Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-da
February 02, 2003 - February 21, 2003
| Subject: | Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming |
Chris,
I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
receipts etc. Nice job.
Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Thanks guys, keep them coming |
Doug,
Welcome to the club. Now you need to join up with the Taylorcraft Owners
Club and the Taylorcraft Foundation. Also figure out how far it is to
Barber Airport in Alliance, Ohio. I expect to see you there the weekend
after July 4 along with Kip. See http://www.taylorcraft.org for more info.
BTW, why did you buy such a new plane? Pre-war is faster :-). Mine is Sn
3045.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
>Chris,
>
>I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
>good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
>receipts etc. Nice job.
>
>Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
>
>
>_-
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Dick,
I had to drive from Apple Valley down to Faribault and it took 90 minutes
for a 35 minute trip.
From the archives:
Match: #165 Message: #16157 From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Landing gear question... Date: Jan 13, 2002
Gary,
This aircraft is Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and I talked to him about the
landing gear at Brodhead a few years ago.
There are three fuselages that Bernard published a drawing for. One is the
one shown in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual for the Air Camper (not the
"new and improved"). It has a wooden Jenny-style gear.
The second is for the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper with the cub style
steel tube landing gear (really the cub style gear copies the piet since the
piet was first).
The third is the fuselage Bernard Pietenpol developed for the corvair
powered piet. No landing gear is shown for this fuselage. It is perfectly
acceptable to mount any acceptable engine on this fueslage. You are not
limited to the corvair. I will refer to this fuselage as the "long
fuselage". It is desireable to use the long fueslage because it is about 7
inches longer than the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper and the 1932 Air
Camper. You fit better in the longer cockpit. Frank Pavliga used the long
fuselage for sky gypsy and it originally had a Model A Ford but now has a
Continental A-65.
The problem is that the long fuselage shifts the loaded center of gravity
aft quite a bit. Aerodynamically, this is compensated for by shifting the
wing aft. There is no problem here. The problem is that if you take
the1932 wood gear and put it on the long fuselage, the wheels are too far
forward. Frank Pavliga did not realize this or otherwise ignored this fact
for the first set of gear made for the sky gypsy. The wheels were so far
forward that he had much difficulty in getting the tail to raise on takeoff.
The airplane ON THE GROUND was far too tail heavy. He built a second set of
wooden gear legs that shifted the axle back (maybe 5 or 6 inches) and this
distributed the weight more appropriately forward and aft of the axle so
that the plane handled better on the ground. This can be clearly seen when
comparing the photo you posted with the 1932 gear drawings.
As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there for
wieght distribution for ground handling.
Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you in
better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives in
Ohio.
Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear aft
on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number at
his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear question...
>
> I am interested in the landing gear on the Pietenpol. I like the gear as
> seen in this picture:
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/pietenpolGear.cfm. Is this the design that comes
> with the original plans?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> MyKitPlane.com
> EAA 665957
> gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com
> http://www.mykitplane.com
>
And another archive:
Match: #167 Message: #16172 Date: Jan 14, 2002 From: "Greg Cardinal"
Subject: Re: Landing gear question...
The axel on our plane is 19" aft of the firewall.
Greg Cardinal
>>> bobka(at)charter.net 01/13 11:48 AM >>>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Thanks guys, keep them coming |
Yes Doug. Chuck Gantzer told me earlier today. Small world. I wouldn't
mind calling you on the phone to talk about the old girl.
I sold it to Hiram Douglas. He sold it to a kid, I think Jeff Lynn was his
name. Who else owned it?
she must be getting tired by now.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
Doug413(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Thanks guys, keep them coming
Chris,
I have found and purchased Taylorcraft 96542 s/n 8842. It still looks very
good since the covering you did in 87 or so. I have all the records and
receipts etc. Nice job.
Doug Bryant, Wichita, Ks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Dick,
>As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
>gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
>wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
>for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there for
>wieght distribution for ground handling.
>
>Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you in
>better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives in
>Ohio.
>
>Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear aft
>on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number at
>his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
>
>Chris Bobka
Chris, Dick, Gary,
We are all pretty well 'locked down' here in Northeast OH due to crummy
weather, but I see Frank out at Barber Field fairly often & I can go look
over 'Sky Gypsy' any time I want to, since it lives there. Kind of nice to
have a 'reference plane' so close by!
I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them.
BTW, Frank is finishing up the restoration/construction of a Taperwing Waco
biplane, almost a 'scratch' plane - I think part of one wing is original. I
helped him put the wings on about 2 months ago. I believe he's planning on
selling it if anyone is interested. Also, once that's done, 'Sky Gypsy' is
due for re-covering.
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
In a message dated 2/2/2003 8:04:58 PM Central Standard Time,
kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:
> I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them
Kip,
I would very much appreciate any info in this regard that Frank can pass
along. I have the long fuselage with the Model A and the solid wood gear, the
same as his. I had built and installed the gear before the thread began on
this subject. Of course that gear was intended for the original FGM version.
I positioned mine in the location of the second version ("new, improved")
which is probably equally wrong but I wanted to resist making any changes
before doing my w&b and seeing what my tailwheel weight was. There may be
meaningful differences dpending on whether Frank used fir or spruce on his
fuselage. I did make a concerted effort to keep mine light in the
tailfeathers and used spruce throughout. I'm fully covered, painted and
complete and hopefully will be doing my final w&b this weekend. Thanks agin
for the offer. Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an aircraft?
Jon Botsford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
Jon,
For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or not.
You set the rules. No kidding.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
Botsford
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an
aircraft?
Jon Botsford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
We were no shows at the Alan Jackson / Joe Nichols concert in Mankato
tonight.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
>
> Dick,
>
> I had to drive from Apple Valley down to Faribault and it took 90 minutes
> for a 35 minute trip.
>
> >From the archives:
>
> Match: #165 Message: #16157 From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> Subject: Re: Landing gear question... Date: Jan 13, 2002
>
>
> Gary,
>
> This aircraft is Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and I talked to him about the
> landing gear at Brodhead a few years ago.
>
> There are three fuselages that Bernard published a drawing for. One is
the
> one shown in the 1932 Flying and Glider Manual for the Air Camper (not the
> "new and improved"). It has a wooden Jenny-style gear.
>
> The second is for the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper with the cub
style
> steel tube landing gear (really the cub style gear copies the piet since
the
> piet was first).
>
> The third is the fuselage Bernard Pietenpol developed for the corvair
> powered piet. No landing gear is shown for this fuselage. It is
perfectly
> acceptable to mount any acceptable engine on this fueslage. You are not
> limited to the corvair. I will refer to this fuselage as the "long
> fuselage". It is desireable to use the long fueslage because it is about
7
> inches longer than the 1933 "new and improved" Air Camper and the 1932 Air
> Camper. You fit better in the longer cockpit. Frank Pavliga used the
long
> fuselage for sky gypsy and it originally had a Model A Ford but now has a
> Continental A-65.
>
> The problem is that the long fuselage shifts the loaded center of gravity
> aft quite a bit. Aerodynamically, this is compensated for by shifting the
> wing aft. There is no problem here. The problem is that if you take
> the1932 wood gear and put it on the long fuselage, the wheels are too far
> forward. Frank Pavliga did not realize this or otherwise ignored this
fact
> for the first set of gear made for the sky gypsy. The wheels were so far
> forward that he had much difficulty in getting the tail to raise on
takeoff.
> The airplane ON THE GROUND was far too tail heavy. He built a second set
of
> wooden gear legs that shifted the axle back (maybe 5 or 6 inches) and this
> distributed the weight more appropriately forward and aft of the axle so
> that the plane handled better on the ground. This can be clearly seen
when
> comparing the photo you posted with the 1932 gear drawings.
>
> As an aside, there is a big old lead weight that is tied to one of sky
> gypsy's motor mount tubes indicating that it was easier to intstall the
> wieght than to mess with tweaking the rigging of the wings if it is there
> for aerodynamic purposes or making a new set of gear legs if it is there
for
> wieght distribution for ground handling.
>
> Maybe some of the local Ohio boys on the list like Mike Cuy can clue you
in
> better than me since they are more familiar with sky gypsy since it lives
in
> Ohio.
>
> Greg Cardinal and Dale Johnson have moved the axle on their wooden gear
aft
> on their yet to fly long fuselage A-65 powered ship. Dale has the number
at
> his fingertips and hopefully will post a note here with the figure.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear question...
>
>
>
> >
> > I am interested in the landing gear on the Pietenpol. I like the gear as
> > seen in this picture:
> >
> > http://www.mykitplane.com/pietenpolGear.cfm. Is this the design that
comes
> > with the original plans?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Gary P. McNeel, Jr.
> > MyKitPlane.com
> > EAA 665957
> > gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com
> > http://www.mykitplane.com
> >
>
>
> And another archive:
>
> Match: #167 Message: #16172 Date: Jan 14, 2002 From: "Greg Cardinal"
> Subject: Re: Landing gear question...
>
>
> The axel on our plane is 19" aft of the firewall.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> >>> bobka(at)charter.net 01/13 11:48 AM >>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Les: When you drill and pressure oiled the crank, did you stay with the
babbit, or go with insert bearings? Leon S Hutchinson Ks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Press. oiled A |
I assume you guys are going to turn up the heat in your A powered ships. The
pressured oil supply is not needed if turning Pietenpols recommended RPM.
But I understand that it is nice to have. The engine is able to produce more
power than designed for. Better breathing is what I have understood to help
the most, increase the intake CFMS. The insert bearings I have seen
available use a center thrust, is this the norm? If so it would not seem to
be a good idea, since the thrust loads need to stay were they are for
aircraft use.
P.S. I have an A engine with most machine work done, and new bearings for
$550.00 anyone interested email me at zigodan(at)aol.com.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Dan,
I might be interested. Can you send me pictures.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
ZigoDan(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Press. oiled A
I assume you guys are going to turn up the heat in your A powered ships.
The
pressured oil supply is not needed if turning Pietenpols recommended RPM.
But I understand that it is nice to have. The engine is able to produce
more
power than designed for. Better breathing is what I have understood to help
the most, increase the intake CFMS. The insert bearings I have seen
available use a center thrust, is this the norm? If so it would not seem to
be a good idea, since the thrust loads need to stay were they are for
aircraft use.
P.S. I have an A engine with most machine work done, and new bearings for
$550.00 anyone interested email me at zigodan(at)aol.com.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Model A Firewall Fwd. for sale |
Included is the Model A engine, Slick Mag, Dan Price Aluminum Head, radiator,
hoses, mounts & fittings, engine mount, cowling, prop. The engine needs
rebuilt. I suggest drilling the crankshaft for pressure oiling, forged
pistons, and an alternative induction system. $1500 for all. I have
pictures. E-mail me direct for pictures or questions.
Chuck Gantzer
rcaprd(at)aol.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
Jon,
Chris is right, up to a point. The gross weight is basically set by some
structural parameter in the aircraft, usually the wing spar or the landing
gear. You hear of a plane being stressed to +/- 10 G's, well that means
the structure can handle a certain limit load, and depending on how many G's
the designer wants the plane to be good for, he divides the limit load by
that number of G's and voila - the gross weight pops out!
When I was a young engineer just out of college and was working for General
Dynamics on the F-16 initial design (sad that a plane designed in 1975 is
still one of our front line fighters), the initial gross weight of the plane
was 23,000 lbs. (which meant it could go supersonic straight up with its
25,000 lb. thrust engine). Later, some mods to the landing gear enabled it
to takeoff with more fuel on board in external tanks and the takeoff gross
weight was increased to 37,000 lbs, but its maneuvering gross weight was
still 23,000.
In other words, the gross weight is somewhat arbitrary. However, be aware
that stall speed is a variable and goes up with gross weight. It is quite
possible with a robust structured airplane to have a gross weight that is
structurally safe but simply can't fly because the stall speed is too high.
For my Pietenpol, I've figured on a gross weight of around 1100 lbs.
Jack
-----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: Question about Gross Weight
Jon,
For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or not.
You set the rules. No kidding.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
Botsford
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an
aircraft?
Jon Botsford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sat. Both sad and happy |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
; ; ;
; ;
; ; ;
; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
; ;
; ; ;
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sat. Both sad and happy
+++++++++++++++++++
Corky,
I share your feelings, both about the shuttle tragedy and the euphoria of
your first ride. Thanks for sharing with us.
Congratulations!
John
+++++++++++++++++++
>
> Pieters and Friends,
> Yesterday began very sad for our country and some space participants and
> their families. This we all regret deeply.
>
> Yesterday, my test pilot Mr. Edwin Johnson, finally agreed to let me fly
in
> my airplane. Sounds funny doesn't it. He had test flown the first 25 hrs
and
> 36 minutes as required by the FAA before carrying a passenger ( that's
me).
> Earlier in the afternoon I had cranked up N41CC and taxied up and down the
> runway waiting for him. The tailwheel didn't answer to helm as I wanted it
so
> I came in and made some changes. Finally he arrived and said he would
ride
> front hole and I would fly from the rear, where else? It took him 2 prop
> swings before it started. ( I started it on the first swing earlier). We
> talked about our signals etc before we taxied out for run up. Finally I
went
> to the north end of Lucien and did a few vrooms eased the throttle forward
> and felt that 65 Continental try to force me through the seat back. Didn't
> even forget to pressure the rudder to the right when the tail lifted.
Didn't
> know when we left the ground as it was so quick. Kicked in a little right
> crab, ( SW wind), and she climbed like an angel on her way home. Made my
left
> climbing turn and the ball stayed centered. Man, I was livin. Went up to
1K,
> 130 deg, to go chase hundreds of white pelicans down on the roaring Red. A
> beautiful bird, most people have never seen them from above to see the
> beautiful black-top wing tips. Anyway my front holer directed me to Desoto
> Parish Airport for some attempts to land this airplane. I had failed to
tell
> him that I had not landed a tail wheel airplane since 1972. Oh well, he
would
> soon find out. I made my usual Kamakazi approach as he just sat up there
> stunned. Came on down to 18 and leveled off to land as if I had been
landing
> a big bird. Was pretty high and did I ever spread the gears, ( dropped
in). I
> was embarrased. We went around again and on base he took it to show me how
> well a Piet would slip. On final I slipped it and it was like the old L-16
in
> '51. He applauded this landing. Hell, any landing would have beat that
first
> one. We left Desoto. Forgot to mention that between the Pelicans and
Desoto
> we went up to 2500 for some steeeeeeeep turns, sslooooooooooow flying and
> some stalls, power on and half on.
> All went well. I felt right at home.
> Next we went to a sod duster operation strip. First landing, kinda bad,
again
> flairing out too high. Next one he applauded me once again. By then the
sun
> had set and it was beginning to cool down in 41CC so we came home. Landed
at
> Lucien, again kinda high but ground control was OK. That Lucien runway
can't
> be any wider 12 or 15 feet.
> I guess you might say this was part of what they call a bi-annual. His
only
> comment was that we need to do it again as soon as we can get another
> beautiful day. As all of you noted, the skies in East Texas and Western La
> yesterday were as clear as I ever remember.
