From: flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.)
Date: May 24, 2002
Subject: obsolesence
I'm sorry if this offends anyone on this list but something needs to be done about the obsolete contents of the Pietenpol plans if this design is expected to live into the future, The simplicity of the Piet lures first time builders and yet the plans call for brazing of steels which are long since obsolete and materials which no longer exist. We have our own people thrilled about how well their brazing skills are only to find out they have to throw their crafts in the scrap pile myself included. We have builders wondering what the hell a #326 turnbuckle is or a # 1667 streamline tubing or 14 gauge hard wire. I for one am very tired of building parts to the plans only to find from the list that they are no good even though they are perfect according to the plans I'm working from. I would gladly pay twice the money up front for a set of updated plans than to keep throwing my hard fought work in the scrap pile. Very few Piet builders have local mentors that can help them avoid the known pitfalls of building a Piet. Why did I pay good money for obsolete plans?. There is not one steel part on my Piet so far that I have not made at least twice. Something needs to be done to bring the Piet plans up to where a novice bullder can build a Pietenpol from the plans.I have been in contact with other Piet builders and I'm not the only one with this opinion. I really feel that it's time to put pressure on the people who are selling the Pietenpol plans to bring them up to todays standards. Again if this offends anyone I appologize but I'm a first time builder and this crap gets really frustrating. Ed G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: May 24, 2002
Subject: Re: Brazing
In a message dated 5/23/02 8:09:29 AM Central Daylight Time, cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes: << Steve Wittman I believe Brazed the tail feathers on his tailwind. I could be wrong so I am sending this message on to the tailwind group. >> This is correct. I got a case of builders withdrawl, and have started building a W10. The Tailwind plans call for braizing 1 1/8" X .025" stainless steel trailing edges to the 4130 tubing on the tail, as well as the ailerons and flaps. The plans also specifically call out braizing the channel, in the tail section, to the tubing. All tubing in the plans call out 4130 steel. Everything else is welded, preferably oxy / accy weld. Chuck Gantzer NX770CG Still waiting for my next sojourn in the sky. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol airfoil properties
Yes he did, one and one only. A picture of it appears in the Sport Aviation Assoc. magazine, issue summer 2001. Four piet articles in this one including a very nice restoration of a 1928 piet built from a kit supplied by Bernard himself. www.sportaviation.org . Unfortunately this issue doesn't appear to have been uploaded as a number of others have. As for underslung rads, the definitive installation is the P51. this system consists of a small inlet, enlarging greatly inside the fuselage to slow down the airflow through the large rad. then reducing to a small outlet in the rear. A rad on the nose right behind the prop suffers from prop air pulsing with the passage of each prop blade going past it and has to be larger because of this. I think the plane you're refering to is Jim Malley's. Definitely a beauty with all that burnished aluminum and varnished wood. On his first flight he suffered overheating and had to install a supplimentary rad between the gear legs. The Kitplanes issue is July 1992. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol airfoil properties > > Kip Gardner pointed out: > > > I have an old copy of KitPlanes that has a picture of a Piet with the > > radiator up front, like on a Model A (the car). The prop shaft goes > through > > the radiator. > > There have been Piets as well in which the radiator was mounted under the > engine, tilted to minimize the vertical size, with air ducted through it and > exiting the bottom of the cowl. The radiator itself was half as high as > usual > and with two layers. Can't remember whether the water ran through them > in parallel or in series. I believe The Master himself built one such, but > you've already seen what my memory is like. No idea whether it worked > well enough, or whether the improved visibility was useful enough, to > justify going to all the work. > > Owen Davies > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Subject: Piet plans
Date: May 24, 2002
NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane from old plans......it's cool. I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have not been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education (which is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite fit. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those who aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with their own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find another outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of building an airplane. The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their peculiarities and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and feel closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want everything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for you whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave the plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on the site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right here. Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, you'll see. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: obsolesence
--- "Ed G." wrote: > flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.) > > I'm sorry if this offends anyone on this list but > something needs to be > done about the obsolete contents of the Pietenpol > plans if this design > is expected to live into the future, The simplicity > of the Piet lures > first time builders and yet the plans call for > brazing of steels which > are long since obsolete and materials which no > longer exist. I was also dissapointed when I first got the plans, and I agree to a point that it could be better if some things where updated in the plans. but I overcame it by making it a part of the experience to subscribe to this list, read every book I could get my hands on, and go look at every piet I could. I love to learn and I've learned tons from people like Michael Cuy(order his tape, its invaluable) and others on this list. you can make the plane using the same materials that bernard did, they are still in everyday use, and you can braze them. but the nice part is that the you can substitute todays aircraft materials and excepted methods and have a safer plane then what bernard had. In the end I have had a positive experience with those old plans. and have not scrapped one part yet, because I went and got the whole learning experience rather than just looked at the plans. hang in there Del http://launch.yahoo.com ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Fw: re brazed tubes on Tailwinds.
Date: May 24, 2002
As promised! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Steele" <jcsteele(at)ripnet.com> Subject: re brazed tubes on Tailwinds. Cy, I saw your message on the Tailwind news site and did not see anyone respond, so after looking at my W10 drawings, the only brazing is done where light metal channel is brazed to the u shaped stainless steel trailing edge on the rudder, the elevators, and I believe on the ailerons. Steve always said that the powers that be don't like to see the brazing used, but if you do not use very much heat, the quality of the metals don't change.. Also trying to weld thin steel U channel to stainless or even to 4130 is extremely difficult Safe flights, Jack Steele Tailwind W8 C-FSNY ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Turnbuckles
Date: May 24, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Turnbuckles > > Pieters, > What size are the turnbuckles used in the control system, cross > braces, and wing drag wires. The plans call for 326SF but I couldn't find > that size listed in the Aircraft Spruce catalog. The closest I can find is > the AN 130 listed on page 135 of their latest catalog. I just want to make > sure I'm ordering the correct ones before spending a small fortune. Has > anyone found a different (read less expensive) source for these? I'm > figuring I'll need at least 20 turnbuckles. I've also been checking eBay but > haven't found any yet. > Sam Marinucci > NX115SM (reserved number) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Sam, I also was unable to correlate the size turnbuckles called for in the plans, rather simply decided to look at the cable sizes required and then find turnbuckles and fittings that were right for the size of the cables. Instead of puchasing new turnbuckles, which as you know will cost a small fortune, why don't you contact B&B Aircraft Supplies at (913) 884-5930, in Kansas? They carry a lot of used stuff including turnbuckles at about half the cost at Aircraft Spruce. You will have to specify the component parts of what you want but you can do this by referring to the Aircraft Spruce catalog. Good Luck, John Dilatush NX114D, just finishing up the lift struts Salida, CO > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Piet plans
Date: May 24, 2002
Ok so I was a annoyed To hear that ANOTHER Piet builder had to scrap his control tube because he brazed it according to the plans. Everyone says do your homework and avoid the pitfalls.They also say stick to the plans. Well I'll tell you what, I have read everything I can find on brazing and chomemoly and I have found nothing in writing that states that it can't or shouldn't be done. I even bought an aircraft welding book just for that reason. Not a word. I borrowed a 1000+ page welding text book, nothing.Tony Bingelis, nothing. Acceptable practices,guess what.I spoke with our Welding instructor who used to weld jet turbines all he said is why use a high strength steel with a weaker joint material(he did mumble something about the chrome). So what would be so wrong with a small notation in the plans. How much time is involved in ordering material and building a new control tube, time that could be put towards the next step in building. My fuselage is on it's gear and it's awesome, It has been a great and rewarding learning experience. I still feel that if 4130 is the accepted aircraft steel of today and it's not acceptable to braze it then the plans shouldn't show a braze or there should be a notation. And I would also really like to know how many Piets and other homebuilts have been flying for many years with brazed 4130 parts in them without any problems. The stuff brazes beautifully and the brazes I did before hearing about this on the list are as strong as any others that I've done on mild steel. So is brazing 4130 a REAL problem or is it someones theory that it shouldn't work. I'm not trying to be argumentive but when someone wrote to Larry Neal "I hope you're not brazing 4130" last week it really rang my bell. Because he missed some E-mails he might have done something potentially dangerous because he was following the plans. Respectfully Ed G. >From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans >Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:19:02 -0400 > > >NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane >from old plans......it's cool. > >I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common >sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have no>t been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education (whi>ch is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). > > I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite fi>t. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those who> aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with their> own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find anothe>r outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of buildi>ng an airplane. > >The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their peculiarit>ies and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and fe>el closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want eve>rything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for you> whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. > >My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave t>he plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on th>e site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right her>e. > >Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, you>'ll see. > > >Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Piet plans - AC 43.13
Date: May 24, 2002
When in doubt - refer to FAA AC-43.13 manual. DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > > > Ok so I was a annoyed To hear that ANOTHER Piet builder had to scrap his > control tube because he brazed it according to the plans. Everyone says do > your homework and avoid the pitfalls.They also say stick to the plans. Well > I'll tell you what, I have read everything I can find on brazing and > chomemoly and I have found nothing in writing that states that it can't or > shouldn't be done. I even bought an aircraft welding book just for that > reason. Not a word. I borrowed a 1000+ page welding text book, nothing.Tony > Bingelis, nothing. Acceptable practices,guess what.I spoke with our Welding > instructor who used to weld jet turbines all he said is why use a high > strength steel with a weaker joint material(he did mumble something about > the chrome). So what would be so wrong with a small notation in the plans. > How much time is involved in ordering material and building a new control > tube, time that could be put towards the next step in building. My fuselage > is on it's gear and it's awesome, It has been a great and rewarding learning > experience. I still feel that if 4130 is the accepted aircraft steel of > today and it's not acceptable to braze it then the plans shouldn't show a > braze or there should be a notation. And I would also really like to know > how many Piets and other homebuilts have been flying for many years with > brazed 4130 parts in them without any problems. The stuff brazes beautifully > and the brazes I did before hearing about this on the list are as strong as > any others that I've done on mild steel. So is brazing 4130 a REAL problem > or is it someones theory that it shouldn't work. I'm not trying to be > argumentive but when someone wrote to > Larry Neal "I hope you're not brazing 4130" last week it really rang my > bell. Because he missed some E-mails he might have done something > potentially dangerous because he was following the plans. > > Respectfully Ed G. > > >From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > >Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:19:02 -0400 > > > > > >NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane > >from old plans......it's cool. > > > >I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common > >sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have no> >t been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education (whi> >ch is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). > > > > I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite fi> >t. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those who> > aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with their> > own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find anothe> >r outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of buildi> >ng an airplane. > > > >The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their peculiarit> >ies and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and fe> >el closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want eve> >rything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for you> > whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. > > > >My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave t> >he plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on th = > >e site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right her> >e. > > > >Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, you> >'ll see. > > > > > >Larry > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Piet plans - AC 43.13
Date: May 24, 2002
I just looked at great length. It doesn't address brazing directly. The only thing that is said is that do not use a brass wire brush to clean welds as included brass in a weld might cause cracks. It also says not to weld over previously brazed joints as they will be weaker. I have a call into EAA HG to check on this. ----- Original Message ----- From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans - AC 43.13 When in doubt - refer to FAA AC-43.13 manual. DJ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > > > Ok so I was a annoyed To hear that ANOTHER Piet builder had to scrap his > control tube because he brazed it according to the plans. Everyone says do > your homework and avoid the pitfalls.They also say stick to the plans. Well > I'll tell you what, I have read everything I can find on brazing and > chomemoly and I have found nothing in writing that states that it can't or > shouldn't be done. I even bought an aircraft welding book just for that > reason. Not a word. I borrowed a 1000+ page welding text book, nothing.Tony > Bingelis, nothing. Acceptable practices,guess what.I spoke with our Welding > instructor who used to weld jet turbines all he said is why use a high > strength steel with a weaker joint material(he did mumble something about > the chrome). So what would be so wrong with a small notation in the plans. > How much time is involved in ordering material and building a new control > tube, time that could be put towards the next step in building. My fuselage > is on it's gear and it's awesome, It has been a great and rewarding learning > experience. I still feel that if 4130 is the accepted aircraft steel of > today and it's not acceptable to braze it then the plans shouldn't show a > braze or there should be a notation. And I would also really like to know > how many Piets and other homebuilts have been flying for many years with > brazed 4130 parts in them without any problems. The stuff brazes beautifully > and the brazes I did before hearing about this on the list are as strong as > any others that I've done on mild steel. So is brazing 4130 a REAL problem > or is it someones theory that it shouldn't work. I'm not trying to be > argumentive but when someone wrote to > Larry Neal "I hope you're not brazing 4130" last week it really rang my > bell. Because he missed some E-mails he might have done something > potentially dangerous because he was following the plans. > > Respectfully Ed G. > > >From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > >To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > >Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:19:02 -0400 > > > > > >NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane > >from old plans......it's cool. > > > >I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common > >sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have no> >t been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education (whi> >ch is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). > > > > I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite fi> >t. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those who> > aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with their> > own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find anothe> >r outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of buildi> >ng an airplane. > > > >The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their peculiarit> >ies and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and fe> >el closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want eve> >rything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for you> > whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. > > > >My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave t> >he plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on th = > >e site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right her> >e. > > > >Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, you> >'ll see. > > > > > >Larry > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Fw: Brazing 4130
Date: May 24, 2002
This what I got from EAA. Cy Galley Editor, EAA Safety Programs cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Norris" <jnorris(at)eaa.org> Subject: RE: Brazing 4130 Cy, Just got off the phone with Richard Finch, and he said that it is definitely a BAD deal to braze 4130! The stuff will crack before your eyes, he says. On the Pietenpol, he said either build the airplane according to plans INCLUDING using 1020 steel tube (which is plenty strong enough and much cheaper) or don't braze if 4130 is used. That's the story!! Joe ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: Norm Decou <normdecou(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: soaking capstrips
Hi, We are getting ready to start building ribs. While making the rib jig I soaked some pine for 16 hrs in an ABS tube, so that it could be bent for the outside profile of the jig. I had marginal success when I tried to bend it in my bending jig. Before we start using our good sitka spruce capstrips, we were hoping that someone might be able to tell us how long they soaked their 1/2 x 1/4 capstrip. We are hoping to get a minimum and maximum soaking time(ie soak for at least 8hrs but never longer than 2 days). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Again, Norm and Adrienne Decou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Norm, I steamed mine for two hours, this worked well for me. Others soak in hot water overnight. Believe it or not though, you can just patiently bend them by hand and that works too! I questioned this and then tried it for myself, no problems. Just make your jig sturdy enough to hold the wood in bent position and once the glue sets, you're out of the woods. Try cutting a test piece of capstrip and bending slowly, If you're not happy with the results try the hot water next. If you want to steam, I wrote up a description of building my steamer that should be searchable in the archives. Larry Norm Decou wrote: > >Hi, >We are getting ready to start building ribs. While making the rib jig I >soaked some pine for 16 hrs in an ABS tube, so that it could be bent for >the outside profile of the jig. I had marginal success when I tried to >bend it in my bending jig. Before we start using our good sitka spruce >capstrips, we were hoping that someone might be able to tell us how long >they soaked their 1/2 x 1/4 capstrip. We are hoping to get a minimum >and maximum soaking time(ie soak for at least 8hrs but never longer than >2 days). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. >Thanks Again, >Norm and Adrienne Decou > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net>
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Date: May 24, 2002
Norm, I had really good luck using a 2 inch iron pipe with a plug on the bottom and heating about 12 inches of water in the tube to boiling for about 15 minutes. The strips bent very easy and stiffened up as soon as they cooled. My bending jig was cut out of a 4 by 4 as per the BPNews letter. No problems, no splitting and no rejects. I don't know what you have planned for the ABS, but the secret appears to be hot water. Good luck, -=Ian=- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Brazing
> >Chris, > >I must have missed this discussion during one of my work induced >off-list comas. >Jeez, yes, I've just done up every braze in the ship with 4130, #@$% &! > >I'll go back and search the archives, so everyone doesn't have to repeat >it to me, but I'll bet it's a metal chemical reaction and I've got to >scrap everything. > >Like most of us trying to do a good job, the 4130 selection is a natural >and seems right when faced with the choice of old gas pipe or >broomsticks. I'm going to start a list of suggestions for Don P. I >think this should be close to the top. > >Damn, Damn, Rats! Larry, Bummer! I remember the earlier discussion very well, about a year ago. Chris posted an excerpt from Richard Finch's book that expained the reason it won't work, so if you are inclined, I'm sure you can find it in the archive. My condolences. My wife says that every guy has at least one 'dammit' in his toolbox, sounds like yours is getting a workout. Kip Gardner (whose 'dammit' will probably be out sooner or later) 426 Schneider St. SE North Canton, OH 44720 (330) 494-1775 ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kent Hallsten" <hallstenokc(at)cox.net>
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Date: May 24, 2002
I steam my western red cedar for about 20 - 30 minutes , and it goes into the bending jig easy, with gentle pressure. Kent Hallsten ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lou Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Date: May 24, 2002
For what it worth, I just took a 5 gallon bucket full of water and stuck 2 or 3 cap strips in it and let them soak. was doind a rib a day and when I took one out I'd put another one in. So I guess they averaged a day or two in the water. No problems; let them stay in the bending form for about a day, then stuck them in the jig. My cap strips were 1/4 x 1/2 doug fir. I know a guy that built a Falco and he just tossed his sticks in the swimming pool. Its not a real hi-tech deal. Keep at it, its FUN!! Lou Larsen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norm Decou" <normdecou(at)sympatico.ca> Subject: Pietenpol-List: soaking capstrips > > Hi, > We are getting ready to start building ribs. While making the rib jig I > soaked some pine for 16 hrs in an ABS tube, so that it could be bent for > the outside profile of the jig. I had marginal success when I tried to > bend it in my bending jig. Before we start using our good sitka spruce > capstrips, we were hoping that someone might be able to tell us how long > they soaked their 1/2 x 1/4 capstrip. We are hoping to get a minimum > and maximum soaking time(ie soak for at least 8hrs but never longer than > 2 days). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks Again, > Norm and Adrienne Decou > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Piet plans
Date: May 24, 2002
Larry, I'm not sure I agree with you. In todays times, with the litigation-happy population we have, I wonder if a simple disclaimer by the Pietenpol folks on the plans would be appropriate, It could basically say that the plans are drawn and the design was based on materials and techniques commonly available and used in 1930 and that due diligence should be performed to insure that the methods and techniques presented should be examined to make sure they conform with acceptable standards currently in use. I aint no lawyer but if I continued to make 100 bucks a pop off great granpa's 70 year old efforts, I would probably make an effort to either a) bring this thing into the 21st century or b) make damn sure a person who built it understood that they needed to pay REAL close attention to the plans before they launched a project. I think that part of the problem may be that the Piet has developed a reputation as being the simplest of the simple and all ya gotta do is buy some wood, glue it up and fly it. It's not really that simple - as we all know. Maybe you and I and others are able or willng to do years worth of research and ferrett out all these "inadequacies" before we build three of the same things, but some folks may not be able or willing to figure all this out. I've been especially disappointed with grega's plans - BAD. But I've been lucky enough to have some very experienced builders to follow around. I guess you and I may appreciate how "cool" building from original plans is, but I can empathize with someone who doesn't have the resources around them to help figure all this stuff out. So have you flown your plane any more? We need to see some pictures. Anyway, Best at ya. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > > NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane > from old plans......it's cool. > > I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common > sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have no> t been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education (whi> ch is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). > > I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite fi> t. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those who> aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with their> own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find anothe> r outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of buildi> ng an airplane. > > The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their peculiarit> ies and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and fe> el closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want eve> rything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for you> whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. > > My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave t> he plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on th> e site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right her> e. > > Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, you> 'll see. > > > Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Brazing
Kip, You're right! I'm going to stop by Home Depot and get myself a set of standard & metric dammits just to be ready! ;-) Larry Kip & Beth Gardner wrote: > > >> >>Chris, >> >>I must have missed this discussion during one of my work induced >>off-list comas. >>Jeez, yes, I've just done up every braze in the ship with 4130, #@$% &! >> >>I'll go back and search the archives, so everyone doesn't have to repeat >>it to me, but I'll bet it's a metal chemical reaction and I've got to >>scrap everything. >> >>Like most of us trying to do a good job, the 4130 selection is a natural >>and seems right when faced with the choice of old gas pipe or >>broomsticks. I'm going to start a list of suggestions for Don P. I >>think this should be close to the top. >> >>Damn, Damn, Rats! >> > >Larry, > >Bummer! I remember the earlier discussion very well, about a year ago. >Chris posted an excerpt from Richard Finch's book that expained the reason >it won't work, so if you are inclined, I'm sure you can find it in the >archive. My condolences. My wife says that every guy has at least one >'dammit' in his toolbox, sounds like yours is getting a workout. > >Kip Gardner (whose 'dammit' will probably be out sooner or later) > >426 Schneider St. SE >North Canton, OH 44720 >(330) 494-1775 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Date: May 24, 2002
Living in a high humidity area (north Florida) I had no problems bending capstrips. A wood's moisture content is a function of ambient relative humidity. There's some good info available on this. Even a way to check moisture content using a Fluke digital multi-meter. E-mail me off list and I can send anybody a copy if you want it. All I did was soak those things in the kiddie pool for about 30 mins. I figure this basically moistened the outer fibers. Dried them off and stuck em in a pre-bend jig overnight. Then put them in the jig the next day. Not the first broken or cracked capstrip. I'm not sure this would work in Arizona. Some of you that live in humid climates might want to at least try it. Have a nice holiday all. Lets remember our veterans... Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Holland" <iholland(at)telusplanet.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: soaking capstrips > > Norm, I had really good luck using a 2 inch iron pipe with a plug on > the bottom and heating about 12 inches of water in the tube to boiling > for about 15 minutes. The strips bent very easy and stiffened up as > soon as they cooled. My bending jig was cut out of a 4 by 4 as per the > BPNews letter. No problems, no splitting and no rejects. I don't know > what you have planned for the ABS, but the secret appears to be hot > water. Good luck, > -=Ian=- > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: soaking capstrips
Date: May 24, 2002
I don't know about you guys but I prefer the simpler approach. I soak mine in an ABS tube that is filled with water up to about 36" for about 25 minutes. I then "hung" it from one end with a 2" spring clamp on the other end. As it dried it sagged to the right shape. Within 1 hour it was dry and to the perfect shape. No special jigs or steamers required. Why fight it when you don't have to??? DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com N74DV -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lou Larsen Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: soaking capstrips For what it worth, I just took a 5 gallon bucket full of water and stuck 2 or 3 cap strips in it and let them soak. was doind a rib a day and when I took one out I'd put another one in. So I guess they averaged a day or two in the water. No problems; let them stay in the bending form for about a day, then stuck them in the jig. My cap strips were 1/4 x 1/2 doug fir. I know a guy that built a Falco and he just tossed his sticks in the swimming pool. Its not a real hi-tech deal. Keep at it, its FUN!! Lou Larsen ----- Original Message ----- From: "Norm Decou" <normdecou(at)sympatico.ca> Subject: Pietenpol-List: soaking capstrips > > Hi, > We are getting ready to start building ribs. While making the rib jig I > soaked some pine for 16 hrs in an ABS tube, so that it could be bent for > the outside profile of the jig. I had marginal success when I tried to > bend it in my bending jig. Before we start using our good sitka spruce > capstrips, we were hoping that someone might be able to tell us how long > they soaked their 1/2 x 1/4 capstrip. We are hoping to get a minimum > and maximum soaking time(ie soak for at least 8hrs but never longer than > 2 days). Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. > Thanks Again, > Norm and Adrienne Decou > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: JamesJboyer(at)aol.com