> I ended the day feeling like a popsickle but very pleased to have piloted
our
> own creation. Joe Czalicka and I. Those building Piets, don't stop, it's
> worth all the work.
>
> Corky in La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Landing Gear Placement |
Pieters,
I too, struggled with the placement of the gear on my long fuselage, and finally
decided to use the simple weight and balance spreadsheet that I had been using
on my computer.
When I began building the plane, I made up a simple spreadsheet on the computer
which listed the estimated weight and the moments of each major component of
the plane such as engine, wing, fuel tank, pilot, passenger etc.
Then as each part was built the actual weight was put into the spreadsheet and
the revised W&B was automatically computed.
When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured that I wanted to have the
ground contact of the wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the CG. Turned
out to be perfect. I can use the brakes pretty hard without any tendency to
nose over, (the brakes are not that effective)yet it is light enough on the tailwheel,
(12 lbs) to handle easily on the ground.
Generally speaking, the further forward the gear is, the more squirrely the plane
is on take off and landings, but too far aft and it becomes too sensitive to
nosing over under braking effort.
Hope this helps,
John, NX114D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John_Duprey(at)vmed.org |
| Subject: | Re: Sat. Both sad and happy |
02/03/2003 08:02:12 AM
Congratulations Corky!!!!!!
Isablcorky(at)aol.com@matronics.com on 02/02/2003 06:31:28 PM
Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
Lincol99(at)aol.com, christinedigsjazz(at)shaw.ca, wayfollower(at)cox.net,
claudiabartlett(at)austin.rr.com, T_FIN(at)Compuserve.com,
hmposer(at)charter.net, Howdyhilary(at)aol.com, fleece(at)cox-internet.com,
NewtonIvy(at)webtv.net, jamestownesimmons(at)yahoo.com,
jbrainis(at)sport.rr.com, LCJELKS(at)aol.com, JimNikls(at)aol.com,
Herzog807(at)msn.com, Jajouett(at)aol.com, Leeortho(at)aol.com,
LGililland(at)msn.com, Linda(at)huarch.com, tvlux(at)cox.net,
MAGSOUR(at)aol.com, Marionle35(at)aol.com, Mvphipps39(at)aol.com,
rchapman(at)andersonsmith.com, RobertBeachbum(at)aol.com,
nfn00979(at)naples.net, TomTravis(at)aol.com, wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net,
craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sat. Both sad and happy
Pieters and Friends,
Yesterday began very sad for our country and some space participants and
their families. This we all regret deeply.
Yesterday, my test pilot Mr. Edwin Johnson, finally agreed to let me fly in
my airplane. Sounds funny doesn't it. He had test flown the first 25 hrs
and
36 minutes as required by the FAA before carrying a passenger ( that's me).
Earlier in the afternoon I had cranked up N41CC and taxied up and down the
runway waiting for him. The tailwheel didn't answer to helm as I wanted it
so
I came in and made some changes. Finally he arrived and said he would ride
front hole and I would fly from the rear, where else? It took him 2 prop
swings before it started. ( I started it on the first swing earlier). We
talked about our signals etc before we taxied out for run up. Finally I
went
to the north end of Lucien and did a few vrooms eased the throttle forward
and felt that 65 Continental try to force me through the seat back. Didn't
even forget to pressure the rudder to the right when the tail lifted.
Didn't
know when we left the ground as it was so quick. Kicked in a little right
crab, ( SW wind), and she climbed like an angel on her way home. Made my
left
climbing turn and the ball stayed centered. Man, I was livin. Went up to
1K,
130 deg, to go chase hundreds of white pelicans down on the roaring Red. A
beautiful bird, most people have never seen them from above to see the
beautiful black-top wing tips. Anyway my front holer directed me to Desoto
Parish Airport for some attempts to land this airplane. I had failed to
tell
him that I had not landed a tail wheel airplane since 1972. Oh well, he
would
soon find out. I made my usual Kamakazi approach as he just sat up there
stunned. Came on down to 18 and leveled off to land as if I had been
landing
a big bird. Was pretty high and did I ever spread the gears, ( dropped in).
I
was embarrased. We went around again and on base he took it to show me how
well a Piet would slip. On final I slipped it and it was like the old L-16
in
'51. He applauded this landing. Hell, any landing would have beat that
first
one. We left Desoto. Forgot to mention that between the Pelicans and Desoto
we went up to 2500 for some steeeeeeeep turns, sslooooooooooow flying and
some stalls, power on and half on.
All went well. I felt right at home.
Next we went to a sod duster operation strip. First landing, kinda bad,
again
flairing out too high. Next one he applauded me once again. By then the sun
had set and it was beginning to cool down in 41CC so we came home. Landed
at
Lucien, again kinda high but ground control was OK. That Lucien runway
can't
be any wider 12 or 15 feet.
I guess you might say this was part of what they call a bi-annual. His only
comment was that we need to do it again as soon as we can get another
beautiful day. As all of you noted, the skies in East Texas and Western La
yesterday were as clear as I ever remember.
I ended the day feeling like a popsickle but very pleased to have piloted
our
own creation. Joe Czalicka and I. Those building Piets, don't stop, it's
worth all the work.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
You can also check out the landing gear design info from one of
Pazmany's books at.
http://mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID=5
It suggests that the angle from the forward most CG to the contact
point of the wheels be 12 to 15 degrees ahead. There is some other
info in the article also.
I am in the middle of gear building now and it is one of the most
difficult, but fun learning experiences so far.
Kirk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Howdy, Pieters-
To those of you who have a Corvair on your Piet and who are flying or
getting ready to, I have an offer. I just got a brand-new 62x34 Tennessee
Props wood prop for the Corvair/Pietenpol. My engine won't be running for a
while and definitely won't be installed on a Piet for a good long while, so
I stand ready to loan my prop out for testing. The intent is not to have it
sitting around, but rather for someone who is flying or on the verge of
flying and who could get some useful data from it and maybe get in the air a
bit sooner than if you had to order one and wait for it.
The prop is through-bored for the safety shaft, 3" thick, left-hand turning,
SAE #1 bolt pattern for AN6 bolts. I do not have a crush plate for it yet,
but will soon (and all wood props must have one).
Anyone interested, let me know off-line and we'll talk. The prop is crated
for shipping (I just got it Friday) and it's a beauty. Maybe I'll take a
picture and put it on my website.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
Hi John
what was different about your craft that you had to
change gear location from the plans, and from the
location that 500 other pieters placed theirs?
thanks
Del
--- John Dilatush wrote:
> Dilatush"
>
> Pieters,
>
> I too, struggled with the placement of the gear on
> my long fuselage, and finally decided to use the
> simple weight and balance spreadsheet that I had
> been using on my computer.
>
> When I began building the plane, I made up a simple
> spreadsheet on the computer which listed the
> estimated weight and the moments of each major
> component of the plane such as engine, wing, fuel
> tank, pilot, passenger etc.
>
> Then as each part was built the actual weight was
> put into the spreadsheet and the revised W&B was
> automatically computed.
>
> When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured
> that I wanted to have the ground contact of the
> wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the CG.
> Turned out to be perfect. I can use the brakes
> pretty hard without any tendency to nose over, (the
> brakes are not that effective)yet it is light enough
> on the tailwheel, (12 lbs) to handle easily on the
> ground.
>
> Generally speaking, the further forward the gear is,
> the more squirrely the plane is on take off and
> landings, but too far aft and it becomes too
> sensitive to nosing over under braking effort.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John, NX114D
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Les Schubert <leskarin(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Press. oiled A |
Dan
It seems like every guy I have talked to always wishes he had a little more
power.
Getting more power out of a A or most any engine is pretty easy, it is
getting them to
"live" that is the challenge. Henry didn't drill cranks till the V 8 which
came out right
after the A, and went from 40 hp to 85 hp with almost the same displacement.
I am not a big fan of insert bearings for the A crank, but maybe they work.
A properly done babbitt job with pressure works just fine for extra power
engines.
Les
>
>I assume you guys are going to turn up the heat in your A powered ships. The
>pressured oil supply is not needed if turning Pietenpols recommended RPM.
>But I understand that it is nice to have. The engine is able to produce more
>power than designed for. Better breathing is what I have understood to help
>the most, increase the intake CFMS. The insert bearings I have seen
>available use a center thrust, is this the norm? If so it would not seem to
>be a good idea, since the thrust loads need to stay were they are for
>aircraft use.
>P.S. I have an A engine with most machine work done, and new bearings for
>$550.00 anyone interested email me at zigodan(at)aol.com.
>
>Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Les Schubert <leskarin(at)telus.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Press. oiled A |
Leon
I have always stayed with the babbitt. I have found that with pressure it
will hang together at 4500 rpm for many miles of road use, way faster than
we will run in a airplane. I am not sure I am a big fan of thin shell
bearings in a A especially at high power settings as the A crank is still
quite flexible and the babbitt will "adjust" to the required clearance
which the thinly coated shell bearings can't. Maybe this doesn't really
happen but it suits my experience.
Les
>
>Les: When you drill and pressure oiled the crank, did you stay with the
>babbit, or go with insert bearings? Leon S Hutchinson Ks.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Landing Gear Placement |
Del,
as my recent post on this subject says, if you build the long "corvair"
fuselage, NO GEAR was ever shown on the drawings. So how do yo know where
it should be? The point of my presentation is that if you don't know where
it is to be per the drawings then this is one man's (my) best guess. Also,
I use Sky Gypsy as a prime example of a much beloved Piet that was built one
way and then promptly modified to be manageable by a very able pilot. May I
suggest that the 500 less the Sky Gypsy are the 499 piets that never fly?
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of del
magsam
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
Hi John
what was different about your craft that you had to
change gear location from the plans, and from the
location that 500 other pieters placed theirs?
thanks
Del
--- John Dilatush wrote:
> Dilatush"
>
> Pieters,
>
> I too, struggled with the placement of the gear on
> my long fuselage, and finally decided to use the
> simple weight and balance spreadsheet that I had
> been using on my computer.
>
> When I began building the plane, I made up a simple
> spreadsheet on the computer which listed the
> estimated weight and the moments of each major
> component of the plane such as engine, wing, fuel
> tank, pilot, passenger etc.
>
> Then as each part was built the actual weight was
> put into the spreadsheet and the revised W&B was
> automatically computed.
>
> When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured
> that I wanted to have the ground contact of the
> wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the CG.
> Turned out to be perfect. I can use the brakes
> pretty hard without any tendency to nose over, (the
> brakes are not that effective)yet it is light enough
> on the tailwheel, (12 lbs) to handle easily on the
> ground.
>
> Generally speaking, the further forward the gear is,
> the more squirrely the plane is on take off and
> landings, but too far aft and it becomes too
> sensitive to nosing over under braking effort.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John, NX114D
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
----- Original Message -----
From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
+++++++++++++++++++++
Del,
To answer your question: Each Pietenpol that has been built seems to vary
from the plans some according to the engine used, builder's preference on
details, woods used, finishes applied and on and on. All of these changes
result in a different CG location. Since the ground handling is dependent
on the landing gear location and the landing gear location is dependent upon
the CG (both horizontal and vertical) then each gear location should be
figured for the particular plane if one is to get the kind of handling he is
looking for. This is one of the challenges of building your own plane from
plans rather than from a kit.
In my case, I am running a heavier powerplant than usual, have added brakes,
tailwheel, seat padding, electrical system, ELT, cowl tank and other
modifications, all of which change the CG from the plans. Although the gear
location is changed by only a couple of inches from the plans and is not
super critical, I chose to be precise.
John
+++++++++++++
>
> Hi John
> what was different about your craft that you had to
> change gear location from the plans, and from the
> location that 500 other pieters placed theirs?
> thanks
> Del
> --- John Dilatush wrote:
> > Dilatush"
> >
> > Pieters,
> >
> > I too, struggled with the placement of the gear on
> > my long fuselage, and finally decided to use the
> > simple weight and balance spreadsheet that I had
> > been using on my computer.
> >
> > When I began building the plane, I made up a simple
> > spreadsheet on the computer which listed the
> > estimated weight and the moments of each major
> > component of the plane such as engine, wing, fuel
> > tank, pilot, passenger etc.
> >
> > Then as each part was built the actual weight was
> > put into the spreadsheet and the revised W&B was
> > automatically computed.
> >
> > When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured
> > that I wanted to have the ground contact of the
> > wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the CG.
> > Turned out to be perfect. I can use the brakes
> > pretty hard without any tendency to nose over, (the
> > brakes are not that effective)yet it is light enough
> > on the tailwheel, (12 lbs) to handle easily on the
> > ground.
> >
> > Generally speaking, the further forward the gear is,
> > the more squirrely the plane is on take off and
> > landings, but too far aft and it becomes too
> > sensitive to nosing over under braking effort.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> >
> > John, NX114D
> >
> >
> >
> > Contributions
> > any other
> > Forums.
> >
> > latest messages.
> > List members.
> >
> > http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> > http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
> >
> Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> > http://www.matronics.com/archives
> > http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> > http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Del-New Richmond, Wi
> "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Landing Gear Placement |
--- Christian Bobka wrote:
> Bobka"
>
> Del,
>
> as my recent post on this subject says, if you build
> the long "corvair"
> fuselage, NO GEAR was ever shown on the drawings.
> So how do yo know where
> it should be? The point of my presentation is that
> if you don't know where
> it is to be per the drawings then this is one man's
> (my) best guess. Also,
> I use Sky Gypsy as a prime example of a much beloved
> Piet that was built one
> way and then promptly modified to be manageable by a
> very able pilot. May I
> suggest that the 500 less the Sky Gypsy are the 499
> piets that never fly?
>
> Chris
If the gear location isn't indicated on the long fuse
option plans, I would assume it is not changed from
the original plans, which is where I mounted mine. And
it made sense to put the gear mounts per plans because
that is where the upright longeron braces connect the
wing connection hardware to the gear connection
hardware. to directly absorb the weight of the wing on
landing. So...should I reconsider? or will that work.
thanks for your input
Del
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | DRHALL223(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
Hey Folks,
In the papers I received with my plans there is a memo of sorts that talks to
the movement forward of the landing gear on the stretched fuselage version.
If there is any interest I could probably get it scanned and post it.
Dave Hall
Fayetteville, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
Just jumping in with my two cents.
In spite of what engine you use or equiptment you put on, the CG is still in
the same window. Assuming that the gear is hooked to the same attach
points,
if you use the split gear, the only way to relocate the wheels is by
changing the style of the "V". If you do this, as the gear moves thru it's
range of motion while the bungees are flexing, the toe-in/toe-out
caster/camber is all going to be different from original.
Except for moving engine forward about 2" (A-65 long fuselage) to
compensate for my fat arse, the CG is still in the window(way to the rear).
I built the split gear to the plans, and it seems to handle fine riding on
the mains waiting to leave the earth.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
>
>
> --- Christian Bobka wrote:
> > Bobka"
> >
> > Del,
> >
> > as my recent post on this subject says, if you build
> > the long "corvair"
> > fuselage, NO GEAR was ever shown on the drawings.