Date: May 25, 2002
Subject: Re: soaking capstrips
Hi, I soaked my cap strips for 30 minutes in hot water in a 3 foot length of ABC and they bent very well. Jim Boyer NX499JB ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 24, 2002
From: clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Piet plans - AC 43.13
Richard Finch, Performance Welding-- Do not braze chrome moly! "This steel has a definite grain structure that actualy opens up at medium-red brazing tempuratures. When brazing alloy is melted onto the steel surface, it flows easily into the many small cracks and crevasses in the chromemoly steel. Then, as the braze joint cools, the brass will not compress and it forces major cracks to form in the 4130 steel. Often, a brazed 4130 steel part will crack completely in two before your eyes as it cools. I have this and his auto engine conversion book. A great deal of useful info in both. I'm glad I spent my hard earned money on them. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans - AC 43.13 > > I just looked at great length. It doesn't address brazing directly. The > only thing that is said is that do not use a brass wire brush to clean welds > as included brass in a weld might cause cracks. It also says not to weld > over previously brazed joints as they will be weaker. I have a call into > EAA HG to check on this. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans - AC 43.13 > > > When in doubt - refer to FAA AC-43.13 manual. > > DJ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > > > > > > > > > Ok so I was a annoyed To hear that ANOTHER Piet builder had to scrap his > > control tube because he brazed it according to the plans. Everyone says do > > your homework and avoid the pitfalls.They also say stick to the plans. > Well > > I'll tell you what, I have read everything I can find on brazing and > > chomemoly and I have found nothing in writing that states that it can't or > > shouldn't be done. I even bought an aircraft welding book just for that > > reason. Not a word. I borrowed a 1000+ page welding text book, > nothing.Tony > > Bingelis, nothing. Acceptable practices,guess what.I spoke with our > Welding > > instructor who used to weld jet turbines all he said is why use a high > > strength steel with a weaker joint material(he did mumble something about > > the chrome). So what would be so wrong with a small notation in the plans. > > How much time is involved in ordering material and building a new control > > tube, time that could be put towards the next step in building. My > fuselage > > is on it's gear and it's awesome, It has been a great and rewarding > learning > > experience. I still feel that if 4130 is the accepted aircraft steel of > > today and it's not acceptable to braze it then the plans shouldn't show a > > braze or there should be a notation. And I would also really like to know > > how many Piets and other homebuilts have been flying for many years with > > brazed 4130 parts in them without any problems. The stuff brazes > beautifully > > and the brazes I did before hearing about this on the list are as strong > as > > any others that I've done on mild steel. So is brazing 4130 a REAL problem > > or is it someones theory that it shouldn't work. I'm not trying to be > > argumentive but when someone wrote to > > Larry Neal "I hope you're not brazing 4130" last week it really rang my > > bell. Because he missed some E-mails he might have done something > > potentially dangerous because he was following the plans. > > > > Respectfully Ed G. > > > > >From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> > > >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > >To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" > > >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet plans > > >Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 07:19:02 -0400 > > > > > > > > > >NOTHING needs to be "done" to the plans. You're building an old airplane > > >from old plans......it's cool. > > > > > >I'm a first-time builder without a "mentor". I have used my wits, common > > >sense, skills learned from other hobbies and the "obsolete" plans have > no> > >t been an obstacle. They have been part of the journey and education > (whi> > >ch is one of the stated goals of homebuilding). > > > > > > I now have a nice Piet and yes, some piles of parts that didn't quite > fi> > >t. Boy, did I learn a lot, and I'm better for it. I submit that those > who> > > aren't willing to do some research and be prepared to wrestle with > their> > > own shortcomings should pick another project........or maybe find > anothe> > >r outlet for their leisure time and discretionary money instead of > buildi> > >ng an airplane. > > > > > >The Piet plans are fine! Do a little digging to find out their > peculiarit> > >ies and nuances and you will be rewarded with a sense of tradition and > fe> > >el closer to your plane and the group when it's finished. If you want > eve> > >rything tied up in a neat and perfect package, homebuilding ain't for > you> > > whether you are building a Piet or any other plane from plans. > > > > > >My vote is to revel in the tradition of the entire experience and leave > t> > >he plans alone. If you have trouble deciphering some things, you're on th > > > >e site to get ALL your questions answered (and more, sometimes) right > her> > >e. > > > > > >Just hang in there, It'll all come together and be a beautiful thing, > you> > >'ll see. > > > > > > > > >Larry > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 24, 2002
Steve, 2 degrees incidence is what I have seen referred to. I think the rear cabane is supposed to be 1" shorter than the front. Mine are equal and the tail flys low and it won't flare well on landing. Ted Brousseau Naples, FL ----- Original Message ----- From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. Not > sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. > > On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing > > DJ > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> > To: > Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones > > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Re: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 25, 2002
Grega's plan page 7 calls for the rear cabane strut to be 3/4 of an inch longer than the front. DickG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > Steve, > > 2 degrees incidence is what I have seen referred to. I think the rear > cabane is supposed to be 1" shorter than the front. Mine are equal and the > tail flys low and it won't flare well on landing. > > Ted Brousseau > Naples, FL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. > Not > > sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. > > > > On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing > > > > DJ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> > > To: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > > > > > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > > > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones > > > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 25, 2002
From: Mike Hardaway <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Piet plans and Brazing
Don't jump to conclusions about bike frames. The most common brazed steel alloy tubing used in bike frames is Reynolds 531. Its metallurgy is very similar to 4130 EXCEPT for the removal of chromium and addition of manganese. In general, calling bike frame tubing "chromoly" is an adverising gimmick. Reynolds, Columbus and Tange bike frame tubes are specifically formulated for brazing. 4130 is specifically formulated for welding. Mike Hardaway catdesigns(at)juno.com wrote: > > My old Cro-Moly 10 speed bike frame is Brazed so is my friends old racing > frame and both are doing fine after some serious abuse. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: fuselage braces
Date: May 25, 2002
How are the 1/2 x 1 fuse braces aft of the rear seat orientated ? Is the 1" vertical or horizontal? Either way looks OK to me. Thanks for any help. George George... the fuse braces have the 1" in the horizontal, that way you get more gluing surface for the gussets Jeff Hill... putting the antique boat in the water today ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 25, 2002
remember.... the GN-1 has the spars in different locations than the Piet. Therefore, dimensions for the struts on the piet will NOT be the same as the dimensions for the Grega. As long as you have about 2 degrees AOI then all will be fine... whatever the dimension may be. DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> N74DV -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick and Marge Gillespie Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper Grega's plan page 7 calls for the rear cabane strut to be 3/4 of an inch longer than the front. DickG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > Steve, > > 2 degrees incidence is what I have seen referred to. I think the rear > cabane is supposed to be 1" shorter than the front. Mine are equal and the > tail flys low and it won't flare well on landing. > > Ted Brousseau > Naples, FL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. > Not > > sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. > > > > On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing > > > > DJ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> > > To: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > > > > > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > > > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones > > > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 25, 2002
Ted: I worked out the geometry on this when I built mine. Grega's plans call for the rear to be longer than the front ones. I think that this may be why the gregas seem to fly tail low (as you've told me). I built mineso that the rear cabane strut is the same length as the front. Then I measured the AOI with the center section in place. It comes out to about 1.6 degrees AOI if I remember correctly. I can dig up the calcs if anybody's really bored and wants to see them. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > Steve, > > 2 degrees incidence is what I have seen referred to. I think the rear > cabane is supposed to be 1" shorter than the front. Mine are equal and the > tail flys low and it won't flare well on landing. > > Ted Brousseau > Naples, FL > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. > Not > > sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. > > > > On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing > > > > DJ > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> > > To: > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > > > > > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > > > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back ones > > > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Maynard" <ken(at)polarcomm.com>
Subject: T-88 vs resin
Date: May 24, 2002
Pieters, T88 as the resin in fiberglass? Have any of you tried this? Would it make for a stronger or weaker fiberglass product? Ken ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Wayne McIntosh" <mcintosh3017(at)insightbb.com>
Subject: Re: T-88 vs resin
Date: May 25, 2002
Ken, I used T88 as the resin when I made my laminated Ash and fiberglass tailwheel spring. Regular epoxy resin made for structural fiberglass would be easier and lighter. The T88 is thick and it takes twice as long to wet the glass. The reason I used T88 was that I did not want to buy resin and only use the 4 or 5 ounces I needed and have the rest left over. The T88 works fine but is harder to work with for use with fiberglass cloth. Wayne McIntosh ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ken Maynard" <ken(at)polarcomm.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: T-88 vs resin > > Pieters, > T88 as the resin in fiberglass? Have any of you tried this? Would it > make for a stronger or weaker fiberglass product? > Ken > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2002
From: Norm Decou <normdecou(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: rib vetical braces
Hi, Thanks for all the great information on bending capstrip. I tried very hot water for about 1/2 an hour and it seems to be working well on the finger joint pine so I am sure that it will be effective on the capstrip. The plans (improved pietenpol aircamper plans) do no show vertical braces in front of the rear spar and directly behind the front spar. When I look at the full scale photocopy of the rib it appears to show a vertical piece of capstrip at these locations. My instinct is to stick with the plans as the spar and spruce wedge should take all of the load in this area. I thought I would ask about this as these verticals may be necessary for attachment. I also wanted to know what the photocopy was showing in these areas (gusset material). Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Again Norm & Adrienne Decou ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2002
From: Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: rib vetical braces
> >Hi, > Thanks for all the great information on bending capstrip. I tried >very hot water for about 1/2 an hour and it seems to be working well on >the finger joint pine so I am sure that it will be effective on the >capstrip. > The plans (improved pietenpol aircamper plans) do no show vertical >braces in front of the rear spar and directly behind the front spar. >When I look at the full scale photocopy of the rib it appears to show a >vertical piece of capstrip at these locations. My instinct is to stick >with the plans as the spar and spruce wedge should take all of the load >in this area. > I thought I would ask about this as these verticals may be necessary >for attachment. I also wanted to know what the photocopy was showing in >these areas (gusset material). Any input would be greatly appreciated. > >Thanks Again >Norm & Adrienne Decou Hi Norm, Those verticals are probably not necessary, but are one of the things that have 'evolved' over the years. I think the primary reason for them is to make jigging up the ribs they aren't really structural. They also give you a way to nail the rib to the spars without nailing through the top of your capstrip. It has been recommended several times on the list that you glue a small piece of spar material (1 inch, or 3/4 inch plus 1/8 inch doublers, depending on your spar setup)) on your jig at your front & rear locations so that you can be sure you have enough space between the verticals to get your ribs on the spars. I'm planning on using them & putting spar material on my jig in the correct locations. Cheers! Kip Gardner Larry - I didn't know that you could get metric 'dammits' - do you have a source? ;). 426 Schneider St. SE North Canton, OH 44720 (330) 494-1775 ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 26, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: rib vetical braces
Norm, I did not include the uprights, but I did screw short spar sections into place on my rib jig. From there, I used square gussets for the gussetting located in front and behind the front spar in the rib, both upper and lower in the construction to butt up against the spar sections. When I took the rib out of the jig to glue the opposite side gussets, I used a short piece of 1" material to locate them as well. This way when I build the wing, these gussets will locate the rib accurately for and aft against the spar. Larry (Purveyor of find Standard, Metric and Witworth Dammits. Available separately or in sets. Call for free catalogue ;-) Kip & Beth Gardner wrote: > > >> >>Hi, >> Thanks for all the great information on bending capstrip. I tried >>very hot water for about 1/2 an hour and it seems to be working well on >>the finger joint pine so I am sure that it will be effective on the >>capstrip. >> The plans (improved pietenpol aircamper plans) do no show vertical >>braces in front of the rear spar and directly behind the front spar. >>When I look at the full scale photocopy of the rib it appears to show a >>vertical piece of capstrip at these locations. My instinct is to stick >>with the plans as the spar and spruce wedge should take all of the load >>in this area. >> I thought I would ask about this as these verticals may be necessary >>for attachment. I also wanted to know what the photocopy was showing in >>these areas (gusset material). Any input would be greatly appreciated. >> >>Thanks Again >>Norm & Adrienne Decou >> > >Hi Norm, > >Those verticals are probably not necessary, but are one of the things that >have 'evolved' over the years. I think the primary reason for them is to >make jigging up the ribs they >aren't really structural. They also give you a way to nail the rib to the >spars without nailing through the top of your capstrip. It has been >recommended several times on the list that you glue a small piece of spar >material (1 inch, or 3/4 inch plus 1/8 inch doublers, depending on your >spar setup)) on your jig at your front & rear locations so that you can be >sure you have enough space between the verticals to get your ribs on the >spars. I'm planning on using them & putting spar material on my jig in the >correct locations. > >Cheers! > >Kip Gardner > >Larry - >I didn't know that you could get metric 'dammits' - do you have a source? ;). > >426 Schneider St. SE >North Canton, OH 44720 >(330) 494-1775 > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: May 27, 2002
Subject: Dacron
Pieters, Just a little note of info or caution. I initially ordered 36 yds of fabric to cover my Piet. It isn't enuff. Having to order an additional 5 yds. Might help someone avoid my error. Corky in La just a cover'in away ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2002
Subject: [ Skip Gadd ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: Skip Gadd Subject: Larry Williams' Pietenpol http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Skip.Gadd@ssa.gov.05.27.2002/index.html -------------------------------------------- o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE Share your files and photos with other List members simply by emailing the files to: pictures(at)matronics.com Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos. o Main Photo Share Index: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2002
Subject: [ Lawrence Williams ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: Lawrence Williams Subject: Pietenpol http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/lnawms@msn.com.05.27.2002/index.html -------------------------------------------- o EMAIL LIST PHOTO SHARE Share your files and photos with other List members simply by emailing the files to: pictures(at)matronics.com Please view the typical Share above and include the Description Text Fields as shown along with your submission of files and photos. o Main Photo Share Index: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare -------------------------------------------- ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: [ Lawrence Williams ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
Date: May 27, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: Email List Photo Shares To: Email List Photo Shares Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 3:03 PM Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Lawrence Williams ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! A new Email List Photo Share is available: Poster: Lawrence Williams Subject: Pietenpol http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/lnawms@msn.com.05.27.2002/index.html -------------------------------------------- Nice Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
"Email List Photo Shares"
Subject: Re: [ Skip Gadd ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
Date: May 27, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Skip Gadd ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! Great job Larry!! walt ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Subject: NX899LW
Date: May 27, 2002
Piet dudes- Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, controllable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Everything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good about this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plans. ;-) I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: NX899LW
Date: May 27, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: NX899LW > > Piet dudes- > Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the> same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, co> ntrollable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. > It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Ev> erything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good a> bout this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plan> s. ;-) > I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over> and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. > > Larry ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Way to go Larry!!!!!! Maybe I'll join you shortly, taking the plane out to the airport next week and putting together! John Dilatush NX114D Salida, CO ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: May 28, 2002
Subject: Re: NX899LW
In a message dated 5/27/02 9:19:18 PM Central Daylight Time, lnawms(at)msn.com writes: << Piet dudes- Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, co ntrollable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Ev erything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good a bout this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plan s. ;-) I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. Larry >> Congratulations Larry !! YEEEHHAAAWWW !!! What a rush !! Chuck Gantzer NX770CG p.s. who in tarnation is Gustav Whitehead ? ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 27, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: NX899LW
Congrats Larry. Wow! -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of LAWRENCE > WILLIAMS > Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 9:18 PM > To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server > Subject: Pietenpol-List: NX899LW > > > Piet dudes- > Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the> same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, co> ntrollable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. > It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Ev> erything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good a> bout this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plan> s. ;-) > I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over> and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. > > Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: NX899LW
Date: May 28, 2002
Congratulations Larry... Great pictures...Looks great!! Sounds like she flies sweet too. Ed G. >From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com >To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" >Subject: Pietenpol-List: NX899LW >Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:17:47 -0400 > > >Piet dudes- >Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the> same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, co>ntrollable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. > It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Ev>erything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good a>bout this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plan>s. ;-) >I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over> and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. > >Larry > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: May 28, 2002
Subject: Re: NX899LW
In a message dated 5/27/02 7:19:18 PM Pacific Daylight Time, lnawms(at)msn.com writes: > Piet dudes- > Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the> same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, co> ntrollable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. > It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Ev> erything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good a> bout this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plan> s. ;-) > I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over> and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. > > Larry, I have about 300 flights on mine and every one is just as exciting as the first. You'll see. Congratulations!!!!!! Pictures look good too. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper
Date: May 27, 2002
Bert, That sounds about right. I think the numbers on the GN-1 plans, calling for a shorter front cabane, is probably incorrect according to your calculations. You are still a little short of 2 degrees with equal lengths. Knowing how mine flys I would make my rear cabane shorter next time. Ted ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > Ted: I worked out the geometry on this when I built mine. Grega's plans > call for the rear to be longer than the front ones. I think that this may > be why the gregas seem to fly tail low (as you've told me). I built mineso > that the rear cabane strut is the same length as the front. Then I measured > the AOI with the center section in place. It comes out to about 1.6 degrees > AOI if I remember correctly. I can dig up the calcs if anybody's really > bored and wants to see them. > Bert > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > Steve, > > > > 2 degrees incidence is what I have seen referred to. I think the rear > > cabane is supposed to be 1" shorter than the front. Mine are equal and > the > > tail flys low and it won't flare well on landing. > > > > Ted Brousseau > > Naples, FL > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> > > To: > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > > > > Tonight I can measure my second GN-1 which has the cabane struts on it. > > Not > > > sure of the dimensions but I know they were done to plans. > > > > > > On my other GN 1 I plan on making them 2" longer to raise the wing > > > > > > DJ > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "vickie and steve" <vic_bs(at)bellsouth.net> > > > To: > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: center section strut lengths on gn1 aircamper > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what is the best center to center measurements for the front and rear > > > > center struts on the gn1 version of the aircamper. Should the back > ones > > > > be longer than the front or vice versa. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: NX899LW
Date: May 28, 2002
Congrats Larry! Nice to see another piet flying. Good to know yellow looks real good on these birds. I'm ready to start putting yellow and gray on mine real soon. Try not to have too much fun. Ha Ha. Carl L. 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 LAWRENCE WILLIAMS Subject: Pietenpol-List: NX899LW Piet dudes- Don't know if the list can stand two YIPPEE, YIPPEE, YAHOO letters in the same month but NX899LW committed aviation 27 May. Powered, sustained, controllable flight just like Gustav Whitehead back in 1901. It was MAGNIFICENT!! Control forces were of the "two finger" variety. Everything held together and the landing was silky. Can't say enough good about this old airplane with it's brazed fittings built from obsolete plans. ;-) I haven't come fully back to earth and I'm sure I'll be replaying it over and over until I can get back up again. Can't wait. Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Broadhead 2002
From: "" <genet(at)iwon.com>
Date: May 28, 2002
Pieter's, I just had to commit in writing on my vacation schedule for the American Flight Simulation shop and was un certian about the offical 2002 dates for Broadhead. I e-mailed Gar Williams and got a prompt reply staiting that Broadhead will be the 19th 20th and 21st of July 2002.I told Gar I would post the dats on the list as Grant has not updated the BPA page in a very long time and it still shows 2001 dates only. Gene in St Louis ------------------------------------------------ Can a Web portal forever change your life? Win up to $25 Million on iWon - click here! ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Brodhead 2002
This is on my event calendar now, for easy reference. Thanks Gene. Gang, feel free to add events, etc. to the calendar on the site. If you have an account, and you login, you can add planes, manufacturers, events, web sites, etc. to the site without any interaction with me. If you have ideas, let me know and I can try to add them. I do nothing with the names, don't even know anymore how many accounts are on it. It is just a resource for the community, like this list. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of > genet(at)iwon.com > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:53 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Broadhead 2002 > > > Pieter's, > I just had to commit in writing on my vacation schedule for the > American Flight Simulation shop and was un certian about the > offical 2002 dates for Broadhead. I e-mailed Gar Williams > and got a prompt reply staiting that Broadhead will be the 19th > 20th and 21st of July 2002.I told Gar I would post the dats on > the list as Grant has not updated the BPA page in a very long > time and it still shows 2001 dates only. > > Gene > in St Louis > > > ------------------------------------------------ > Can a Web portal forever change your life? > Win up to $25 Million on iWon - click here! > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Wing Gap Covers
Date: May 29, 2002
Mike, I am about to make up the covers that close the gap between the center section of the wing and the wing panels. I know that Frank Pavliga and his dad "laced" these covers in place, and really thought this was the best solution for handling the undercamber of the wing. But before I start punching holes in the covers, I thought I would check with you and ask how you handled the problem on your plane. Did you use the same solution? If so, what did you use for lacing? What is the thickness of the aluminum that you used? Did you put grommets in the holes to protect against cutting the lacing? Or, did you come up with another solution to the problem of the undercamber? Your kind words of wisdom will be heard and appreciated! Cordially, John Dilatush, trying to make like a bird! ________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Wing Gap Covers
Date: May 29, 2002
From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu>
I used 1/8" bungee cord for lacing. Holes down the center of the gap seal every 8" or so. I believe Mike used small blocks of wood glued to the ribs on both sides and screws through the gap seals. The screw route would be more work, but would do a better job, and look better. I have had a problem with the seals puckering and making a gap at the leading edge. Glad to hear of your continual progress, Steve E. -----Original Message----- From: John Dilatush [mailto:dilatush(at)amigo.net] Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing Gap Covers Mike, I am about to make up the covers that close the gap between the center section of the wing and the wing panels. I know that Frank Pavliga and his dad "laced" these covers in place, and really thought this was the best solution for handling the undercamber of the wing. But before I start punching holes in the covers, I thought I would check with you and ask how you handled the problem on your plane. Did you use the same solution? If so, what did you use for lacing? What is the thickness of the aluminum that you used? Did you put grommets in the holes to protect against cutting the lacing? Or, did you come up with another solution to the problem of the undercamber? Your kind words of wisdom will be heard and appreciated! Cordially, John Dilatush, trying to make like a bird! = = = http://www.matronics.com/browselist/pietenpol-list = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 29, 2002
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: NX899LW
>I have about 300 flights on mine and every one is just as exciting as the >first. You'll see. Congratulations!!!!!! Pictures look good too. Doug >Bryant Larry----WONDERFUL news and congratulations on your first flight !!!! What Doug says here is right on the money. I never tire of taking the Piet up for a ride. You are really going to get some good 'payback' for all the blood, sweat, and tears, and money, and time, and..... for your efforts now. Mike C. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Gap seals
Date: May 29, 2002
I used .025 al strips ( wide enough to cover the gap ). The top strip extended from the flop around the leading edge to the level of the fwd vertical strut. Another strip extends, on the bottom, from there to the flop. The seals are held in place with tapered 3/16 machine screws which fastened to right angle plastic lock nuts which in turn are screwed to the ribs. Larger holes than the screws require are drilled to allow location of the lock nuts. Counter sunk washers fill the hole nicely. The edges of the seals were slightly bent to create a spring effect when the seals were fastened in place. I hope I have this right. I haven't been with my friend for quite a while. Health problems, which should be resolved soon. Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Wing gap covers
Date: May 29, 2002
Thanks to Mike C., Steve E., and Mike B. all for your prompt replies to my question about wing gap covers. I think that I will take all of your advice (what's the plural?) and avoid the lacing, instead going to a screw in type arrangement. I really appreciate your efforts to get back to me with the answers. This is what makes the list so valuable to builders, none of us have to work alone. John ________________________________________________________________________________
From: flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.)