> > So how do yo know where
> > it should be? The point of my presentation is that
> > if you don't know where
> > it is to be per the drawings then this is one man's
> > (my) best guess. Also,
> > I use Sky Gypsy as a prime example of a much beloved
> > Piet that was built one
> > way and then promptly modified to be manageable by a
> > very able pilot. May I
> > suggest that the 500 less the Sky Gypsy are the 499
> > piets that never fly?
> >
> > Chris
> If the gear location isn't indicated on the long fuse
> option plans, I would assume it is not changed from
> the original plans, which is where I mounted mine. And
> it made sense to put the gear mounts per plans because
> that is where the upright longeron braces connect the
> wing connection hardware to the gear connection
> hardware. to directly absorb the weight of the wing on
> landing. So...should I reconsider? or will that work.
> thanks for your input
> Del
>
> =====
> Del-New Richmond, Wi
> "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Landing Gear Placement |
Del,
The mounting points are the same. The mounting hardware is the same. The V
just changes shape as the axle is moved back. Looking at the wood gear
shown 1932 F & G Manual, the forward leg of the V is more vertical and
shorter than the aft leg of the V which is longer. As the axle moves back
the legs begin to equal out in length. This is needed on the long "corvair"
fuselage as used on sky gypsy because you moved the CG aft and you increased
vertical surface area aft.
There are three conditions:
1) low speed aircraft handling on ground with negligible total aerodynamic
effects.
2) high speed aircraft handling on the ground with considerable total
aerodynamic effects.
3) aircraft in flight. Landing gear has limited aerodynamic effects.
In case one, you are dealing with taxiing, speeding up for take off and
slowing down after landing. This is with little or no help from the rudder
due to slow speeds. The farther forward the gear is located on the
fuselage, the greater the distance between the CG and the gear axle. Also,
lowering the tail slides the gear even further forward. We are used to the
CG being defined as the point of rotation of all reactions but this only
applies in flight. If a wheel is touching the ground, then the wheel
contact point, which is just below the axle becomes the point of rotation
because that is where the airplane is "attached" to the ground. The greater
the distance between the CG and this ground "attachment" point, the harder
it is for the pilot to transition from ground mode to flight mode. Small
changes forward in axle placement greatly increase the tendency to ground
loop.
In addition, as the axle is moved forward, there is an increased side
surface area aft of the "attach" point of the aircraft with the ground.
With a forward axle, any crosswinds would cause the tail to swing right
around into the wind. Don't forget that any surface moved from in front to
behind the axle hurts you twice becuase forward of the axle it was helping
to counter what was behind the axle. Now it is adding to what is behind the
axle. Also, the distance from the axle to the end of the ship increases the
leverage that side surface area exerts in a crosswind. Granted, this may
increase rudder effectivity but we are dealing with a flying surface that is
trying to use air on the downwind side of the fuselage to move the fuselage
back toward the windward side. The downswind side of the fuselage is
essentially blanked out so the rudder has limited effectiveness.
In case two, a too far forward placement of the axle will cause increased
ground looping tendencies due to CG placement relative the axle and side
surface area relative the axle as noted in the previous paragraph. With
the axle too far forward, it will be virtually impossible to lift the tail
for takeoff until an abnormally high speed in ground roll is attained. A
tail wheel airplane is not designed for this. It will present a high drag
profile to the relative wind and the takeoff rolls will be too long. It
will also increase the structural loading on the tail with some pretty large
impact loads. You will be ripping the tail skid/wheel off on a regular
basis.
In case three, the too far forward placement of the gear would put vertical
surface area (the wheel sides) far forward of the CG. This will tend to
cancel the stabilizing effect of the vertical stabilizer. As cool as
covered spoked wheels look, this is a big reason why many that have used
spoked wheels with fabric covering have removed the fabric covering. The
two big vertical discs negated the stabilizing effects of the vertical
stabilizer.
In summary, the axle needs to placed as far aft as possible but with
consideration of limiting the tendency to noseover. Others posted messages
to this list indicating the degree angle that the axle needs to be forward
of the CG. This is do true but it truly neds to be understood. A picture
would really help to see what is meant. We tend to think of the CG as a
point on the wing where the ship balances. This is a valid CG location but
this is the longitudinal CG or the CG along the longitudinal axis. We need
to also consider the other axes. There is a CG about the vertical axis and
a CG about the lateral axis. Combine these three and you get a single point
about which all the mass of the aircraft is located. A guess on the
Pietenpol, with its high wing, is that it is located at or about the center
of the instrument panel. If you level the ship and then hang a plumb bob
from this point and then make the angle forward of this (someone else
mentioned it in an email a minute ago, was it 7 degrees?), your axle should
optimally lie on that line. This would be the axle location that is as far
back as possible yet far enought forward to keep you from nosing over.
I hope this helps.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of del
magsam
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
--- Christian Bobka wrote:
> Bobka"
>
> Del,
>
> as my recent post on this subject says, if you build
> the long "corvair"
> fuselage, NO GEAR was ever shown on the drawings.
> So how do yo know where
> it should be? The point of my presentation is that
> if you don't know where
> it is to be per the drawings then this is one man's
> (my) best guess. Also,
> I use Sky Gypsy as a prime example of a much beloved
> Piet that was built one
> way and then promptly modified to be manageable by a
> very able pilot. May I
> suggest that the 500 less the Sky Gypsy are the 499
> piets that never fly?
>
> Chris
If the gear location isn't indicated on the long fuse
option plans, I would assume it is not changed from
the original plans, which is where I mounted mine. And
it made sense to put the gear mounts per plans because
that is where the upright longeron braces connect the
wing connection hardware to the gear connection
hardware. to directly absorb the weight of the wing on
landing. So...should I reconsider? or will that work.
thanks for your input
Del
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Kip
Center of axal to fire wall 21 "
It seems right.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
Dale
Are you to the point of final or close w/b yet? If so, how far back did
you have to rake your wing to get acceptable balance?
On my short Fuse Piet the wing is back almost 4". I am hoping to avoid
that, this time It makes getting into the rear cockpit somewhat
challanging. I installed the center section cutout but the trailing edge
ends dont allow much room.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
>
> Kip
>
> Center of axal to fire wall 21 "
> It seems right.
> Dale
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
++++++++++++++++++++
Chris,
Good explanation, you are absolutely right! Piet builders should understand
that wheel placement is relative to the center of gravity of the entire mass
and to use an arbitrary measurement such as "distance from the firewall" or
"in front of the leading edge" are only asking for trouble.
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Del,
>
> The mounting points are the same. The mounting hardware is the same. The
V
> just changes shape as the axle is moved back. Looking at the wood gear
> shown 1932 F & G Manual, the forward leg of the V is more vertical and
> shorter than the aft leg of the V which is longer. As the axle moves back
> the legs begin to equal out in length. This is needed on the long
"corvair"
> fuselage as used on sky gypsy because you moved the CG aft and you
increased
> vertical surface area aft.
>
> There are three conditions:
>
> 1) low speed aircraft handling on ground with negligible total aerodynamic
> effects.
>
> 2) high speed aircraft handling on the ground with considerable total
> aerodynamic effects.
>
> 3) aircraft in flight. Landing gear has limited aerodynamic effects.
>
>
> In case one, you are dealing with taxiing, speeding up for take off and
> slowing down after landing. This is with little or no help from the
rudder
> due to slow speeds. The farther forward the gear is located on the
> fuselage, the greater the distance between the CG and the gear axle. Also,
> lowering the tail slides the gear even further forward. We are used to
the
> CG being defined as the point of rotation of all reactions but this only
> applies in flight. If a wheel is touching the ground, then the wheel
> contact point, which is just below the axle becomes the point of rotation
> because that is where the airplane is "attached" to the ground. The
greater
> the distance between the CG and this ground "attachment" point, the harder
> it is for the pilot to transition from ground mode to flight mode. Small
> changes forward in axle placement greatly increase the tendency to ground
> loop.
>
> In addition, as the axle is moved forward, there is an increased side
> surface area aft of the "attach" point of the aircraft with the ground.
> With a forward axle, any crosswinds would cause the tail to swing right
> around into the wind. Don't forget that any surface moved from in front
to
> behind the axle hurts you twice becuase forward of the axle it was helping
> to counter what was behind the axle. Now it is adding to what is behind
the
> axle. Also, the distance from the axle to the end of the ship increases
the
> leverage that side surface area exerts in a crosswind. Granted, this may
> increase rudder effectivity but we are dealing with a flying surface that
is
> trying to use air on the downwind side of the fuselage to move the
fuselage
> back toward the windward side. The downswind side of the fuselage is
> essentially blanked out so the rudder has limited effectiveness.
>
> In case two, a too far forward placement of the axle will cause increased
> ground looping tendencies due to CG placement relative the axle and side
> surface area relative the axle as noted in the previous paragraph. With
> the axle too far forward, it will be virtually impossible to lift the tail
> for takeoff until an abnormally high speed in ground roll is attained. A
> tail wheel airplane is not designed for this. It will present a high drag
> profile to the relative wind and the takeoff rolls will be too long. It
> will also increase the structural loading on the tail with some pretty
large
> impact loads. You will be ripping the tail skid/wheel off on a regular
> basis.
>
> In case three, the too far forward placement of the gear would put
vertical
> surface area (the wheel sides) far forward of the CG. This will tend to
> cancel the stabilizing effect of the vertical stabilizer. As cool as
> covered spoked wheels look, this is a big reason why many that have used
> spoked wheels with fabric covering have removed the fabric covering. The
> two big vertical discs negated the stabilizing effects of the vertical
> stabilizer.
>
> In summary, the axle needs to placed as far aft as possible but with
> consideration of limiting the tendency to noseover. Others posted
messages
> to this list indicating the degree angle that the axle needs to be forward
> of the CG. This is do true but it truly neds to be understood. A picture
> would really help to see what is meant. We tend to think of the CG as a
> point on the wing where the ship balances. This is a valid CG location
but
> this is the longitudinal CG or the CG along the longitudinal axis. We
need
> to also consider the other axes. There is a CG about the vertical axis
and
> a CG about the lateral axis. Combine these three and you get a single
point
> about which all the mass of the aircraft is located. A guess on the
> Pietenpol, with its high wing, is that it is located at or about the
center
> of the instrument panel. If you level the ship and then hang a plumb bob
> from this point and then make the angle forward of this (someone else
> mentioned it in an email a minute ago, was it 7 degrees?), your axle
should
> optimally lie on that line. This would be the axle location that is as
far
> back as possible yet far enought forward to keep you from nosing over.
>
> I hope this helps.
>
> Chris Bobka
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of del
> magsam
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
>
>
>
>
> --- Christian Bobka wrote:
> > Bobka"
> >
> > Del,
> >
> > as my recent post on this subject says, if you build
> > the long "corvair"
> > fuselage, NO GEAR was ever shown on the drawings.
> > So how do yo know where
> > it should be? The point of my presentation is that
> > if you don't know where
> > it is to be per the drawings then this is one man's
> > (my) best guess. Also,
> > I use Sky Gypsy as a prime example of a much beloved
> > Piet that was built one
> > way and then promptly modified to be manageable by a
> > very able pilot. May I
> > suggest that the 500 less the Sky Gypsy are the 499
> > piets that never fly?
> >
> > Chris
> If the gear location isn't indicated on the long fuse
> option plans, I would assume it is not changed from
> the original plans, which is where I mounted mine. And
> it made sense to put the gear mounts per plans because
> that is where the upright longeron braces connect the
> wing connection hardware to the gear connection
> hardware. to directly absorb the weight of the wing on
> landing. So...should I reconsider? or will that work.
> thanks for your input
> Del
>
> =====
> Del-New Richmond, Wi
> "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
>
>In a message dated 2/2/2003 8:04:58 PM Central Standard Time,
>kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>> I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them
>
>Kip,
>I would very much appreciate any info in this regard that Frank can pass
>along. I have the long fuselage with the Model A and the solid wood gear, the
>same as his. I had built and installed the gear before the thread began on
>this subject. Of course that gear was intended for the original FGM version.
>I positioned mine in the location of the second version ("new, improved")
>which is probably equally wrong but I wanted to resist making any changes
>before doing my w&b and seeing what my tailwheel weight was. There may be
>meaningful differences dpending on whether Frank used fir or spruce on his
>fuselage. I did make a concerted effort to keep mine light in the
>tailfeathers and used spruce throughout. I'm fully covered, painted and
>complete and hopefully will be doing my final w&b this weekend. Thanks agin
>for the offer. Don Hicks
Don,
I will ask Frank about his W&B the next time I see him - might be a few
weeks - I'm not getting out to the airport as much during the winter. Then
it's a question of whether or not he's there too, although he's pushing
hard to finish up the Waco, so he's there pretty regularly.
I'll at least try to get out there for a bit this weekend & measure the
firewall to axle distance on Sky Gypsy & will post it on the list when I do.
Frank & his Dad built the plane out of 'conventional' materials A/C grade
spruce & plywood, so without asking him, don't know why it's got the
condition Chris was talking about, especially since he's just got a tail
skid (no wheel) & that keeps the back end weight down some too. I don't
recall seeing a chunk of lead on the motor mount when it was torn down for
it's annual last Spring, but then I wasn't looking for one either!
I'm not as worried about this so much on mine (yet!), since with the
Corvair I'll have a chunk of lead up front by necessity - it's called a
battery:).
Regards,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
--- John Dilatush wrote:
> Dilatush"
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
> ++++++++++++++++++++
> Chris,
>
> Good explanation, you are absolutely right! Piet
> builders should understand
> that wheel placement is relative to the center of
> gravity of the entire mass
> and to use an arbitrary measurement such as
> "distance from the firewall" or
> "in front of the leading edge" are only asking for
> trouble.
>
> John
As long as I have everything built, I'll bolt it
together and see where I'm at. then change from there
if need be. I will be using a sonex style tailwheel
set up, which will cut weight by a good measure. and
aid in controllability.
thanks for the explanations.
Del
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
In a message dated 2/3/03 7:18:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
dilatush(at)amigo.net writes:
> When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured that I wanted to have
> the ground contact of the wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the CG.
> Turned out to be perfect. I can use the brakes pretty hard without any
> tendency to nose over, (the brakes are not that effective)yet it is light
> enough on the tailwheel, (12 lbs) to handle easily on the ground.
I am curious John, how did you arrive at the 12 degrees forward of the CG ?
Or is that 12 inches ?
-dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
I owned a 1938 Aeronca chief at one time. The gear was far forward, to me it
made a forgiving aircraft, and I think one would have had to worked hard to
put it on the nose. The down side is it was hard to see out of when in the
three point attitude. You had to land with your peripheral vision when three
pointing. And it took a long time to get the nose up. But with the gear as
far forward it put a lot of weight on the tail, and made it feal more
positive to me. In retrospect my father-in-law has a Champ, and one day I
was by myself in the front seat, during the run up with brakes set I relaxed
the stick forward and almost put it on the nose, scared the crap out of me.