Date: May 29, 2002
Subject: Tail wires
I ordered my 8 turnbuckles to do my tail wires this morning. I'm going to use 1/16" 7x7 cable . I only want to do this once so my question is : Is it acceptable to connect the cable directly to the tang fittings on the verticle stabilizer with a nico press eye with a thimble or or does there have to be a shackle used between the cable and the tang fitting ?? Yeah, I know, I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks in advance. Ed G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Tail wires
Date: May 29, 2002
Hi Ed, Actually , if you make the fittings to the plans there is no room for a shackle. I'm just running the thimbles through the fitting and building the cables in place. I was in Cleveland over the weekend and got up with Mike Cuy and he did the same thing. If I had it to doo over again, I would probably make the fitting bigger (ALL the fittings!) and used shackels so you could remove the cables for painting. Jack -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G. Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wires I ordered my 8 turnbuckles to do my tail wires this morning. I'm going to use 1/16" 7x7 cable . I only want to do this once so my question is : Is it acceptable to connect the cable directly to the tang fittings on the verticle stabilizer with a nico press eye with a thimble or or does there have to be a shackle used between the cable and the tang fitting ?? Yeah, I know, I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks in advance. Ed G. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Tail wires
Date: May 29, 2002
Ed. I'd guess that'll work fine. The only downside I can think of is you have to remove the fitting to take it apart. But that's what I did. Just my too sense. Bert ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)webtv.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail wires > > I ordered my 8 turnbuckles to do my tail wires this morning. I'm going > to use 1/16" 7x7 cable . I only want to do this once so my question is : > Is it acceptable > to connect the cable directly to the tang fittings on the verticle > stabilizer with a nico press eye with a thimble or or does there have > to be a shackle used between the cable and the tang fitting ?? Yeah, I > know, I'm getting a little gun shy. Thanks in advance. Ed G. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.)
Date: May 29, 2002
Subject: Tail wires
Thanks Jack. I wanted to keep it as simple as possible and just connect them up with an eye spice. The only Piet I ever took notice of those connections on had modified tang fittings with shackles so I wanted to make sure there wasn't some rule I wasn't aware of. Ed ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Tail Wires
Date: May 30, 2002
Pieters, I keep hearing the word "shackles" in your messages, and the last time I checked the cost of them was a little more than gold bars. May I make a suggestion? If you go to your friendly farm equipment dealer, you will find that he has various sizes of drive chain (#50, #60, odd links etc. in stock). Get a short chunk of chain, usually costing less than $3.00 per foot and take off the outside links. Then go see the Mr. Aircraft Spruce catalog and look up clevis pins. If you use two clevis pins thru the holes in two links of chain - Presto! you now have a substitute for a clevis at just a fraction of the cost. Don't worry about strength, one guy said that his test fixture broke at 2500 lbs using this set up. If you are lucky and the farm equipment man is in a good mood, then he might separate the outside links for you with his magic chain splitter, otherwise you will have to grind off the heads of the pins and punch them out. In my opinion, the installation looks neater than using the FAA approved shackles and you can dazzle your friends with telling them how thrifty (cheap) you are! John Dilatush, NX114D Trying to figure out how to get all the parts of the plane out to the airport without damage. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net>
Subject: Midway Fly-In
Date: May 30, 2002
Is the Midway Fly-in still on for this weekend?? Are any Piets gonna be there? Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant, Tx ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike King" <mikek120(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Midway Fly-In
Date: May 30, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Midway Fly-In > > Is the Midway Fly-in still on for this weekend?? Are any Piets gonna be > there? Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant, Tx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 30, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Midway Fly-In
Mark, The Midway fly-in and pancake breakfast is definitely on! Will we have Piets? I'm not sure. Lot's of email, but so far the only confirmed fly-in is a well known local guy. We'll just have to see. Will we have airplanes? You better believe it! This is looking like a great turnout, we will have quite a few homebuilts arriving. Get there early, pancakes at 8:00am. Will we have fun? Absolutely! I'll be wearing a black baseball cap and beard. Look me up. If the fleet does not arrive I may add hornrim glasses and a rubber nose. ;-) Larry Mark wrote: > >Is the Midway Fly-in still on for this weekend?? Are any Piets gonna be >there? Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant, Tx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mike King" <mikek120(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Midway Fly-In
Date: May 30, 2002
Mark, My GN-1 is now at Aero Country near McKinney where it is getting its annual inspection. We are trying very hard to get it ready for the Midway Fly-In this Saturday. It is normally based at O'Brien Airpark, just a few miles away from Midway Airport, but had to move it north of Dallas to get it inspected. If ready, it will be there on the flight line. It is a white GN-1, 77MK, with a red stripe down the side. Look for a couple of guys with big smiles on their faces. We will be there one way or the other. Hope to see you Saturday. Mike King GN-1 77MK Dallas, Texas ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mark" <markmc(at)bluebonnet.net> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Midway Fly-In > > Is the Midway Fly-in still on for this weekend?? Are any Piets gonna be > there? Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant, Tx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Midway Fly-In
With a bit of disappointed I have to say I will miss being there. That morning is my son's very first official T-ball game. Maybe another time. Everyone take good pics and put them where we can all see them. Sounds like it will be a great time. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Mark > Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 8:12 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Midway Fly-In > > > Is the Midway Fly-in still on for this weekend?? Are any Piets gonna be > there? Mark McKellar Mt. Pleasant, Tx > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: compression spring shocks
Date: May 31, 2002
Skip wrote: >Am currently working on the compression spring shock, think I have it >figured out >Anyway some of you guys must have experience with this type of LG or >even built one Well, I fall into that category. Sorry for the slow response to your post; I'm still in catch-up mode after my move to Texas and you may have already gotten good responses to your question! I guess I'll have to keep plodding through my digests til I get caught up. Anyway, I have built this type of shock strut for my M-19 "Flying Squirrel", the prototype has flown for a couple hundred hours off of all types of surfaces in Indiana, and photos of my setup are on my website at http://www.flysquirrel.net/gear/gear.html specifically about halfway down (I think). After you look at the webpage you can email me off-net with specific questions or let me know if I can get you some more detailed photos. Oscar Zuniga San Antonio, TX ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DonanClara(at)aol.com
Date: May 31, 2002
Subject: Re: side by side Piet for sale on Barnstormers.com
Hey Mike...interesting site. Followed all directions and saw various a/c...but alas, no Pietenpol. Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ken Maynard" <ken(at)polarcomm.com>
Subject: GN-1 Plans
Date: May 29, 2002
Pieters On the tail section my plans show the tail fin to be one inch longer (19) than the horizonal stab (18) is this right. It would appear since the fin sits on the horizonal stab it would be the same or shorter. Ken ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Mark Tracy" <mtracy(at)psft.com>
Subject: side by side Piet for sale on Barnstormers.com
Date: May 31, 2002
I found it. The landing gear looks really odd! Mark Tracy -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DonanClara(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: side by side Piet for sale on Barnstormers.com Hey Mike...interesting site. Followed all directions and saw various a/c...but alas, no Pietenpol. Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: GN-1 Plans
Date: May 31, 2002
make it 18". Same as the H-stab. One of my GN-1's is 19 per plans (and needs to be fixed) and the other is 18. 18 is what it should be. DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> N74DV -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Ken Maynard Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 Plans Pieters On the tail section my plans show the tail fin to be one inch longer (19) than the horizonal stab (18) is this right. It would appear since the fin sits on the horizonal stab it would be the same or shorter. Ken ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: chain shackles
Date: May 31, 2002
I went to the AF Museum in dayton a month ago and many of the antique military types, most notably the DH-4, used the chain pieces as shackles exactly as described.... chris bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John Dilatush Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail Wires Pieters, I keep hearing the word "shackles" in your messages, and the last time I checked the cost of them was a little more than gold bars. May I make a suggestion? If you go to your friendly farm equipment dealer, you will find that he has various sizes of drive chain (#50, #60, odd links etc. in stock). Get a short chunk of chain, usually costing less than $3.00 per foot and take off the outside links. Then go see the Mr. Aircraft Spruce catalog and look up clevis pins. If you use two clevis pins thru the holes in two links of chain - Presto! you now have a substitute for a clevis at just a fraction of the cost. Don't worry about strength, one guy said that his test fixture broke at 2500 lbs using this set up. If you are lucky and the farm equipment man is in a good mood, then he might separate the outside links for you with his magic chain splitter, otherwise you will have to grind off the heads of the pins and punch them out. In my opinion, the installation looks neater than using the FAA approved shackles and you can dazzle your friends with telling them how thrifty (cheap) you are! John Dilatush, NX114D Trying to figure out how to get all the parts of the plane out to the airport without damage. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: chain shackles
Are there any pictures of this? Of the shackles? I am having trouble picturing them in use. Thanks. -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian > Bobka > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:29 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > > > > I went to the AF Museum in dayton a month ago and many of the antique > military types, most notably the DH-4, used the chain pieces as shackles > exactly as described.... > > chris bobka > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John > Dilatush > To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail Wires > > > Pieters, > > I keep hearing the word "shackles" in your messages, and the last time I > checked the cost of them was a little more than gold bars. May I make a > suggestion? > > If you go to your friendly farm equipment dealer, you will find that he > has various sizes of drive chain (#50, #60, odd links etc. in stock). > Get a short chunk of chain, usually costing less than $3.00 per foot and > take off the outside links. Then go see the Mr. Aircraft Spruce catalog > and look up clevis pins. If you use two clevis pins thru the holes in > two links of chain - Presto! you now have a substitute for a clevis at > just a fraction of the cost. Don't worry about strength, one guy said > that his test fixture broke at 2500 lbs using this set up. > > If you are lucky and the farm equipment man is in a good mood, then he > might separate the outside links for you with his magic chain splitter, > otherwise you will have to grind off the heads of the pins and punch > them out. > > In my opinion, the installation looks neater than using the FAA approved > shackles and you can dazzle your friends with telling them how thrifty > (cheap) you are! > > John Dilatush, NX114D Trying to figure out how to get all the parts of > the plane out to the airport without damage. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: History Question
Date: May 31, 2002
I started chasing this Pietenpol project because it matches my interest in aviation history with my desire to build an airplane. Along the way I have found myself more and more curious about the airplanes history. I have read bits and pieces in different places, has this ever been gathered together? Are there any books (or historically detailed magazine articles) on the airplanes history? I am especially interested in the Bernie Pietenpol built (or kitted) Pietenpol's (how many, what configuaration gear on which ones, which engines on which ones, etc.) Were there any air campers with the Sky Scout style gears? How about alternative radiator locations? I have been spending so much time trying to fix the configuration for my project that I am interested in what the original configurations were. Thanks in advance, Kevin http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Another History Question
Date: May 31, 2002
Have any of you ever heard of a Stahlwerk Reisler R.III ?? Was designed by a couple German bros. in 1922 and bears a STRIKING resemblance to a Piet... or should I say the Piet is similar .... hmmmm??? I just came across some images of this aircraft today. DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> N74DV -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin Holcomb Subject: Pietenpol-List: History Question I started chasing this Pietenpol project because it matches my interest in aviation history with my desire to build an airplane. Along the way I have found myself more and more curious about the airplanes history. I have read bits and pieces in different places, has this ever been gathered together? Are there any books (or historically detailed magazine articles) on the airplanes history? I am especially interested in the Bernie Pietenpol built (or kitted) Pietenpol's (how many, what configuaration gear on which ones, which engines on which ones, etc.) Were there any air campers with the Sky Scout style gears? How about alternative radiator locations? I have been spending so much time trying to fix the configuration for my project that I am interested in what the original configurations were. Thanks in advance, Kevin http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: chain shackles
Date: May 31, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > Are there any pictures of this? Of the shackles? I am having trouble > picturing them in use. Thanks. > > -Gary +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Gary, I'm sorry, but I have no pictures of these and the way these are used and no scanner if I did. Maybe someone else on the list can help you. John +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ original Message----- > > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian > > Bobka > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:29 PM > > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > > > > > > > > > I went to the AF Museum in dayton a month ago and many of the antique > > military types, most notably the DH-4, used the chain pieces as shackles > > exactly as described.... > > > > chris bobka > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John > > Dilatush > > To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail Wires > > > > > > > > Pieters, > > > > I keep hearing the word "shackles" in your messages, and the last time I > > checked the cost of them was a little more than gold bars. May I make a > > suggestion? > > > > If you go to your friendly farm equipment dealer, you will find that he > > has various sizes of drive chain (#50, #60, odd links etc. in stock). > > Get a short chunk of chain, usually costing less than $3.00 per foot and > > take off the outside links. Then go see the Mr. Aircraft Spruce catalog > > and look up clevis pins. If you use two clevis pins thru the holes in > > two links of chain - Presto! you now have a substitute for a clevis at > > just a fraction of the cost. Don't worry about strength, one guy said > > that his test fixture broke at 2500 lbs using this set up. > > > > If you are lucky and the farm equipment man is in a good mood, then he > > might separate the outside links for you with his magic chain splitter, > > otherwise you will have to grind off the heads of the pins and punch > > them out. > > > > In my opinion, the installation looks neater than using the FAA approved > > shackles and you can dazzle your friends with telling them how thrifty > > (cheap) you are! > > > > John Dilatush, NX114D Trying to figure out how to get all the parts of > > the plane out to the airport without damage. > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: History Question
Date: May 31, 2002
Hi Kevin, If you haven't read them, be sure and read the series of articles that Bob Whittier did about the Pietenpol in EAA Experimenter a couple of years ago. They gave a pretty complete history of the airplane, including its predecessors. If you can't find them, let me know and I will scan them and send them to you. Veru interesting. Jack -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Holcomb Subject: Pietenpol-List: History Question I started chasing this Pietenpol project because it matches my interest in aviation history with my desire to build an airplane. Along the way I have found myself more and more curious about the airplanes history. I have read bits and pieces in different places, has this ever been gathered together? Are there any books (or historically detailed magazine articles) on the airplanes history? I am especially interested in the Bernie Pietenpol built (or kitted) Pietenpol's (how many, what configuaration gear on which ones, which engines on which ones, etc.) Were there any air campers with the Sky Scout style gears? How about alternative radiator locations? I have been spending so much time trying to fix the configuration for my project that I am interested in what the original configurations were. Thanks in advance, Kevin http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Another History Question
Where are the images DJ? -Gary > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 8:35 PM > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another History Question > > > Have any of you ever heard of a > > Stahlwerk Reisler R.III ?? > > Was designed by a couple German bros. in 1922 and bears a STRIKING > resemblance to a Piet... or should I say the Piet is similar > .... hmmmm??? > > I just came across some images of this aircraft today. > > > DJ Vegh > Mesa, AZ > GN-1/Piet hybrid > www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> > N74DV > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kevin > Holcomb > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > Subject: Pietenpol-List: History Question > > > > > I started chasing this Pietenpol project because it matches my interest in > aviation history with my desire to build an airplane. Along the > way I have > found myself more and more curious about the airplanes history. > I have read > bits and pieces in different places, has this ever been gathered together? > Are there any books (or historically detailed magazine articles) on the > airplanes history? I am especially interested in the Bernie > Pietenpol built > (or kitted) Pietenpol's (how many, what configuaration gear on which ones, > which engines on which ones, etc.) Were there any air campers > with the Sky > Scout style gears? How about alternative radiator locations? > > I have been spending so much time trying to fix the configuration for my > project that I am interested in what the original configurations were. > > Thanks in advance, > Kevin > > http://www.angelfire.com/va2/aerodrome/ > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Swirly aluminium....
I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks. Regards, Gary P. McNeel, Jr. MyKitPlane.com EAA 665957 gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=68 "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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Metal sales online
I stumbled on this. Nice site, easy to use, prices seem reasonable. I have not done business with them yet though, will give it a try. http://www.onlinemetals.com/ Here is another, not as easy to use. http://www.metalmart.com/ Sadly, neither seem to have 4130 flat plate. Regards, Gary P. McNeel, Jr. MyKitPlane.com EAA 665957 gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=68 "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. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: May 31, 2002
From: clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Some call it "swirling" others "burnishing" but I seem to remember there was a better name back when I had my 1st car, a 56 studebaker Hawk (no fins). It had this neat swirled dash panel. Check out Custom Planes, Sept. 2000. 1- scale swirl size to look good on panel. 2- use those plastic foam scouring pads like Scotchbrite. 3-use a disc-anything from a half inch bolt up to a 3" sanding disc and double sided tape, in drillpress 4-PLAN YOUR PATTERN before going at it. 5-overlap swirls 50% 6-use light touch-practice-especialy at the edges. Check out aluminum Fokker Tripe frame in Custom Planes Aug. 2000. obviously made by swirling dervish. I used 1/2" bolt to do my throttle quads-pics in Mykitplane. ( Thank you Gary. your service sets the standard.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it > (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). > > Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of > you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate > hearing it. Thanks. > > Regards, > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > MyKitPlane.com > EAA 665957 > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=68 > > "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. > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 01, 2002
From: clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: chain shackles
check archives. "shackles&chain&motorcycles" 1st mention I got was from 96. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> > To: > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > > > > > > Are there any pictures of this? Of the shackles? I am having trouble > > picturing them in use. Thanks. > > > > -Gary > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Gary, > > I'm sorry, but I have no pictures of these and the way these are used and > no scanner if I did. Maybe someone else on the list can help you. > > John > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > original Message----- > > > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian > > > Bobka > > > Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 6:29 PM > > > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: chain shackles > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I went to the AF Museum in dayton a month ago and many of the antique > > > military types, most notably the DH-4, used the chain pieces as shackles > > > exactly as described.... > > > > > > chris bobka > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com > > > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of John > > > Dilatush > > > To: Pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail Wires > > > > > > > > > > > > > Pieters, > > > > > > I keep hearing the word "shackles" in your messages, and the last time I > > > checked the cost of them was a little more than gold bars. May I make a > > > suggestion? > > > > > > If you go to your friendly farm equipment dealer, you will find that he > > > has various sizes of drive chain (#50, #60, odd links etc. in stock). > > > Get a short chunk of chain, usually costing less than $3.00 per foot and > > > take off the outside links. Then go see the Mr. Aircraft Spruce catalog > > > and look up clevis pins. If you use two clevis pins thru the holes in > > > two links of chain - Presto! you now have a substitute for a clevis at > > > just a fraction of the cost. Don't worry about strength, one guy said > > > that his test fixture broke at 2500 lbs using this set up. > > > > > > If you are lucky and the farm equipment man is in a good mood, then he > > > might separate the outside links for you with his magic chain splitter, > > > otherwise you will have to grind off the heads of the pins and punch > > > them out. > > > > > > In my opinion, the installation looks neater than using the FAA approved > > > shackles and you can dazzle your friends with telling them how thrifty > > > (cheap) you are! > > > > > > John Dilatush, NX114D Trying to figure out how to get all the parts of > > > the plane out to the airport without damage. > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 01, 2002
I believe the correct term is "Engine Turning". It is the technique used on the cowling of the Spirit of St. Louis, and is actually very easy to do. I made a couple of inserts for my instrument panel this way: 1. First I made a grid of squares on a piece of particle board. I made mine 1" squares, due to the size of "swirls" I wanted. I drilled a 1/8" hole at each intersection (the corners of the squares, where they touched the adjacent squares). 2. Then I made a base plate to support the workpiece that I wanted to swirl. On the bottom of the base plate, I drilled two .121" holes 4" apart and pressed in a couple of small lengths of 1/8" welding rod. I made sure my base plate would fit anywhere on the grid board, and could be easily picked up and repositioned. 3. I then fastened my work piece down to the base plate. Since I was making an insert to hold instruments, I made sure I was putting the screws in locations that would be cut out for an instrument hole. If you are making a piece that is to be continuous, you will have to screw it down around the edges and then trim off the area with the screw holes. 4. Then I clamped the grid board onto the work support plate of my drill press. I made my "swirler" from an old Continental exhaust valve with a piece of Scotchbrite superglued onto the face of the valve and trimmed to fit. 5. I positioned the base plate with the workpiece screwed to it on the grid board so that the swirler tool would start the pattern near one corner of the workpiece. Then I turned the drill press on and lowered the tool onto the aluminum until ihad burnished a swirl pattern. You don't have to press too hard, and it only takes about one second to swirl each location. Then I indexed the base plate one set of squares over and made another swirl. This is continued until you reach the end of the row, then you reposition the base plate to begin the next row. In this manner, you can easily make nice uniform overlapping swirls. It took me severl hours to make the setup, and then about 15 minutes to actually put the engine-turned pattern on my instrument panel inserts. I have pictures of my setup, and would put them on the list but every time I've tried to do that it gets screwed up. If anyone wants to see them let me know and I will email them to you. By the way, Pieters, I visited Mike Cuy last weekend and finally got to see his airplane. Beautiful job! And what a nice fellow he is. We couldn't possibly have a better ambassador for the Pietenpol community. Jack -----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: Swirly aluminium.... Some call it "swirling" others "burnishing" but I seem to remember there was a better name back when I had my 1st car, a 56 studebaker Hawk (no fins). It had this neat swirled dash panel. Check out Custom Planes, Sept. 2000. 1- scale swirl size to look good on panel. 2- use those plastic foam scouring pads like Scotchbrite. 3-use a disc-anything from a half inch bolt up to a 3" sanding disc and double sided tape, in drillpress 4-PLAN YOUR PATTERN before going at it. 5-overlap swirls 50% 6-use light touch-practice-especialy at the edges. Check out aluminum Fokker Tripe frame in Custom Planes Aug. 2000. obviously made by swirling dervish. I used 1/2" bolt to do my throttle quads-pics in Mykitplane. ( Thank you Gary. your service sets the standard.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it > (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). > > Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of > you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate > hearing it. Thanks. > > Regards, > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > MyKitPlane.com > EAA 665957 > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=68 > > "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: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: History Question