With my Chief and his Champ side by side you could really tell how far
forward the gear was on the Chief compared to his Champ.
And it seems to me when I used to build model RC planes putting the gear
farther forward help ground stability. Now I have not followed this
discussion that well but felt like telling you guys this just in case it
might help. If not nothing is lost.
DNA
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"Jim Skidmore" , "Jim Markle" ,
"Ron Oehler" ,
"Peter Denny" ,
"Pete Gavin" , "Pat Halligan" ,
"Mike Dolan" , "Jeff Coffey" ,
"Greg Cardinal" , "Frankh" ,
"Ed Hansen" , "David Kujawa" ,
"Dan Carroll" , "Chris Bobka" ,
"Ron Hoyt"
Pete,
Here it is. An attachment will come as well. I have pictures here at home
to personally deliver on tuesday evening.
Chris
BLAST IT! Part VIII
by Chris Bobka
This series was discontinued after the seventh installment when son number
two began to walk! That also coincided with David Kujawa leaving the
chapter newsletter editorship and taking over editorship of Sport Aerobatics
magazine and moving away to Arizona with his lovely wife, Diane. Instead of
looking forward to dropping off articles at David and Diane's and sharing a
few beers, I was frought with fear at having to bring articles to ugly Pete
and Bob. I hope you can find me some forgiveness for leaving you all
hanging. So sorry. Much prodding on the part of Pete, Greg, Frankh, and
others from the Pietenpol chat group has gotten me back to finishing off the
series with this final installment.
We left off with the gauntlets ready for installation to the front of the
box. I have included Figures 11 and 12 which show a cutting diagram for the
gauntlet and what the finished gauntlet should look like. As shown in
Figure 12, cut some darts into the big end of the gauntlet to help it lay
flat as shown in Figure 13. Put some caulk around the left opening in the
box and, using a heavy duty stapler, shoot some 1/4" staples into the box
around the circumference of the glove to hold it in place. Don't do what
Norm did so make sure you use the left handed gauntlet in the left hole of
the box and make sure you orient the thumb so that it is at about the 12
o'clock position. If you put the wrong gauntlet on that hole, you will have
to stand on the cieling in order to sandblast. Like Norm. Put more of the
caulk on top of the gauntlet and then take one of the rings from Figure 3
and and use enough 1-1/4" drywall screws to hold the gauntlet in place. You
can clean up any of the squeezed out caulk at this time. Install the other
glove. Thumbs up!
Next we need to install the door. You cut out the door opening in Figure 4
and at that time, I instructed you to save the cut out piece. Go get it.
Have an assistant hold the cut out piece in the door opening. Take two old
door hinges from the junk box and mark off the screw positions on the door
and on the frame to the rear of the door. Ensure that the hinge pins lie
directly over the cut line and the hinge lines are in line with each other.
Now take the door piece and lay it onto another piece of plywood that is
bigger than it. Mark off the same general shape but about 1-1/2 inches all
the way around it EXCEPT for the rear edge. This mark off should be even
with the rear edge of the door so the door can swing open.
What we are making here is a piece of plywood that will overlap the door
jamb so as to contain the direct blast of the sand. With your radial saw,
cut out the new piece. As the hinges on the door must lay in the same plane
as the box, it will be necessary to make cutouts to allow this new piece to
clear the door. Cut these out with a sabre saw. The top and side views of
Figure 14 clearly show this. You may design a better way and I know that
there are better ways but this is the way I did it. Go for it! Make the
latch as shown in Figure 14 from some scrap plywood. Attach the door and
latch to the box. If you want, you can get some felt weatherstripping about
1/8" thick and 1/2-3/4" wide and put it around the door jamb as indicated to
help contain some of the sand. An 1/8" looks thick but it will compress
right down.
Well that is it. The box is done. Now we have to come up with the gun.
You want a good one. The reason is that the gun uses air that passes
through a venturi in the gun to create suction which pulls the sand up from
the hopper, through the feed tube, and through the venturi itself,
accelerating the sand along the way. At the venturi, the sand makes a sharp
turn before it exits the nozzle. My dad, the physicist, says that force
times mass equals impact. We want impact as that is what does the
sandblasting. Mass is related to the the size and density of the particle.
Force is the effectiveness of the gun at accelerating the particle. Every
particle of sand that comes out of the gun also is trying to wear down the
venturi of the gun. A cheap ceramic nozzle coupled with a soft steel
venturi will not last long as the sand will abrade it right down and the
venturi will no longer be properly shaped to create a quality vacuum (if a
vacuum sucks, is it good or bad?). Lots of air will come out of the nozzle
but no abrasive. Then you will blame me that the sandblaster does not work.
We need space age materials. We need titanium. We need carbide.
So I will tell you what gun to get. It is shown in Figure 15. It is
available at Grainger, among other places, and can be found on the internet
as of February 2003 at:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/catalogpageview.jsp?xi=xi&CatPage=1427
You want model 3JT01 for the 12 CFM model. It lists for a wopping 77
dollars but buddy Jim Markle at jim_markle(at)mindspring.com has agreed to
purchase these guns from Grainger at his substantial discount and have them
drop shipped to interested buyers. The best thing is that parts are
available too as listed on the same web page. The gun does not have a
trigger. You do not want a gun with a trigger. A gun with a trigger takes
up too much room and your finger gets tired holding the trigger. Instead of
a trigger, I merely connect and disconnect a Milton coupling right at the
aft end of the gun. You could get fancy and use a foot pedal air switch or
you could put a valve at the point where the air line goes into the box.
Use what you think you would like.
Once you have your gun, attach it to the end of the pickup tube inside the
box with an appropriate length of 5/8" ID cheap clear vinyl tubing from the
big rack of tubing at Home Depot that I told you to get earlier. Use some
hose clamps to hold the hose on at both ends. Drill the smallest size hole
you can get away with to let the air line into the box. It should be
located near where the pickup tube is located so that both hoses can flop
around more or less together.
You need a vacuum cleaner of the big shop vac variety. This is a necessity
as you are creating a mammoth sandstorm inside the box. Without a shop vac,
it will be so cloudy inside the box after a minute that you won't be able to
see your hand in front of your face. You are pumping air into the box at 100
PSI and at 11-15 Cubic Feet per Minute. All the air has to go somewhere. If
there is no shop vac then this air will blow out through every seam and put
dust all over the garage and make a big mess. It will also go into your
lungs and you will contract silicosis and die a horrible slow death. The key
is to create a negative pressure inside the box so that the dust is trapped
by the filter of the shop vac. Better yet, use an extra long vacuum hose
and put the shop vac outside as even the filter on the shop vac won't trap
all the fines.
Their are endless varieties of abrasives to use. I use number five white
silica sand. You can remember number five as that is how many fingers you
should have on one of your hands. It is the same stuff that you see in sand
filled ashtrays next to the door to elevators in office buildings. Many
sandblasting supply outfits are reluctant to sell you sand for sandblasting
beacuse they are afraid you will not be using proper breathing protection
and they will be sued by your hiers after you die of silicosis. If you tell
them it is for ashtrays, then they will chum right up and gladly sell it to
you. It will come in 50 or 100 lb sacks. 100 lbs should do for starters.
Dick Navratril, a Pietenpol builder here in the Twin Cities area
(horzpool(at)goldengate.net), says you could also try a larger swimming pool
dealer to get sand. In his swimming pool supply shop, he carries red flint
granite sand sized at .45-.55 mm. It is rather aggressive but doesn't dust
nearly as much as white silica sands. Some may try to use glass beads or
walnut shells. It all depends upon the finish you wish, the aggressiveness
of the cleaning, and the price you are willing to pay.
You may consider building more than one sandblasting box. Each can have a
different abrasive. It is difficult to change abrasives from big to little
for the following reason: you will probably never get all the big stuff
out. What will happen is that you will make a change from big particles to
little particles. You will think you have it licked and you will be
blasting away looking at the fine, uniform finish on your blasted piece.
Just as the ten millionth particle comes out of the nozzle, a stray big
particle will come out, and whamo! there appears what will looks like a huge
crater in your work as that single particle hits. It may not bother you and
it may not matter based on the part you are blasting but sometime it may
matter. Again, the choice is yours. Once my new hangar is done, it will
sport a couple of blasting boxes each with a different abrasive.
Additonal abrasives management discussion is outside the scope of this
article. I am sure that industrious users of their new blast cabinet will
seek out information on http://www.google.com for more information.
A few tips on use are in order. All the debris you blast off of the pieces
you are sandblasting will fall down into the sand. Eventually, they will
migrate to the bottom of the hopper as it becomes their "turn" to be sucked
into the pickup tube. Large pieces of debris will clog the venturi of the
gun. The short term fix is to hold your free hand over the discharge nozzle
of the gun, forcing the compressed air down the hose abrasive supply hose
and the pickup tube and blowing all the junk out. This will work for a
while but sooner or later you will have to empty the abrasive out the bottom
of the hopper and sift it. I use a big sifter from the cookingware aisle of
the supermarket that looks like a bowl made out of screening. This is the
long term fix.
Use a pair of pliers kept in the box to hold small parts so you are not
always blasting away at the fingertips of your gloves as you hold parts.
The box makes for really good storage of parts that must be kept rust free.
The large quantity of sand acts as a dessicant to keep the air in the box
dry.
You can also experiment with different air pressures. 50-60 PSI works good
for most work. It is hard for many air compressors to keep this up at 12
CFM so from time to time you need to give the air compressor a chance to
catch up. Also, most air compressors have a duty cycle which means that it
is expected that a certain percentage of the time, the air compressor should
be off and resting. It cools when it rests. You may consider a
supplemental fan blowing on your air compressor to keep it cool.
Do not take stuff out of the blaster unless you have gloves on. The pros
say to use surgical gloves. Oils and acids from your skin will cause the
part to rust, even under paint.
As stressed in the beginning of this series of articles, moisture is the
bane of all sandblasters. you must have adequate moisture control in your
system. The ideal air supply system uses many feet of metal, not plastic or
rubber, air line between the compressor and the sandblaster. The metal
absorbs the heat from the compressed air. As the compressed air cools, the
water in it will condense out and deposit, in the form of water droplets,
onto the inside surface of the cool pipe. As the air passes through the
pipe it will roll these droplets along until they hit a moisture trap that
will inertially snag them and keep them from traveling further. It is
important to note that moisture traps trap water droplets, not water vapor.
Putting a mositure trap at the compressor outlet will not do much good since
the air will carry mostly vapor here as the air is so hot. The best "final"
moisture trap I know of is the 1/2" coalescing air filter as illustrated in
Figure 16 and sold by Tip Sandblasting at 1-800-321-9260. It uses a roll of
toilet paper inside the unit to absorb all remaining mositure after the air
has traveled through the standard inertial moisture traps of your system.
The price is up there on this unit bust the performance is spectacular.
Finally, as you sandblast and between sips of Guiness, USE PROTECTIVE
BREATHING EQUIPMENT APPROPRIATE FOR SANDBLASTING. If it is good for wearing
while doing drywall work, it should be good for sandblasting but read the
labels on the devices you might want to use! Also, use hearing protection
if you have the shop vac next to you. Ideally you can use a Walkman and its
little earplug type earpieces under your hearing protectors so you can
listen to the Grateful Dead as you blast away.
Good luck with your new unit and try to imagine how life was before you had
it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I added this too |
Jim et al,
I forgot to add this as the second to last paragraph:
Jim Markle has posted ten pictures of his box on a website for viewing:
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b3322ee6e4b7
thanks.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Ron skip and John |
Ron butcher, Skip Gadd, and John Dilatush,
I am working this evening on finishing up the end of the sandblaster
articles and putting all the drawings in useable format for your use.
Please bear with me. I will have the stuff in the mail by next monday.
Thanks for your patience.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
I have a formula for " minimum safe horsepower"
around here somewhere. I believe it's based on
the minimum hp that will provide a climb of 300 ft/min.
The ford A hp comes out right at that figure. So
my assumption has been that the power available
was the original bases for Bernards choice of gross
weight. Now that we have more powerful engines
in use the gross wt can be optimized for other
parameters, with safety in mind, of course. As Jack
has pointed out we must be carefull in our assumptions.
One question is how come the new plans come with
a 3/4" spar when the original was 1"? Who determined
that this is safe? Who performed the necessary
calculations? Where can we see these and what
design load was used? What are the permissable
G loads with this spar?
The answers are important to us now that we have
overcome the original power limitations.
Clif.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
> Jon,
>
> Chris is right, up to a point. The gross weight is basically set by some
> structural parameter in the aircraft, usually the wing spar or the landing
> gear. You hear of a plane being stressed to +/- 10 G's, well that means
> the structure can handle a certain limit load, and depending on how many
G's
> the designer wants the plane to be good for, he divides the limit load by
> that number of G's and voila - the gross weight pops out!
>
> When I was a young engineer just out of college and was working for
General
> Dynamics on the F-16 initial design (sad that a plane designed in 1975 is
> still one of our front line fighters), the initial gross weight of the
plane
> was 23,000 lbs. (which meant it could go supersonic straight up with its
> 25,000 lb. thrust engine). Later, some mods to the landing gear enabled
it
> to takeoff with more fuel on board in external tanks and the takeoff gross
> weight was increased to 37,000 lbs, but its maneuvering gross weight was
> still 23,000.
>
> In other words, the gross weight is somewhat arbitrary. However, be aware
> that stall speed is a variable and goes up with gross weight. It is quite
> possible with a robust structured airplane to have a gross weight that is
> structurally safe but simply can't fly because the stall speed is too
high.
>
> For my Pietenpol, I've figured on a gross weight of around 1100 lbs.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Christian
> Bobka
> Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:36 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
>
> Jon,
>
> For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or not.
> You set the rules. No kidding.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
> Botsford
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
>
>
> Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for an
> aircraft?
>
> Jon Botsford
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rambog(at)erols.com" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | wire wheels for sale |
I am selling a pair of wire wheels I had intended to put on my Piet. These
are an original pair of wheels from the early 1920's. They are size 24x4
which is called for in some of the Piet plans. Some Jennies came with this
same wheel, but these are not clinchers, they are drop-center. Of course,
they do not have brakes. These are the same wheels that are on the Golden
Age Air Museum's model A Piet in Pennsylvania, and you can see a photo on
their web site. 24x4 means that the wheel is 16" in diameter and the tire
is 4" tall, for a total of 24". The axle size is 1 1/2, correct size for
the Piet.
When I bought the wheels, I disassembled them while I was working at the
Air & Space facility at Silver Hill. We soaked them in several chemical
baths to remove all rust and coat the metal. I primed them with chromated
black paint and clear coated over that. The wheels had some surface rust
which has left the surface with a "textured" look from light surface
pitting, but they are not damaged or weakened. I had planned to cover them
with fabric anyway. I ordered all new spokes from Buchanan's and trued the
wheels. It was everyone's opinion that these wheels have never been
mounted on an airplane due to the lack of wear marks on the bronze bushings.
I have quite a bit invested in the wheels, but if someone really wants them
I am willing to negotiate. I have found anopther pair of wire wheels that
are a different size and I like better. Anyone that is interested please
e-mail me and let me know what you would give for these.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dmott9(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear Placement
+++++++++++++++++++
Dennis,
That measurement is 12 degrees, which is a line drawn from the calculated
center of gravity of the entire plane swung forward of vertical 12 degrees
to the point of ground contact of the wheel.
This measurement depends on the usage of plane and can vary from about 10.5
to as much as 20 degrees. At the minimum of 10.5 degrees, you would find on
a plane that doesn't have brakes and a low CG. At the other end of the
scale you might have a design such as a Helio Courier with a high CG and
used for short fields and heavy braking. David Thurston in his book "Design
for Flying" suggests 16.5 degrees as the average for a certified aircraft.
However remember that the further forward the gear is, the greater tendency
to ground looping and the harder it is to raise the tail on take off.
I used 12 degrees arbitrarily and have found it perfect for a Pietenpol.
Hope this helps, John D.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> In a message dated 2/3/03 7:18:52 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> dilatush(at)amigo.net writes:
>
> > When it came to the placement of the gear, I figured that I wanted to
have
> > the ground contact of the wheels to be about 12 degrees forward of the
CG.
> > Turned out to be perfect. I can use the brakes pretty hard without any
> > tendency to nose over, (the brakes are not that effective)yet it is
light
> > enough on the tailwheel, (12 lbs) to handle easily on the ground.
>
> I am curious John, how did you arrive at the 12 degrees forward of the CG
?
> Or is that 12 inches ?
> -dennis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear Placement |
Dave, I would be very interested in seeing this if you are able to scan and
post.
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
To all,
Thanks for you insight on gross weight. It is very helpful.
jon b
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
> I have a formula for " minimum safe horsepower"
> around here somewhere. I believe it's based on
> the minimum hp that will provide a climb of 300 ft/min.
> The ford A hp comes out right at that figure. So
> my assumption has been that the power available
> was the original bases for Bernards choice of gross
> weight. Now that we have more powerful engines
> in use the gross wt can be optimized for other
> parameters, with safety in mind, of course. As Jack
> has pointed out we must be carefull in our assumptions.
>
> One question is how come the new plans come with
> a 3/4" spar when the original was 1"? Who determined
> that this is safe? Who performed the necessary
> calculations? Where can we see these and what
> design load was used? What are the permissable
> G loads with this spar?
>
> The answers are important to us now that we have
> overcome the original power limitations.
>
Clif.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
>
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Chris is right, up to a point. The gross weight is basically set by
some
> > structural parameter in the aircraft, usually the wing spar or the
landing
> > gear. You hear of a plane being stressed to +/- 10 G's, well that
means
> > the structure can handle a certain limit load, and depending on how many
> G's
> > the designer wants the plane to be good for, he divides the limit load
by
> > that number of G's and voila - the gross weight pops out!
> >
> > When I was a young engineer just out of college and was working for
> General
> > Dynamics on the F-16 initial design (sad that a plane designed in 1975
is
> > still one of our front line fighters), the initial gross weight of the
> plane
> > was 23,000 lbs. (which meant it could go supersonic straight up with its
> > 25,000 lb. thrust engine). Later, some mods to the landing gear enabled
> it
> > to takeoff with more fuel on board in external tanks and the takeoff
gross
> > weight was increased to 37,000 lbs, but its maneuvering gross weight was
> > still 23,000.
> >
> > In other words, the gross weight is somewhat arbitrary. However, be
aware
> > that stall speed is a variable and goes up with gross weight. It is
quite
> > possible with a robust structured airplane to have a gross weight that
is
> > structurally safe but simply can't fly because the stall speed is too
> high.
> >
> > For my Pietenpol, I've figured on a gross weight of around 1100 lbs.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Christian
> > Bobka
> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:36 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or
not.
> > You set the rules. No kidding.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
> > Botsford
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for
an
> > aircraft?
> >
> > Jon Botsford
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | some sources on gear position |
I did some research in my extensive aeronautical library and have turned up
the following:
Source: Aircraft Design Vol II Aero Structures by Cecil Hugh
Latimer-Needham published 1939 says:
"The point of wheel contact with the ground [not the axle centerline] should
make an angle with the vertical through the CG in side elevation (aircraft
rigging position) of not less than 10 degrees, and may increase with wheel
brakes up to a maximum of 14 degrees. The tendency of aircraft to overturn
when landing with wheel brakes may be provided against by arranging for the
brakes to be released as the tail skid leaves the ground. It has been
found, however, that if the angle, made by the line joining the point of
wheel contact [not the axle centerline] to the CG with the vertical through
the CG when the tail skid is touching, is at least 20 degrees no overturning
is likely. An angle much greater than 20 degrees results in excessive tail
loads at landing and difficulty in taxi-ing and at takeoff. It may be noted
that the overturning tendency is not great at the moment of touching down,
since the aircraft is still largely airborne and skidding of the wheels
takes place. Towards the end of the run both aerodynamic lift and control
are negligible, the braking effect increases and for safety the braking laod
should be decreased."
Latimer-Needham is an Englishman.
rigging position refers to tail elevated so that upper longereons on the
piet are level.
Source: Prelimiary Aircraft Design by R. C. Wilson published 1941 says, in
the context of drawing a side elevation with the tail in rigging position,
as defined above:
"E. Location of the Landing Gear (Main Wheels and Tail Wheel System) From
the assumed CG draw a line downward and forward making the vertical an angle
of not more than 20 degrees nor less than 12 degrees. The former angle
should be used when extremely effective brakes are to be used, the latter
when no wheel brakes whatever are contemplated. A fair normal figure for
ordinary wheels and brakes is 18 degrees. The axle of the main wheels [not
the point of wheel contact with the ground], with shock absorbers fully
compressed, will lie on this diagonal line."
Wilson is from the U.S.
I added the comments in the [ ] for emphasis. Note that the Brits define
the diagonal line as that from the CG through THE WHEEL POINT OF CONTACT
WITH THE GROUND. The Americans define the diagonal as that from the CG
through THE AXLE CENTERLINE. The diameter of the wheel, therfore, comes
into play in the British scenario.
I hope this helps.
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
Clif,
I've often wondered those things too.
But just to add.......
was in a hanger and saw an Aeronca (don't know which model) wing with the
fabric ripped off. It's amazing to see, the wing had 3/4" wood spars. They
look like a skinny piece of book shelf. Since then I've pulled some "G's"
in one doing steep turns. That memory always pops in my head at those
times.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> <<>>
>> One question is how come the new plans come with
> a 3/4" spar when the original was 1"? Who determined
> that this is safe? Who performed the necessary
> calculations? Where can we see these and what
> design load was used? What are the permissable
> G loads with this spar?
>
> The answers are important to us now that we have
> overcome the original power limitations.
>
Clif.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
>
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Chris is right, up to a point. The gross weight is basically set by
some
> > structural parameter in the aircraft, usually the wing spar or the
landing
> > gear. You hear of a plane being stressed to +/- 10 G's, well that
means
> > the structure can handle a certain limit load, and depending on how many
> G's
> > the designer wants the plane to be good for, he divides the limit load
by
> > that number of G's and voila - the gross weight pops out!
> >
> > When I was a young engineer just out of college and was working for
> General
> > Dynamics on the F-16 initial design (sad that a plane designed in 1975
is
> > still one of our front line fighters), the initial gross weight of the
> plane
> > was 23,000 lbs. (which meant it could go supersonic straight up with its
> > 25,000 lb. thrust engine). Later, some mods to the landing gear enabled
> it
> > to takeoff with more fuel on board in external tanks and the takeoff
gross
> > weight was increased to 37,000 lbs, but its maneuvering gross weight was
> > still 23,000.
> >
> > In other words, the gross weight is somewhat arbitrary. However, be
aware
> > that stall speed is a variable and goes up with gross weight. It is
quite
> > possible with a robust structured airplane to have a gross weight that
is
> > structurally safe but simply can't fly because the stall speed is too
> high.
> >
> > For my Pietenpol, I've figured on a gross weight of around 1100 lbs.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Christian
> > Bobka
> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:36 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or
not.
> > You set the rules. No kidding.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
> > Botsford
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for
an
> > aircraft?
> >
> > Jon Botsford
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: some sources on gear position |
Chris
does aircraft rigging position refer to the plane positioned- tail up - as if
it were flying in straight and level?
Henry Williams trying to decide on dihedral: yes or no
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
| From: | "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com> |
Dick N
Not ready for W/B yet.
Have the wings covered but not the fuselage
Moved the wing back 3 "
Moved the engine forward 1.5 "
Put on a heavy prop.
I hope we are close.
Dale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | my feeelings on dihedral |
Date: Dec 31, 2000
From: Christian Bobka
Subject: Re: dihedral
Why mess with the dihedral. Every aircraft has apparent dihedral (what you
see) and effective dihedral (what you get). Successful aircraft designs
without dihedral or anhedral or negative dihedral have enough effective
dihedral to provide the stability required. Such things as a slab sided
fuselage (like the Piet or a Taylorcraft, for example) create a lot of
effective dihedral. Some airplanes like the C-141 Starlifter and the Avro
BAE 146/RJ-85 had so much effective dihedral early in their design phase
that a lot of negative dihedral was necessary to get the aircraft's
stability in a desirable range. In a side slip/gust upset, air gets dammed
up under the wing and against the fuselage and provides way too much
corrective action so the negative dihedral is used to correct this
characteristic.
So the bottom line is why change something that ain't broke. Did not
Bernard do all the tinkering for us and found the right combination?
Just think. In a correctly designed aircraft, if a vertical gust upsets the
left wing, lifting it up, the aircraft sideslips a little to the right,
creating a little more lift on the right side, bringing the right wing up
THE SAME AMOUNT as the left wing went up initially. SO....a little rudder
action on your part to keep it heading the way you were going and the plane
flies sweet. Add a little dihedral, THAT IS NOT NEEDED, and the scenario
goes like this. A vertical gust upsets the left wing, lifting it up, and
the aircraft sideslips a little to the right. But there is too much
effective dihedral, so a little more lift is created on the right side
during the sideslip and it is more than what is needed to right the
aircraft. So the right wing goes up a little more than the left wing did
initially. This has the same effect of having a gust upset from the right.
Now the aircraft sideslips a little to the left.... And there you go,
round and round. A miserable airplane to fly because it has too much
stability.
As an exercise, think about what would happen if you did not have enough
effective dihedral.
Read old issues of Kitplanes where Barnaby Wainfan discusses dihedral
effect. Or read Perkins and Hage's Aircraft Stability and Control. Or
read Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. If you still don't get it, then pull
out your trusty copy of Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder. It is all there.
Leave it alone.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
Dale,
In a nutshell it sounds like my Piet. My WB came in at the rear CG with my
200+ arse. I built to plans for the long fuselage.
You shouldn't have any probs.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "D.Dale Johnson" <dd5john(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
>
> Dick N
> Not ready for W/B yet.
> Have the wings covered but not the fuselage
> Moved the wing back 3 "
> Moved the engine forward 1.5 "
> Put on a heavy prop.
> I hope we are close.
> Dale
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: my feeelings on dihedral |
the only reason I'm adding a tad of dihedral is to kill the "drooping wing"
visual effect of a straight winged Piet.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my feeelings on dihedral
>
> Date: Dec 31, 2000
> From: Christian Bobka
> Subject: Re: dihedral
>
> Why mess with the dihedral. Every aircraft has apparent dihedral (what
you
> see) and effective dihedral (what you get). Successful aircraft designs
> without dihedral or anhedral or negative dihedral have enough effective
> dihedral to provide the stability required. Such things as a slab sided
> fuselage (like the Piet or a Taylorcraft, for example) create a lot of
> effective dihedral. Some airplanes like the C-141 Starlifter and the Avro
> BAE 146/RJ-85 had so much effective dihedral early in their design phase
> that a lot of negative dihedral was necessary to get the aircraft's
> stability in a desirable range. In a side slip/gust upset, air gets
dammed
> up under the wing and against the fuselage and provides way too much
> corrective action so the negative dihedral is used to correct this
> characteristic.
>
> So the bottom line is why change something that ain't broke. Did not
> Bernard do all the tinkering for us and found the right combination?
>
> Just think. In a correctly designed aircraft, if a vertical gust upsets
the
> left wing, lifting it up, the aircraft sideslips a little to the right,
> creating a little more lift on the right side, bringing the right wing up
> THE SAME AMOUNT as the left wing went up initially. SO....a little rudder
> action on your part to keep it heading the way you were going and the
plane
> flies sweet. Add a little dihedral, THAT IS NOT NEEDED, and the scenario
> goes like this. A vertical gust upsets the left wing, lifting it up, and
> the aircraft sideslips a little to the right. But there is too much
> effective dihedral, so a little more lift is created on the right side
> during the sideslip and it is more than what is needed to right the
> aircraft. So the right wing goes up a little more than the left wing did
> initially. This has the same effect of having a gust upset from the
right.
> Now the aircraft sideslips a little to the left.... And there you go,
> round and round. A miserable airplane to fly because it has too much
> stability.
>
> As an exercise, think about what would happen if you did not have enough
> effective dihedral.
>
> Read old issues of Kitplanes where Barnaby Wainfan discusses dihedral
> effect. Or read Perkins and Hage's Aircraft Stability and Control. Or
> read Aerodynamics for Naval Aviators. If you still don't get it, then
pull
> out your trusty copy of Langewiesche's Stick and Rudder. It is all there.
>
> Leave it alone.
>
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
Citabrias also have 3/4" spars, as do Pitts Specials and many other
aerobatic planes. 1" is overkill, which is why BHP routed them down. I
used 3/4" spars fore and aft in my Piet.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of walter
evans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Clif,
I've often wondered those things too.
But just to add.......
was in a hanger and saw an Aeronca (don't know which model) wing with the
fabric ripped off. It's amazing to see, the wing had 3/4" wood spars. They
look like a skinny piece of book shelf. Since then I've pulled some "G's"
in one doing steep turns. That memory always pops in my head at those
times.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> <<>>
>> One question is how come the new plans come with
> a 3/4" spar when the original was 1"? Who determined
> that this is safe? Who performed the necessary
> calculations? Where can we see these and what
> design load was used? What are the permissable
> G loads with this spar?
>
> The answers are important to us now that we have
> overcome the original power limitations.
>
Clif.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
>
>
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > Chris is right, up to a point. The gross weight is basically set by
some
> > structural parameter in the aircraft, usually the wing spar or the
landing
> > gear. You hear of a plane being stressed to +/- 10 G's, well that
means
> > the structure can handle a certain limit load, and depending on how many
> G's
> > the designer wants the plane to be good for, he divides the limit load
by
> > that number of G's and voila - the gross weight pops out!
> >
> > When I was a young engineer just out of college and was working for
> General
> > Dynamics on the F-16 initial design (sad that a plane designed in 1975
is
> > still one of our front line fighters), the initial gross weight of the
> plane
> > was 23,000 lbs. (which meant it could go supersonic straight up with its
> > 25,000 lb. thrust engine). Later, some mods to the landing gear enabled
> it
> > to takeoff with more fuel on board in external tanks and the takeoff
gross
> > weight was increased to 37,000 lbs, but its maneuvering gross weight was
> > still 23,000.