Date: Jun 01, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> Subject: Pietenpol-List: History Question > > I started chasing this Pietenpol project because it matches my interest in > aviation history with my desire to build an airplane. Along the way I have > found myself more and more curious about the airplanes history. I have read > bits and pieces in different places, has this ever been gathered together? > Are there any books (or historically detailed magazine articles) on the > airplanes history? I am especially interested in the Bernie Pietenpol built > (or kitted) Pietenpol's (how many, what configuaration gear on which ones, > which engines on which ones, etc.) Were there any air campers with the Sky > Scout style gears? How about alternative radiator locations? > > I have been spending so much time trying to fix the configuration for my > project that I am interested in what the original configurations were. > > Thanks in advance, > Kevin ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Kevin, Your interest in the history of the Pietenpol is one of the things that enrich your construction of the plane. One just is not building and airplane, but you are also re-creating a little part of our aviation heritage and that lends to the experience. People have many times asked me "what is a Pietenpol" and my answer is that I am building a "replica of a antique airplane" -and then they understand. There have been many variations on the original plans, all of which seem to be called "Pietenpol", but as someone said to the effect "You can make changes and have a good airplane, but if you follow the plans you will have a better airplane!". I'ts really hard to improve on the original common sense engineering of Bernie Pietenpol. Whittier's articles in the Experimenter magazine of a few years ago is a good source for information as well as the Buckeye Pietenpol Newsletters that were edited by Grant McLaren if you can find them. Forge Ahead and Good Luck! John Dilatush, NX114D, Plane going to airport this morning for final assembly, after 7 years in my workshop, I'm experiencing separation anxiety! > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Owen Davies" <owen5819(at)adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 01, 2002
clif wrote: > > Some call it "swirling" others "burnishing" but I seem to > remember there was a better name back when I had > my 1st car, a 56 studebaker Hawk (no fins). It had this > neat swirled dash panel. "Turned?" As in "engine turned?" Not much like what you do with a lathe, but that sounds awfully familiar. Owen Davies ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Brusilow" <mb-albany(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 01, 2002
----- Original Message ----- From: Gary McNeel, Jr. To: Pietenpol Group Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 12:55 AM Subject: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate hearing it. Thanks. Regards, Gary P. McNeel, Jr. MyKitPlane.com EAA 66595 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ I believe that a circular wire brush on a hand held drill will do the trick. Mike B Piet N687MB ( Mr Sam ) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 01, 2002
This is an ancient procedure that probably dates back to the time when craftsmen fashioned metal shields and armor. During the 1950's I apprenticed under an aircraft mechanic who had been in the business since the 1920's. He called the pattern "whirlies" and told me that, aside from being "pretty", it is an excellent means of covering scratches and minor form- ing marks without painting. He said its use should be restricted to non-structural parts. Lindbergh's Spirit of St. Louis used it on cowlings, etc. accord- ing to the custom of that period. No doubt he was happy with it because it didn't add any weight, as painting would have done. It was popular in the early days of aviation and is therefore most appropriate for Pietenpol airplanes. Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Another History Question
Date: Jun 01, 2002
I've only been able to find scale model replica photos but here's a couple of the Stahlwerk Reisler R.III http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/stahlwerk1a.jpg http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/stahlwerk2a.jpg DJ Vegh Mesa, AZ GN-1/Piet hybrid www.raptoronline.com <http://www.raptoronline.com> N74DV Where are the images DJ? -Gary ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 02, 2002
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
In a message dated 5/31/02 9:53:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com writes: > I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it > (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). > > Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of > you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate > hearing it. Thanks. > > Regards, > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > MyKitPlane.com > EAA 665957 > Gary, Here's how I do the spot finish on many of my projects. This is shown on the Spirit of St Louis movie with Jimmy Stewart for just a few seconds during the aircraft production scenes. I use a 1 inch diameter wire brush from Ace Hardware (only one I could find),put the work piece on the drill press table, run the drill press spindle at slow speed, press lightly for each spot overlapping a little less than half of the previous spot. Continue making rows. No other tools are needed and it is very easy. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DonanClara(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 01, 2002
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Burnishing. Just cut a scotchbrite pad and glue it to the face of a small rotary sanding disc. The size is up to you. The swirls overlap. It is best to do your pattern before you cut it to shape Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <dickmarg(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 02, 2002
Doug, After the swirling, do you use anything as a protectorant to guard against corrosion? DickG. in Ft. Myers ----- Original Message ----- From: <Doug413(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > In a message dated 5/31/02 9:53:12 PM Pacific Daylight Time, > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com writes: > > > > I was wondering how some aluminium was made to have the little swirls on it > > (I know it has a name, I cannot think of it). > > > > Once, long ago, I saw how it was done, but now cannot recall it. If any of > > you know the name or where there is info on doing it, I would appreciate > > hearing it. Thanks. > > > > Regards, > > > > Gary P. McNeel, Jr. > > MyKitPlane.com > > EAA 665957 > > > > Gary, > > Here's how I do the spot finish on many of my projects. This is shown on the > Spirit of St Louis movie with Jimmy Stewart for just a few seconds during the > aircraft production scenes. > > I use a 1 inch diameter wire brush from Ace Hardware (only one I could > find),put the work piece on the drill press table, run the drill press > spindle at slow speed, press lightly for each spot overlapping a little less > than half of the previous spot. Continue making rows. No other tools are > needed and it is very easy. Doug Bryant > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2002
From: Larry Neal <llneal2(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Midway Fly-in
I'm going to ramble a bit so be warned... Our impromptu "Broadhead South" did happen and we had a good time. Attending were about ten fearless Piet types and a bunch of interested onlookers at the Midway fly-in and pancake breakfast. I did not take notes and am notorious about names, so bear with me when I reference folks and I'm sure that I've missed a bunch of you. Midway was booming with traffic when I showed up. We had Stearmans, a CAF AT-6, Stinson Reliant, couple of Beach 18's, couple of T-28's and a whole bunch of unexpected Thorp T-18's, in fact I counted five of these before it started drooling over all the neat hardware. The Stearman's kept us jumping with each round motor takeoff stopping the current conversation to take a look. The T-28's boomed in with a synchronized landing and taxi, after which they parked like a dance team and even coordinated their engine shutdowns - Neat! The field was packed with tin. We had local interest and apparently a news crew at one point, though I did not see them. There was even a Jazz Band in the main hanger at breakfast and a bunch of local aviation legends making an appearance including one who used to make a living chasing Russian Bear bombers across the Bearing sea in an F-4 Phantom. Lots of hanger talk, more hanger talk... One interesting vignette was when Juan Martinez, Midway Airport Manager and all around great guy, introduced one of the lads on the line to the CAF Captain flying the T-6. There was a short conversation, the nod of a greyed head and pretty quick Johnny was taking his first Texan ride. I've got the pictures of him taxiing out, you've got to see the grin! I quickly found Jim Markle, who as always had a couple of new ribs to show off. They are impeccable by the way, and he has marked them with the date of build, so I just have to tease him about his rib serial numbers and accompanying yellow tags [:-)] Jim had a couple of young students in tow (about five or six years of age) and was doing a great job of promoting future Piet building. We then hunted up Mike King who had just showed up in his newly-annualed Piet/GN-1. Mike got up at 4:30am to finish his annual to make the show and was the hit of the Piet crowd. Pretty quick a bunch of local builders showed up including Joe, (damnation what's your last name again lad!) who displayed his most excellent tail feathers in front of the FBO. After talking with Joe and after experience with my fuselage, I agree. Build the tail and wing first, it's too much trouble working around the fuse and you can hang the flying stuff from the ceiling when you get to that point. Lessons learned , sigh... The wild bunch, Hank and his friend, also a Hank but refereed to as "Hankie" made an appearance as well. Hank and Hankie are the guys I ran into while towing a glider out of a field near Grandberry TX and are building a beautiful new Piet. They brought a bunch of great building pictures to review and we got a lot of detail out of them. Then of course, we just had to do a photo session in front of Mike's ship. We had a pretty good group sharing building experiences and the gang was downtown in Piet'sville for some time. Incredibly, not only did I meet several new Piet builders in the area, but found that my new friend Hank is not only both a Piet builder as well as an EAA Tech counselor living about ten miles from me. Do I have good luck or what? I've checked the "find EAA guy" item off of my to-do list. To top things off, Edwin showed up ferrying a wingtank for me. This was a special trip on his way up north and with a gift from none other than our cherished Corkmiester to help me along. Corky has decided that Erik Lindberg has upstaged him, so he's apparently going to lay off his transcontinental ambitions. The tank is nearly complete and equipped with cap and drain, what a present! I'm am really thrilled about this! I'm going to have a bit of Corkie's Piet in my airplane, what a treat! Corky - thank you, thank you, thank you! I will treasure my "extra ten" every time I fly. Thanks for conning Edwin into an extra stop too, he's a great guy and I really enjoyed getting his first hand report on your progress. Even the natives in Texas enjoy a view of the more cultured do-in's in the more respectable locals [;-)] Two other pilots, Mary Lou and Phil also flew up with Edwin in his absolutely beautiful Maule from the land of crawdads and good company. Great folks!, the enthusiasm was like a family reunion. You should see Edwin's Maule, but my apologies as I did not get a picture. It's fantastic. I was absolutely amazed to hear the Edwin had recovered and painted it himself. Looked like a factory job to me. We got a lot of good hanger flying done and then decided to do lunch. The charcoal would not light, so one Piet guy (didn't catch his name) helped me to accelerate things with a bit of 100LL. With a cup of gas and a propane torch, we ducked behind the side of the grill and reached in with the torch, whoosh-bang! Not an approved maneuver, but