> >
> > In other words, the gross weight is somewhat arbitrary. However, be
aware
> > that stall speed is a variable and goes up with gross weight. It is
quite
> > possible with a robust structured airplane to have a gross weight that
is
> > structurally safe but simply can't fly because the stall speed is too
> high.
> >
> > For my Pietenpol, I've figured on a gross weight of around 1100 lbs.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Christian
> > Bobka
> > Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 11:36 PM
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
>
> >
> > Jon,
> >
> > For an experimental, it is whatever you want it to be. Believe it or
not.
> > You set the rules. No kidding.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
> > Botsford
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
> >
> >
>
> >
> > Can someone on this list tell me how the Gross Weight is calculated for
an
> > aircraft?
> >
> > Jon Botsford
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"pietenpol"
Eddie,
Follow these rules:
The tank in the fusealge is the main tank.
The tank in the wing is and auxialry tank.
The fuselage tank must be no closer than 1/2 inch to the firewall.
Both tanks must be vented and vented in such a manner is to prevent ice
formation on the vent (even in florida).
Both tanks must have a sump and sump drain at their lowest point in a parked
attitude.
Air must be able to circulate around the tanks somehow and fumes and liquid
fuel must be able to escape down and out from the space beneath the tanks.
The fuel for engine use will not be drawn from the main tank at the sump but
at some point higher than the sump.
Test pressure is 3-1/2 psi for the tanks.
And what you asked for: "Where two or more tanks are interconnected and it
is impossible to feed from each one separately, only one fuel-level gauge
need be installed." Obviously the gauge is for the main tank only as the
aux tank will drain into the main tank.
Copper fuel lines must be annealed after they are bent.
Ed, I hope this helps.
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: fuel gauges
Hi Chris...How's it going...good luck with your D.A.R. application..We
definitely need more qualitied D.A.R.s out there.
I have a technical question..I'm building a 7.5 gallon wing tank for the
forward 15" of my center section. Behind the tank will be a small baggage
compartment. I'm trying to keep the cg forward as much as I can so this tank
is centered above the most fwd/rearward recommended cg measurements. The
function of the wing tank will just be to replenish the cowl tank during
flight. I think Walt Evans has a similar set up but with a full sized wing
tank. Anyhoo..I read somewhere that "each fuel tank must have a fuel
quantity gauge" My question is if a tank is only used to refill a tank which
has a gauge does that tank ( the wing tank) have to have a gauge?? My tank
mold is finished but if I HAVE TO install a gauge now would be the time to
add the sender boss to the mold. Thanks in advance. Ed G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
Bernie routed down the center portions of his spars to save weight but didn't rout
the
spar caps. The material in the center of a beam (spar) in bending does very little
other than carry shear loads. This is why there are many spars with the "beef"
located at the top and bottom with only a plywood shear web between the caps.
A much more important measurement than the spar thickness is the spar's width,
from
top to bottom. Before we go writing off Bernie's spars as overkill on thickness,
lets
do a real comparison with these other famously strong wings that includes spar
width,
length of the wing in actual bending (the Piet wing inboard of the strut attach
points
sees less bending load than the outboard portion), comparable flight loads, etc.
A
blanket statement that 1" is overkill because something like a Pitts has thinner
spars
is not really supportable.
The experiences of a very large number of builders who have successfully and safely
flown 3/4" spars is certainly more reliable than comparing apples and oranges,
but I'm
not sure anyone has any idea how much safety margin is left over when pulling
significant flight loads on spars thinner than designed.
Mike
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Citabrias also have 3/4" spars, as do Pitts Specials and many other
> aerobatic planes. 1" is overkill, which is why BHP routed them down. I
> used 3/4" spars fore and aft in my Piet.
>
> Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I discoverd something |
While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a cathode
was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
hmmm I've always known it as "anhedral"
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
cathode
> was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
>
> chris bobka
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TWINBOOM" <TWINBOOM(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
Chris,
In the R/C soaring group I run with, they call negative dihedral,
"annhedral", ever hear that one?
Doug Blackburn
Doug/Elizabeth Blackburn
Yucaipa California
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca. http://inlandsloperebels.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
cathode
> was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I discoverd something |
DJ,
The prefixes A or AN mean "without" so anhedral is no dihedral and no
cathedral. Atheist meaning without God and anonymous meaning without name.
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
hmmm I've always known it as "anhedral"
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
cathode
> was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
>
> chris bobka
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
<http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I discoverd something |
Doug,
I think words take on meanings of their own, despite their Latin roots. My
references are books from the 'thirties.
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of TWINBOOM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
Chris,
In the R/C soaring group I run with, they call negative dihedral,
"annhedral", ever hear that one?
Doug Blackburn
Doug/Elizabeth Blackburn
Yucaipa California
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca. http://inlandsloperebels.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
cathode
> was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
wow.... learn sumthin' new every day.....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> DJ,
>
> The prefixes A or AN mean "without" so anhedral is no dihedral and no
> cathedral. Atheist meaning without God and anonymous meaning without
name.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
OK, I should know better than to make blanket statements like "1" is
overkill". Good points, Mike. Citabria spars are (I believe) six inches in
height, but they are also several feet longer than Pietenpol spars. I was
responding to the remark that some Aeroncas used 3/4" spars. I think 3/4"
is a much more common thickness than 1".
Before deciding on 3/4" spars for my bird, I ran a quick stress analysis,
with a number of assumptions:
3/4" spars
Gross weight 1050 lbs
65% of load carried by front spar, 35% by rear spar
ultimate tensile stress for Sitka Spruce is 9400 psi
no load carried by centersection (actually a pretty fair assumption, it
turns out)
even lift distribution over entire spar length
The result was that with the lift strut fittings as designed by BHP (not
in-line with the struts as modern ones are) the wing is good for about 4.9
G's. If a more modern lift strut attach point is used, which doesn't impart
its own bending moment to the spar, the wing is only good for 3.92 G's
These are ultimate loads, and I wouldn't expect the wing to survive too long
at these loads. This was enough to convince me that Pietenpols have no
business doing aerobatics, but are plenty strong for normal fun flying.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
Bernie routed down the center portions of his spars to save weight but
didn't rout the
spar caps. The material in the center of a beam (spar) in bending does very
little
other than carry shear loads. This is why there are many spars with the
"beef"
located at the top and bottom with only a plywood shear web between the
caps.
A much more important measurement than the spar thickness is the spar's
width, from
top to bottom. Before we go writing off Bernie's spars as overkill on
thickness, lets
do a real comparison with these other famously strong wings that includes
spar width,
length of the wing in actual bending (the Piet wing inboard of the strut
attach points
sees less bending load than the outboard portion), comparable flight loads,
etc. A
blanket statement that 1" is overkill because something like a Pitts has
thinner spars
is not really supportable.
The experiences of a very large number of builders who have successfully and
safely
flown 3/4" spars is certainly more reliable than comparing apples and
oranges, but I'm
not sure anyone has any idea how much safety margin is left over when
pulling
significant flight loads on spars thinner than designed.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | my feeelings on dihedral |
Chris-- Wow. What an interesting post you had about dihedral. My feelings
on dihedral are
that I think just a titch of it in a Piet makes the wing look a bit
better. (like it's not sagging at the tips.)
Guess my approach to building is one of pleasing my eye in some instances.
Good post though !
Mike C.
18 F in Cleve.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
I thought is was anhedral. When I spell check it, the correction comes up
"cathedral." Anhedral is what Burt Rutan called it on my Vari Eze.
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: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
cathode
> was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
An easy way to remember it is that the word, "catheter" is definitely
negative. Even I can remember that.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
Jack,
My curiosity compels to ask you, " give me an estimate of G's on a Piet wing
(with 1 1/2 degree DIhedral) in a steep turn of 60 to 90 degrees,cruise speed
"? Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
+++++++++++++++++++++
Jack,
In reading your stress analysis, I noticed that you used tensile strength of
the wood. I believe most wood beam failures occur due to compressive
failure of the fibers as opposed to tensile failure. Compressive strength in
wood is usually lower than tensile. Ever notice how a stick breaks?
You might want to go to:
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/FPLGTR/fplgtr113/Ch04.pdf Where there is
a table of compessive strengths of various woods to use in your
calculations.
I hope this helps,
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> OK, I should know better than to make blanket statements like "1" is
> overkill". Good points, Mike. Citabria spars are (I believe) six inches
in
> height, but they are also several feet longer than Pietenpol spars. I was
> responding to the remark that some Aeroncas used 3/4" spars. I think 3/4"
> is a much more common thickness than 1".
>
> Before deciding on 3/4" spars for my bird, I ran a quick stress analysis,
> with a number of assumptions:
>
> 3/4" spars
> Gross weight 1050 lbs
> 65% of load carried by front spar, 35% by rear spar
> ultimate tensile stress for Sitka Spruce is 9400 psi
> no load carried by centersection (actually a pretty fair
assumption, it
> turns out)
> even lift distribution over entire spar length
>
> The result was that with the lift strut fittings as designed by BHP (not
> in-line with the struts as modern ones are) the wing is good for about 4.9
> G's. If a more modern lift strut attach point is used, which doesn't
impart
> its own bending moment to the spar, the wing is only good for 3.92 G's
>
> These are ultimate loads, and I wouldn't expect the wing to survive too
long
> at these loads. This was enough to convince me that Pietenpols have no
> business doing aerobatics, but are plenty strong for normal fun flying.
>
> Jack
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Bernie routed down the center portions of his spars to save weight but
> didn't rout the
> spar caps. The material in the center of a beam (spar) in bending does
very
> little
> other than carry shear loads. This is why there are many spars with the
> "beef"
> located at the top and bottom with only a plywood shear web between the
> caps.
> A much more important measurement than the spar thickness is the spar's
> width, from
> top to bottom. Before we go writing off Bernie's spars as overkill on
> thickness, lets
> do a real comparison with these other famously strong wings that includes
> spar width,
> length of the wing in actual bending (the Piet wing inboard of the strut
> attach points
> sees less bending load than the outboard portion), comparable flight
loads,
> etc. A
> blanket statement that 1" is overkill because something like a Pitts has
> thinner spars
> is not really supportable.
> The experiences of a very large number of builders who have successfully
and
> safely
> flown 3/4" spars is certainly more reliable than comparing apples and
> oranges, but I'm
> not sure anyone has any idea how much safety margin is left over when
> pulling
> significant flight loads on spars thinner than designed.
> Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
Constant altitude, 60 deg. bank = 2 g. Airspeed doesn't matter. Load
increases very quickly as the angle of bank steepens.
Greg Cardinal
>>> Isablcorky(at)aol.com 02/05/03 09:34AM >>>
Jack,
My curiosity compels to ask you, " give me an estimate of G's on a Piet
wing
(with 1 1/2 degree DIhedral) in a steep turn of 60 to 90 degrees,cruise
speed
"? Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | makes me dizzy at 60 degrees ! |
Corky-----do you mean how many g's does a Piet take when it's 60 F or 90 F
or bank angle ?
(has to be a smart @#$ in every group.)
One thing is for sure, the Piet in a 60 bank will turn on a dime. I mean
it's TIGHT. I don't even know
if you could make say a 70 deg. bank in a Piet and not loose
altitude. Even with that big 65 horses up
front like Walt and you and I have. Good question though.
In the older Piets the termites have to join hands in turns like that:)
Mike C.
17 F in Clev.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.) |
Hi Pieter's ....While we're on the subject of spars I have a question
that's been bugging my curiosity for quite a while. Don't beat me up
here this strictly a theoretical question. Has anyone ever built a wing
with aluminum spars and wooden ribs? The reason I ask is that Carlson's
lists a sweet modified I beam
4 1/2" aluminum spar that they use in some of their kit planes with
slightly higher gross weights than the Piet. If I remember right they
are 45,000 psi tensile and 30,000 psi in shear. They're 9 lbs each and
not too expensive . With a little shimming they would fit the piet ribs.
I plan to use 3/4" spruce spars but Carlson's spars caught my curiosity.
________________________________________________________________________________
Wag Aero sells a cub replica kit. You can buy the wing kit one of three
ways, all wood, all aluminum, or aluminum with wood ribs. Now I sure don't
if any piets have been built using this technique, but it does seem possible.
Buy the way a couple years ago AS sold the extruded spars blanks for about
$100.00 $150.00 each.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
Mike,
Remember also that the "builder's manual" suggests using 3/4" spars and the
ca. 1960 wing center section supplemental drawing shows 3/4 inch. On that
basis, it's hard to say that 3/4" is "thinner than designed".
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike [mailto:bike.mike(at)verizon.net]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Bernie routed down the center portions of his spars to save weight but
didn't rout the
spar caps. The material in the center of a beam (spar) in bending does very
little
other than carry shear loads. This is why there are many spars with the
"beef"
located at the top and bottom with only a plywood shear web between the
caps.
A much more important measurement than the spar thickness is the spar's
width, from
top to bottom. Before we go writing off Bernie's spars as overkill on
thickness, lets
do a real comparison with these other famously strong wings that includes
spar width,
length of the wing in actual bending (the Piet wing inboard of the strut
attach points
sees less bending load than the outboard portion), comparable flight loads,
etc. A
blanket statement that 1" is overkill because something like a Pitts has
thinner spars
is not really supportable.
The experiences of a very large number of builders who have successfully and
safely
flown 3/4" spars is certainly more reliable than comparing apples and
oranges, but I'm
not sure anyone has any idea how much safety margin is left over when
pulling
significant flight loads on spars thinner than designed.
Mike
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> Citabrias also have 3/4" spars, as do Pitts Specials and many other
> aerobatic planes. 1" is overkill, which is why BHP routed them down. I
> used 3/4" spars fore and aft in my Piet.
>
> Jack
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Jack,
In general, and I'd like Chris Bobka to check his extensive library on this,
ultimate load capability should be 1.5 times service loads, the actual
expected maximum normal loading. That would mean, if your assumptions are
correct, that your 4.9g Piet is a 3.2g airplane at 1050#GW.
However, your tensile strength for spruce seems a little higher than the
more conservative numbers I remember from the cobwebbed past. If the number
is actually 7500 psi, you should have a confidence in only 2.6g, even though
3.9g could be ultimately possible. The 1.5 safety margin should be there to
account for the unforeseen anomaly such as a hidden flaw in the spruce or a
not-so-perfect weld joint.
Since we're building homebuilts, we don't always have to comply with FAA
design guidelines. However, the FAA-mandated load capabilities for
certificated airplanes seem like a good idea to me.
As to John D's question about the term "tensile strength" or "tensile
stress", when used in bending: The number relates to the maximally stressed
fiber in a test specimen at failure. It does not have to actually be
tension as opposed to compression which, as John noted, would be found on
the side towards which the specimen is bent.
In a symmetrical specimen, the compressive stress and the tensile stress
would be equal during bending, though the first fiber to fail could be on
the compressive side.
Mike
>
>
>
> OK, I should know better than to make blanket statements like "1" is
> overkill". Good points, Mike. Citabria spars are (I believe) six inches in
> height, but they are also several feet longer than Pietenpol spars. I was
> responding to the remark that some Aeroncas used 3/4" spars. I think 3/4"
> is a much more common thickness than 1".
>
> Before deciding on 3/4" spars for my bird, I ran a quick stress analysis,
> with a number of assumptions:
>
> 3/4" spars
> Gross weight 1050 lbs
> 65% of load carried by front spar, 35% by rear spar
> ultimate tensile stress for Sitka Spruce is 9400 psi
> no load carried by centersection (actually a pretty fair assumption, it
> turns out)
> even lift distribution over entire spar length
>
> The result was that with the lift strut fittings as designed by BHP (not
> in-line with the struts as modern ones are) the wing is good for about 4.9
> G's. If a more modern lift strut attach point is used, which doesn't impart
> its own bending moment to the spar, the wing is only good for 3.92 G's
>
> These are ultimate loads, and I wouldn't expect the wing to survive too long
> at these loads. This was enough to convince me that Pietenpols have no
> business doing aerobatics, but are plenty strong for normal fun flying.
>
> Jack
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
Thanks Dan...So it is feasable to use aluminum spars with wood ribs.
The Carlson's spar I was looking at is 4 1/2" X .812" (across the
flanges) X 14 ft.6061T aluminum flanged I beam affair for $86.00
each plus shipping....didn't sound too bad...Lets see Mikes termites
eat that sucker!!! Anyone know the best way to fasten ribs to
them??? I don't think it would be a good idea to drill the flanges??
but then the aluminum ribs must be riveted to the flanges. Or are
they?? Still just curious. Ed
>From: ZigoDan(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spars
>Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:44:01 EST
>
>
>Wag Aero sells a cub replica kit. You can buy the wing kit one of three
>ways, all wood, all aluminum, or aluminum with wood ribs. Now I sure don't
>if any piets have been built using this technique, but it does seem
>possible.
> Buy the way a couple years ago AS sold the extruded spars blanks for
>about
>$100.00 $150.00 each.
>
>Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Would some GNer please tell me what kind of airfoil the GN plan calls for.
Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | travis battreal <travisbattreal(at)yahoo.com> |
The J-3 had wooden spars and aluminum ribs.
--- "Ed G." wrote:
> flyboy_120(at)webtv.net (Ed G.)
>
> Hi Pieter's ....While we're on the subject of spars
> I have a question
> that's been bugging my curiosity for quite a while.
> Don't beat me up
> here this strictly a theoretical question. Has
> anyone ever built a wing
> with aluminum spars and wooden ribs? The reason I
> ask is that Carlson's
> lists a sweet modified I beam
> 4 1/2" aluminum spar that they use in some of their
> kit planes with
> slightly higher gross weights than the Piet. If I
> remember right they
> are 45,000 psi tensile and 30,000 psi in shear.
> They're 9 lbs each and
> not too expensive . With a little shimming they
> would fit the piet ribs.
> I plan to use 3/4" spruce spars but Carlson's spars
> caught my curiosity.
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
The original later model J3 had Aluminum ribs, wood spars. Just like the
Champ, and later model Chiefs. But despite that for the record I am looking
at a Wag Aero book right now and it say's Aluminum spar wood rib kit. BTW
some early model Chief's and J3's had all wood wings, rib's and spar's.
Right now I have a 41 chief, with all wood wings, just like Chris Bobka's 40
or 39 model.
Ed,
I once replaced a spar on a PA 22-108 Colt. The flange or T part was
drilled, in fact it didn't seem to mater, they put holes all through it. The
ribs were held on with about #4 sheet metal screws. I bought the spar from
Univiar, and it was predrilled, boy did that save some time.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Borodent(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: question on dihedral |
I would love to hear a responce from piet pilots who have flown more or less
the same plane with dihedral, in one version and wirthout in another version.
If you have experience as above can you judge which form is nicer to fly?
Henry Williams
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Ed: Those spars look exactly like Piper spars. In fact, I understand
Mr. Carelson was an old Piper engineer-or something. I scrapped out a
couple Piper Pawnees. The ribs have 90 d sheet angles at the spar
openings with small #4 p.k. screws run threw them into the flange of
the spar. 4 screws on each side. So, if Piper did it that way, it must
be ok. It seems to me that the best way attach a Piet wood rib would be
to widen the verticals of the rib at the spar opening so as to have some
material to run a screw threw. Or, if you haven't built your ribs yet,
Carelson has 'T' and "L" angles for making ribs. Ed, here is your chance
to be a pioneer. The first known metal wing Piet! I would look into it
my self, but I already have my ribs and spars built. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: fuel gauges |
Chris
Again thanks for some great points that arrive as I am connecting fuel lines
and such. Which leads to a related question. I have a main tank in the
wing 11 gal. and a header tank in the fuse, 4 gal.with no independant fill,
feed directly from the main tank. The question I have been pondering is the
vent line in the header tank. I have installed a 1/8" line with a petcock
bleed to remove air. Should this have been led back up to the highest point
for venting? I have a fuel guage on the main wing tank but do not intend on
using that reserve header and no guage installed there.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: fuel gauges
>
> Eddie,
>
> Follow these rules:
>
> The tank in the fusealge is the main tank.
>
> The tank in the wing is and auxialry tank.
>
> The fuselage tank must be no closer than 1/2 inch to the firewall.
>
> Both tanks must be vented and vented in such a manner is to prevent ice
> formation on the vent (even in florida).
>
> Both tanks must have a sump and sump drain at their lowest point in a
parked
> attitude.
>
> Air must be able to circulate around the tanks somehow and fumes and
liquid
> fuel must be able to escape down and out from the space beneath the tanks.
>
> The fuel for engine use will not be drawn from the main tank at the sump
but
> at some point higher than the sump.
>
> Test pressure is 3-1/2 psi for the tanks.
>
> And what you asked for: "Where two or more tanks are interconnected and
it
> is impossible to feed from each one separately, only one fuel-level gauge
> need be installed." Obviously the gauge is for the main tank only as the
> aux tank will drain into the main tank.
>
> Copper fuel lines must be annealed after they are bent.
>
> Ed, I hope this helps.
>
> chris
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ed Grentzer [mailto:flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com]
> To: bobka(at)charter.net
> Subject: fuel gauges
>
>
> Hi Chris...How's it going...good luck with your D.A.R. application..We
> definitely need more qualitied D.A.R.s out there.
> I have a technical question..I'm building a 7.5 gallon wing tank for
the
> forward 15" of my center section. Behind the tank will be a small baggage
> compartment. I'm trying to keep the cg forward as much as I can so this
tank
> is centered above the most fwd/rearward recommended cg measurements. The
> function of the wing tank will just be to replenish the cowl tank during
> flight. I think Walt Evans has a similar set up but with a full sized wing
> tank. Anyhoo..I read somewhere that "each fuel tank must have a fuel
> quantity gauge" My question is if a tank is only used to refill a tank
which
> has a gauge does that tank ( the wing tank) have to have a gauge?? My tank
> mold is finished but if I HAVE TO install a gauge now would be the time to
> add the sender boss to the mold. Thanks in advance. Ed G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
In any plane, with or without dihedral, regardless of cruise speed, a sixty
degree bank will require a 2 G load on the wing, assuming you are neither
climbing or losing altitude. It has nothing to do with the design of the
plane, it's just simple trigonometry. The load on the wing equals the
weight of the aircraft divided by the cosine of the bank angle. The cosine
of 60 degrees is .5000, so the load is the weight of the plane divided by
.5, which is the same as the weight of the plane multiplied by 2. In a 90
degree bank, assuming all the lift forces come from the wing, the load on
the wing approaches infinity since the cosine of 90 degrees is zero.
Sufficiently confused? Me too.
Jack
-----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: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Jack,
My curiosity compels to ask you, " give me an estimate of G's on a Piet wing
(with 1 1/2 degree DIhedral) in a steep turn of 60 to 90 degrees,cruise
speed
"? Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Question about Gross Weight |
You're right Mike, the published "G" loading for an airplane includes a 150%
safety factor. That's why I stressed that these were ultimate loads. This
is a 3 G airplane and should not be used for aerobatics. By the way, when I
continued with the simple stress analysis I did, I found that without Jury
struts, the lift struts could buckle under as little as 1.0 negative G's,
which can be produced by strong turbulence. Jury struts are absolutely
necessary.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question about Gross Weight
Jack,
In general, and I'd like Chris Bobka to check his extensive library on this,
ultimate load capability should be 1.5 times service loads, the actual
expected maximum normal loading. That would mean, if your assumptions are
correct, that your 4.9g Piet is a 3.2g airplane at 1050#GW.
However, your tensile strength for spruce seems a little higher than the
more conservative numbers I remember from the cobwebbed past. If the number
is actually 7500 psi, you should have a confidence in only 2.6g, even though
3.9g could be ultimately possible. The 1.5 safety margin should be there to
account for the unforeseen anomaly such as a hidden flaw in the spruce or a
not-so-perfect weld joint.
Since we're building homebuilts, we don't always have to comply with FAA
design guidelines. However, the FAA-mandated load capabilities for
certificated airplanes seem like a good idea to me.
As to John D's question about the term "tensile strength" or "tensile
stress", when used in bending: The number relates to the maximally stressed
fiber in a test specimen at failure. It does not have to actually be
tension as opposed to compression which, as John noted, would be found on
the side towards which the specimen is bent.
In a symmetrical specimen, the compressive stress and the tensile stress
would be equal during bending, though the first fiber to fail could be on
the compressive side.
Mike
>
>
>
> OK, I should know better than to make blanket statements like "1" is
> overkill". Good points, Mike. Citabria spars are (I believe) six inches
in
> height, but they are also several feet longer than Pietenpol spars. I was
> responding to the remark that some Aeroncas used 3/4" spars. I think 3/4"
> is a much more common thickness than 1".
>
> Before deciding on 3/4" spars for my bird, I ran a quick stress analysis,
> with a number of assumptions:
>
> 3/4" spars
> Gross weight 1050 lbs
> 65% of load carried by front spar, 35% by rear spar
> ultimate tensile stress for Sitka Spruce is 9400 psi
> no load carried by centersection (actually a pretty fair assumption, it
> turns out)
> even lift distribution over entire spar length
>
> The result was that with the lift strut fittings as designed by BHP (not
> in-line with the struts as modern ones are) the wing is good for about 4.9
> G's. If a more modern lift strut attach point is used, which doesn't
impart
> its own bending moment to the spar, the wing is only good for 3.92 G's
>
> These are ultimate loads, and I wouldn't expect the wing to survive too
long
> at these loads. This was enough to convince me that Pietenpols have no
> business doing aerobatics, but are plenty strong for normal fun flying.
>
> Jack
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
Then why wouldn't "anhedral" mean "no hedral"? ;>)
Whats a hedral, anyway?
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> DJ,
>
> The prefixes A or AN mean "without" so anhedral is no dihedral and no
> cathedral. Atheist meaning without God and anonymous meaning without
name.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
>
> hmmm I've always known it as "anhedral"
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> www.raptoronline.com
> Mesa, AZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> To: "pietenpol"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
>
>
> >
> > While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> > dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
> cathode
> > was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
> >
> > chris bobka
> >
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
> Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
> information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
> <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question about Gross Weight |
Jack,
I absolutely agree about the jury struts, and had mentioned this earlier. I
realize now were I went wrong on saying build per plans. It seems all the
Piets I have seen, including the Last Original have jury struts, so I guessed
they were on the plans. Someone corrected me on this oversight, and asked me
if I were to follow the plans which do not show the jury struts, then would I
also follow the plans by using #7 screws to hold the stabilizer on. Of
course not, AN hardware is the way to go, and I would certainly not leave
jury struts off either. I think the hole debate had been over some UK Piets
having only one jury strut, one is better than none, but for the price I
would rather have both.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
It's the same basic airfoil as the Piet, a Clark "Y", uses 1"spars, front &
rear.
Ken
GN1 2992
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> Pieters,
> Would some GNer please tell me what kind of airfoil the GN plan calls for.
> Thanks
> Corky in La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my feeelings on dihedral |
Chris Bobka,
Further to your treatise on dihedral, this is what an old aeronautical
engineering
book of mine says:
"...the High Wing or Parasol type of monoplane, which often has no Dihedral
Angle. The Low Wing Monoplane, on the other hand, must usually have a
Dihedral Angle."
Ref. MECHANICS OF FLIGHT by A. C. Kermode
London
Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons, Ltd. 1942
Kermode essentially says what you are saying: a parasol monoplane such as
the Pietenpol needs no dihedral for adequate lateral stability. (In spite of
this
I did incorporate a modicum of dihedral in my Pietenpol, mainly to reduce
the "droopy" look while parked.)
The other day I obtained a brochure on the new Murphy JDM 8 which in-
cluded a basic 3-view layout showing zero dihedral! Since this airplane has
a low wing, it seems strange that they went this route. It strongly reminds
me
of the Druine Turbulent (a delightful little plane) I test flew for a friend
years
ago, but the Turbulent had dihedral typical of low wing monoplanes. I know
of several low wingers with no dihedral, but some were not all that success-
ful.
Back in the 1980's a fellow from British Columbia built a low wing Pietenpol
powered by a Continental A-65. It had strut braced wings with appropriate
dihedral for this configuration. It flew successfully, but had a high sink
rate.
He cited easy access to the cockpits and good visibility as the chief
benefits.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN) in sunny Alberta, Canada.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
From U.S. Forestry lab, 1944, at 12% moisture;
Spruce--6700lb/sq inch tensile. 4500lb/sq inch compression.
I think later testing was done at 11% or lower moisture which
results in higher strengths.
In a spar like the Piet's the bending forces are equal top and
bottom.
Forces are 0 at the center, known as the " neutral axis "
Forces are maximum at the outer edges ( top and bottom faces)
Since forces are equal, top and bottom, then the weaker strength
is the deciding factor as to when the spar will fail. Since the top
of the spar is in compression, it will fail first.
In fancier aircraft the top area has been made beefier than the
bottom. you'll see cantilever aircraft with high pos and low neg
G capability. Even the likes of AT-6's with 5.67 G pos and 2.33 G
neg ( from flight handbook AN 01-60FFB-1 ).All in the name of weight
saving.( and cost )
The 1" piet spar is routed to leave 1" X 5/8" full size at the outer
edges but with the use of higher HP engines of lower weight
than the Ford, The weight saving isn't critical and the spar will
be a little stronger if left unrouted as the strength in wood, from
neutral axis out, increases parabolicly, not in a straight line as
it is in metal.
Am I all wet, partialy wet, or reasonably dry ?? Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Piet isn't a Clark at all. It's very close to the Eiffel
used on the Jenny. Bernard and his friend Orrin
drew it up one night out of their heads as the story goes.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> It's the same basic airfoil as the Piet, a Clark "Y", uses 1"spars, front
&
> rear.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
Anhedral is the usage for downward angled
wings in all my " From the Ground Up "
groundschool manuals all the way back to
my first one in 62.