we managed to get it started quite nicely. It's amazing how great a charred hotdog on a mashed bun tastes when you've got good company. A bit more hanger flying and we were treated with the take off and a fly-by of a restored Russian jet trainer. Noisy as hell but quite impressive. Then the T-28's rolled out in a formation takeoff and followed suit, scaring a couple of errant Cessna's out of the area. Next the Beech's left most gracefully and we concluded business with the "off the shelf " aircraft. Meanwhile, Mike King and I tried to wear out the tires on the Champ. The Champ's solo seat is up front, so Mike took the helm and without ever being in one before, showed me how to fly it rather quickly. Next I got a treat. Mike put me in the back seat of his ship with his friend/ instructor / A&P Bruce up front, and I finally got a Piet check-out.... Did I pick the right airplane? Would I be disappointed? How would the Piet compare to the mighty Champ? Well, let's say If I wasn't already building one, I'd consider some horse trading for a finished Piet right now! What a dreamboat! We taxied out and I found the tailwheel response was fantastic. Sure, the visibility is like the back of any taildragger, but it felt comfortable. Better yet, It felt good to be able to see and hear everything around us. I could hear, look up and s-turn easily, the cockpit was roomy and comfortable, but surprisingly well insulated from the wind.. On taxi, the prop blast around the cockpit, faint smell of gasoline and exhaust and the visible blur of the prop when I looked out to the side was incredible. I started thinking this is a REAL AIRPLANE! We took off with the open exhaust barking and the whir of the prop in our ears, I left the ground without noticing actually, and it felt so well behaved that I started wondering if it would handle or end up a "truck". So I did a wide pattern and used the time to put in some s-turns, wow! I can't get over the feeling when leaning over the side and waving to people below! No dirty lexan, feel every prop blade in the blast, check out the tops of the trees and listen to the wind in the wires!!! I even tried the legendary trick of putting my left hand into the slipstream - slooow turn to the left. Right hand - instant gentle pull to the right. My first landing dropped it in a foot or two, but I was happy. None the less I had a good excuse for some more tries, and the next landing was absolutely fantastic. On Bruce and Mike's advice I carried more power on final than I would expect (yes Virginia, them wires in the wind add up) but otherwise Mike's ship handles like well tuned Cub or Airknocker, which I think is a good compliment. Well, I'm tired, sunburned and a little beat up, but what a day! Thanks to all named and those I've neglected. By general consensus, I do believe that we will do this again next year. I'll post the pictures in a couple of days on one of the usual sites. Thank you all for the help and stopping by, it was great meeting you all. Larry (In Texas where it's good, but don't get better than this.) ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 02, 2002
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
In a message dated 6/2/02 5:14:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes: > Doug, > After the swirling, do you use anything as a protectorant to guard against > corrosion? > > DickG. in Ft. Myers > Hi Dick, Good to hear from you. I don't use any form of corrosion protection here in Kansas, but I suppose a clear alodine could be applied. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DonanClara(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 02, 2002
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
In a message dated 06/01/2002 2:15:57 PM Central Daylight Time, grhans@cable-lynx.net writes: << aside from being "pretty", it is an excellent means of covering scratches and minor form- ing marks without painting. >> The amphibion Fleetwing Seabird in the late thirties used burnishing over most of the stainless steel hull skins to cover irregularities. Quite an eye-catcher. Two are still flying in Calif. and Florida. ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 02, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Swirly Pictures
There are now some picturs online showing how Jack Phillips did it. Thanks Jack. http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=45 Regards, Gary P. McNeel, Jr. MyKitPlane.com EAA 665957 gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=43 http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=68 "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: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 03, 2002
Subject: Selling some Piet stuff
Gentlmen, I am going to be selling one of my flying aicampers and the fairly complete Scout project and a host of spares, props, magnetos, complete (moded) Model A engines; too many planes. If you all know of anyone interested, please let me know. Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: fleetwings seabird
Date: Jun 03, 2002
There is another fleetwings seabird (in pieces) in the northern most hangar at brodhead. seems that the metal was swirled in sheets and then the sheets were cut and the aircraft spotwelded together. then the overlaps were swirled. chris bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DonanClara(at)aol.com Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... In a message dated 06/01/2002 2:15:57 PM Central Daylight Time, grhans@cable-lynx.net writes: << aside from being "pretty", it is an excellent means of covering scratches and minor form- ing marks without painting. >> The amphibion Fleetwing Seabird in the late thirties used burnishing over most of the stainless steel hull skins to cover irregularities. Quite an eye-catcher. Two are still flying in Calif. and Florida. ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Selling some Piet stuff
Date: Jun 03, 2002
Doug, Why the fire sale? Chris bobka -----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: Pietenpol-List: Selling some Piet stuff Gentlmen, I am going to be selling one of my flying aicampers and the fairly complete Scout project and a host of spares, props, magnetos, complete (moded) Model A engines; too many planes. If you all know of anyone interested, please let me know. Doug Bryant Wichita, Ks ________________________________________________________________________________
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 03, 2002
Subject: Re: Selling some Piet stuff
In a message dated 6/3/02 10:34:54 AM Pacific Daylight Time, bobka(at)charter.net writes: > Doug, > > Why the fire sale? > > Chris bobka > Bought a Cub and still have half interest in another Aircamper. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: DonanClara(at)aol.com
Date: Jun 03, 2002
Subject: Re: Selling some Piet stuff
Doug...What do you have in Model A carbs/manifolds? Don Hicks ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 03, 2002
From: Doug413(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Selling some Piet stuff
Only one model B carb, three after market B's, one or two extra manifolds, and a complete A engine ready for installation. Doug Bryant ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 02, 2002
EVERYTHING has to be protected here in Florida. One of the prices to pay for living in "Paradise". Couldn't a clear coat or clear lacquer or something like that be sprayed on? Ted B in Naples ----- Original Message ----- From: <Doug413(at)aol.com> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > In a message dated 6/2/02 5:14:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes: > > > > Doug, > > After the swirling, do you use anything as a protectorant to guard against > > corrosion? > > > > DickG. in Ft. Myers > > > > Hi Dick, > > Good to hear from you. I don't use any form of corrosion protection here in > Kansas, but I suppose a clear alodine could be applied. Doug Bryant > > ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Subject: radiator
Date: Jun 04, 2002
Gang- Does anyone (Doug) have or know of a radiator that is available for an "A" Piet? My engine seems to be running hot and all I can come up with is that my VW/Audi radiator isn't up to the task. It was the recommended radiator in the 70's BPANews but I am not having good results with it. I know there was a Kapler radiator for sale at B'head last year or the year before, does anyone remember whose it was? Barring the above, does anyone know of a radiator building shop that is quick and reasonable (read:cheap!)? Still logging the hours and fixing little bugs. Looks like my time will be flown off at the exact moment that I head for Brodhead. Amazing how that works... Larry ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
Subject: Re: Swirly aluminium....
Date: Jun 04, 2002
Spar varnish (or equal) was used on the nose of the Spirit of St. Louis swirls -- as a result, there is a "golden" hue to the Alum. as it sits in NASM. Also, the "quick & dirty" way (used by Fokker in WW1) was to just "sand" the cowl all over with a grinder or dual action sander (no nice rows -- just random stuff! ;-) Mike C. Pretty Prairie, KS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > EVERYTHING has to be protected here in Florida. One of the prices to pay > for living in "Paradise". Couldn't a clear coat or clear lacquer or > something like that be sprayed on? > > Ted B in Naples > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <Doug413(at)aol.com> > To: > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Swirly aluminium.... > > > > > > In a message dated 6/2/02 5:14:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time, > > dickmarg(at)peganet.com writes: > > > > > > > Doug, > > > After the swirling, do you use anything as a protectorant to guard > against > > > corrosion? > > > > > > DickG. in Ft. Myers > > > > > > > Hi Dick, > > > > Good to hear from you. I don't use any form of corrosion protection here > in > > Kansas, but I suppose a clear alodine could be applied. Doug Bryant > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2002
From: raymond smith <badge784k(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: FIRE SALE!
Doug, Please send info about aircamper for sale...specs, etc. Any photos available? Send to my E-mail rather than post on the list. Please send contact info for off-list communications mikehattaway(at)hotmail.com or 229.244.0089 after 9 pm or 2558 Winnwood Circle, Valdosta, GA 31601. Thanks, Mike Hattaway --------------------------------- Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2002
From: "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com>
Subject: Re: radiator
Larry, Custom radiators can be made up by: Carlberg Radiator Service 1310 East 66th St. Richfield, MN 55423 612 866-5107 Shop was once owned by Wally Carlberg, a longtime EAA'er who flew west a few years ago. The shop was then purchased by Forrest Lovely. Forrest, who has since retired, has been involved with Pietenpols since he was in high school. Anyway, this radiator shop does custom work and they have made radiators for Pietenpols in the past. I have no experience with them and I don't know how expensive they might be. Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis >>> lnawms(at)msn.com 06/04/02 06:13AM >>> Gang- Does anyone (Doug) have or know of a radiator that is available for an "A " Piet? My engine seems to be running hot and all I can come up with is t hat my VW/Audi radiator isn't up to the task. It was the recommended radi ator in the 70's BPANews but I am not having good results with it. I know there was a Kapler radiator for sale at B'head last year or the ye ar before, does anyone remember whose it was? Barring the above, does anyone know of a radiator building shop that is q uick and reasonable (read:cheap!)? Still logging the hours and fixing little bugs. Looks like my time will b e flown off at the exact moment that I head for Brodhead. Amazing how tha t works... Larry = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: radiator
Date: Jun 04, 2002
I think the archives list an outfit in wichita falls texas that did a dandy radiator job for a reasonable price for one of the listers. Might want to go look fopr it. Chris Bobka -----Original Message----- From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Greg Cardinal Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: radiator Larry, Custom radiators can be made up by: Carlberg Radiator Service 1310 East 66th St. Richfield, MN 55423 612 866-5107 Shop was once owned by Wally Carlberg, a longtime EAA'er who flew west a few years ago. The shop was then purchased by Forrest Lovely. Forrest, who has since retired, has been involved with Pietenpols since he was in high school. Anyway, this radiator shop does custom work and they have made radiators for Pietenpols in the past. I have no experience with them and I don't know how expensive they might be. Greg Cardinal, Minneapolis >>> lnawms(at)msn.com 06/04/02 06:13AM >>> Gang- Does anyone (Doug) have or know of a radiator that is available for an "A " Piet? My engine seems to be running hot and all I can come up with is t hat my VW/Audi radiator isn't up to the task. It was the recommended radi ator in the 70's BPANews but I am not having good results with it. I know there was a Kapler radiator for sale at B'head last year or the ye ar before, does anyone remember whose it was? Barring the above, does anyone know of a radiator building shop that is q uick and reasonable (read:cheap!)? Still logging the hours and fixing little bugs. Looks like my time will b e flown off at the exact moment that I head for Brodhead. Amazing how tha t works... Larry = = = t = ________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Jun 04, 2002
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Bozeman Pietenpol Crash
Has anyone heard anything further on this? I visited the NTSB site and found the preliminary report. Nothing further. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020417X00530&key=1


May 08, 2002 - June 04, 2002

Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-cq