As far back as I can remember it's been
" anhedral " in everything I've read.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> I thought is was anhedral. When I spell check it, the correction comes up
> "cathedral." Anhedral is what Burt Rutan called it on my Vari Eze.
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> To: "pietenpol"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
>
>
> >
> > While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> > dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
> cathode
> > was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
> >
> > chris bobka
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
thanks, clif,
I have obviously been misled somewhere down the line.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> Piet isn't a Clark at all. It's very close to the Eiffel
> used on the Jenny. Bernard and his friend Orrin
> drew it up one night out of their heads as the story goes.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
>
>
> >
> > It's the same basic airfoil as the Piet, a Clark "Y", uses 1"spars,
front
> &
> > rear.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: question on dihedral |
Henry-- I have flown Frank Pavliga's Sky Gypsy and it has a flat, zero
dihedral wing and then mine
which has about 1.5" at the wing tips. There is very little difference
that I can tell in smooth air, however
I believe that a touch of dihedral helps when both of your hands are busy
folding a chart or peeing in the bottle
(trust me, it beats wasting a 45 minute stop when going x-country in a
Piet) since you just rudder the airplane
with your feet to keep wings level and pointed where you want. Like the
balsa rubberband flyers we all played with
when we were kids, they put a bunch of dihedral into those for a
reason. Try modifying one of those rubber jobs
with zero dihedral and give it a test flight. You'll see a short flight.
Mike C.
PS---have flown Joe Leonard's GN-1 which has dihedral too.....very, very
nice flying machine. Heavy, but nice.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | metal spars/wood ribs |
The prez of the local EAA Chapter 35 is completing a Breezy that he and
another partner bought as a project. It has metal spars and wood ribs, and
has turned out to be a real bear to work with because of fitting the ribs
around the shape of the spar. Unless you work out a clever and easy way to
secure the ribs to the spars, it can be a lot of fussy work.
And Bert asks- "what's a hedral, anyway?" I'm disappointed that no one
popped up with, "it's the matching half of a shedral" ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | negative g's in a Piet |
>
>Jack P. wrote this: with the simple stress analysis I did, I found that
>without Jury
>struts, the lift struts could buckle under as little as 1.0 negative G's,
>which can be produced by strong turbulence. Jury struts are absolutely
>necessary.
And there is NO doubt in my mind that I (and you will) hit 1.0 negative
G's MANY times en route to Oshkosh from Ohio and going to local fly-in's
with the Piet. On hot summer days when you transition over dark wooded
areas and open tan-colored farmland there are some real shear forces going
on that can literally jolt a map or pencil right out of your hand and out
of the cockpit. When flying side-by-side a more stable airplane like a
J-3 or C-150 I am amazed at how they appear to be taking the turbulence so
much better than me in the Piet. It's true. Nice to know the jury
struts are out there. When Bernie built his Piets they used streamlined
tubing that had internal stiffening webs which kept the struts from
collapsing........now days they do not make strut material with internal
webbing so Jack is right on-----Jury struts are an absolute requirement on
a Pietenpol.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Dihedral, Structural analysis, aluminum spars |
1. I have looked at my zero degree dihedral (or would it be anhedral? Who really
cares?) Piet from all angles and at various pictures and videos. I can't detect
the dreaded "droopy wing" look in any of them. Oh yeah, it seems to fly just
fine.
2. structural analysis for Piets...................yawn.
3. There IS a Piet under construction right now with aluminum spars, wooden ribs,
and some kevlar laminate and aluminum honeycomb in the control surfaces. It'll
have a steel tube fuselage and water-cooled straight four engine on the 100
hp range.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
ummm... not true... the GN-1 has the same airfoil as the Piet, with the
exception of a slightly more blunt leading edge.
The GN-1 and Piet's are not Clark Y. Bernie called it a FC-10. why?? he
used a French Curve to draw it and it took him about 10 minutes.... I
forget where I read that but thought it comical....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> It's the same basic airfoil as the Piet, a Clark "Y", uses 1"spars, front
&
> rear.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
>
> >
> > Pieters,
> > Would some GNer please tell me what kind of airfoil the GN plan calls
for.
> > Thanks
> > Corky in La
> >
> >
>
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
Thanks for the information D.J. I knew the airfoils were the same, I just
remember someone telling me that it was a modified Clark y. Was the design
based on the Clark or the Eiffel?
Ken
GN1 2992
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Vegh [mailto:aircamper(at)imagedv.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
ummm... not true... the GN-1 has the same airfoil as the Piet, with the
exception of a slightly more blunt leading edge.
The GN-1 and Piet's are not Clark Y. Bernie called it a FC-10. why?? he
used a French Curve to draw it and it took him about 10 minutes.... I
forget where I read that but thought it comical....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> It's the same basic airfoil as the Piet, a Clark "Y", uses 1"spars, front
&
> rear.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
>
> >
> > Pieters,
> > Would some GNer please tell me what kind of airfoil the GN plan calls
for.
> > Thanks
> > Corky in La
> >
> >
>
>
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
<http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com |
Clark Y is a flat-bottomed airfoil, Piets and GN's use
an undercamber. DJ has it right almost - it was made
with a #10 French curve. Works well, don't it?
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: I discoverd something |
TOUCHE !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or where can
I find the information?
Barry Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
I hope this does not lead to even more confusion. John Grega, in an
article in Sport Aviation a number of years ago, said he was attempting to
"simplify" the building of the Pietenpol. He did that, to a large
extent. In the process, he advocated the use of Cub wings and landing
gear, which were in good supply at the time. So some Gregas are, perhaps,
still flying on Cub wings, which do use the Clark Y airfoil.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Take a look to a Kitfox wing, well, not exactly the same, but they
use aluminum tube spars with plywood ribs, they use something like "JB
Weld" in gray color, (like a putty) to join the ribs to the tubes.
With a little research you can find out what is it...
Looks real solid to me.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Ed Grentzer wrote:
>
>
>
> Thanks Dan...So it is feasable to use aluminum spars with wood
> ribs.
> The Carlson's spar I was looking at is 4 1/2" X .812" (across the
> flanges) X 14 ft.6061T aluminum flanged I beam affair for $86.00
> each plus shipping....didn't sound too bad...Lets see Mikes
> termites
> eat that sucker!!! Anyone know the best way to fasten ribs to
> them??? I don't think it would be a good idea to drill the
> flanges??
> but then the aluminum ribs must be riveted to the flanges. Or are
> they?? Still just curious. Ed
>
>
> >From: ZigoDan(at)aol.com
> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: spars
> >Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 11:44:01 EST
> >
> >
> >Wag Aero sells a cub replica kit. You can buy the wing kit one of
> three
> >ways, all wood, all aluminum, or aluminum with wood ribs. Now I
> sure don't
> >if any piets have been built using this technique, but it does seem
> >possible.
> > Buy the way a couple years ago AS sold the extruded spars blanks
> for
> >about
> >$100.00 $150.00 each.
> >
> >Dan
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gdascomb(at)aol.com |
Barry: It's not exactly a sketch, but try:
http://www.geocities.com/keriannprice/Keri-Anns_Pietenpol.html
George
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
ahhhh yes.... I forgot abou that...the early GN-1's did use a host of J-3 parts
including wings... but, the plans (since the early 70's) show the Piet airfoil...
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Doc Mosher
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 9:31 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
I hope this does not lead to even more confusion. John Grega, in an
article in Sport Aviation a number of years ago, said he was attempting to
"simplify" the building of the Pietenpol. He did that, to a large
extent. In the process, he advocated the use of Cub wings and landing
gear, which were in good supply at the time. So some Gregas are, perhaps,
still flying on Cub wings, which do use the Clark Y airfoil.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Sorry Doc, Cub's use a USA 35B airfoil not a Clark Y
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
We support Aeroncas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Mosher" <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> I hope this does not lead to even more confusion. John Grega, in an
> article in Sport Aviation a number of years ago, said he was attempting to
> "simplify" the building of the Pietenpol. He did that, to a large
> extent. In the process, he advocated the use of Cub wings and landing
> gear, which were in good supply at the time. So some Gregas are, perhaps,
> still flying on Cub wings, which do use the Clark Y airfoil.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Experts,
Granted that for several reasons the Piet has very little float after flair.
Question: Would this airfoil of the Cub perhaps extend the float of a Piet
somewhat. It WAS designed several years after the Piet and maybe, just maybe,
some progress could be identified. Just wondering without using my can opener
again.
An old southern boy just whittlin and dreamin
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
Barry,, The Tony Bingelis "Sport plane construction techniques"book, it's
the yellow one, has some great examples of fiberglass tanks. Plus a lot of
other good things in there as well. I used his technique, measured the
center section and went from there. If you go with the center wing tank,
remember to take the bolt heads into concideration when measuring.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing tanks
>
> Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
where can I find the information?
> Barry Davis
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sombre Records" <sombrerecords(at)arcor.de> |
| Subject: | FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
> Experts,
> Granted that for several reasons the Piet has very little float after
flair.
> Question: Would this airfoil of the Cub perhaps extend the float of a Piet
> somewhat. It WAS designed several years after the Piet and maybe, just
maybe,
> some progress could be identified. Just wondering without using my can
opener
> again.
>
> An old southern boy just whittlin and dreamin
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"Pietenpol-List: FUCK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!" (Feb 6,
1:53pm)
| Subject: | Re: F*CK Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Well, I'm not sure what this guy's problem is, but rest assured I have
removed him from the List. Sheeze, sorry people.
Matt Dralle
List Admin
>--------------
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
>
>>
>> Experts,
>> Granted that for several reasons the Piet has very little float after
>flair.
>> Question: Would this airfoil of the Cub perhaps extend the float of a Piet
>> somewhat. It WAS designed several years after the Piet and maybe, just
>maybe,
>> some progress could be identified. Just wondering without using my can
>opener
>> again.
>>
>> An old southern boy just whittlin and dreamin
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
>where can I find the information?
>Barry Davis
Barry,
This topic was covered, perhaps more than once, in the 'old' BPA
newsletter. A number of us have complete sets that someone on the list (I
think it was Mike Bell in SC) compiled & sold for the cost of reproduction
several years ago. I also think one of these articles was reprinted in the
'new' BPA newsletter in the past year or so. My 'old' newsletters are still
all packed somewhere from my move, but I'll check my collection of 'new'
ones in the next day or so. If I find it, I'd be happy to run a copy for
you.
Regards,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: F*CK Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Thanks Matt,
We really ought to try and identify the SOB and take him for a ride.
CMC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I discoverd something |
Hedral is two surfaces intersecting.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Bert
Conoly
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
Then why wouldn't "anhedral" mean "no hedral"? ;>)
Whats a hedral, anyway?
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
> DJ,
>
> The prefixes A or AN mean "without" so anhedral is no dihedral and no
> cathedral. Atheist meaning without God and anonymous meaning without
name.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
>
> hmmm I've always known it as "anhedral"
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> www.raptoronline.com
> Mesa, AZ
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> To: "pietenpol"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: I discoverd something
>
>
>
> >
> > While researching dihedral I learned that the word meaning "negative
> > dihedral" is the word "cathedral". I never could remember whether a
> cathode
> > was negative or positive. Now I will remember a Cathode is negative...
> >
> > chris bobka
> >
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
> Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
> information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
> <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
I have a question about instrument panel overlays. I like the looks of Mike
Cuy's wood raised panel for the center cluster. My question is what is it
made from? Solid wood or plywood? If it is thin solid wood is there a
backing to keep it from warping? How are the instruments attached? to the
base 1/8" ply underneath or to the raised panel? How is the raised panel
attached? With screws from behind? Or bolts all the way through?
So many details. So little time.
Thanks,
Ted Brousseau
Beautiful flying weather in FL but making sawdust instead.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Pete Gavin" <petegavin(at)mn.rr.com> |
"'pietenpol'" ,
"'Jim Skidmore'" ,
"'Jim Markle'" , "'Ron Oehler'" ,
"'Peter Denny'" ,
"'Pat Halligan'" ,
"'Mike Dolan'" ,
"'Jeff Coffey'" <coffey@crc-inc.com>,
"'Greg Cardinal'" ,
"'Frankh'" , "'Ed Hansen'" ,
"'David Kujawa'" ,
"'Dan Carroll'" , "'Ron Hoyt'"
Hi Chris - Just got back late tonight from a 4-day business trip to Richmond
VA, so just got your note. Your article is great! You're welcome to stop
over at the house most anytime this weekend with whatever additional
material you have - I assume you mean the diagrams? Just call first so I
can be sure to be here. By the way, I really appreciate your getting this
together for this issue - kind of lean on material this month.
Had a flight back through Detroit on NWA. Sat on the ramp in a 757 for an
hour or so. The problem was very interesting. I don't understand how this
stuff is supposed to work, but as I remember it, the aircraft was not
accepting the "external power" needed to start the engines. Apparently the
normal "auxiliary power" used to do this was not working. Each time they
would attempt to connect "external power" we would lose normal lights/air
fans etc. and would go to emer. lighting. After a dozen or so of these
attempts, some of the passengers were getting upset and one man asked to be
allowed off the aircraft. Eventually they allowed those who wanted to leave
to do that. Then they decided to try "battery power" instead of "external
power" in order to start the engine(s) - in this mode, most of the emergency
lights went off while they got the engines rev'd up and started with battery
power. Once the engine(s) got up to speed, the normal lights/fans etc. came
on and everything was cool. But apparently this abnormal approach left the
computer systems confused, because they had to shut down an engine and clear
out the status indicators and start over. Anyhow, after an hour or so of
this everything was cool and we took off. I really felt bad for the crew -
they were doing their best and really could not predict when things would be
ready. Some people get so demanding in a situation like this. I was
engrossed in a John Grisham book so did not notice the time passing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Bobka [mailto:bobka(at)charter.net]
Gavin; Pat Halligan; Mike Dolan; Jeff Coffey; Greg Cardinal; Frankh; Ed
Hansen; David Kujawa; Dan Carroll; Chris Bobka; Ron Hoyt
Subject: blast it
Pete,
Here it is. An attachment will come as well. I have pictures here at home
to personally deliver on tuesday evening.
Chris
BLAST IT! Part VIII
by Chris Bobka
This series was discontinued after the seventh installment when son number
two began to walk! That also coincided with David Kujawa leaving the
chapter newsletter editorship and taking over editorship of Sport Aerobatics
magazine and moving away to Arizona with his lovely wife, Diane. Instead of
looking forward to dropping off articles at David and Diane's and sharing a
few beers, I was frought with fear at having to bring articles to ugly Pete
and Bob. I hope you can find me some forgiveness for leaving you all
hanging. So sorry. Much prodding on the part of Pete, Greg, Frankh, and
others from the Pietenpol chat group has gotten me back to finishing off the
series with this final installment.
We left off with the gauntlets ready for installation to the front of the
box. I have included Figures 11 and 12 which show a cutting diagram for the
gauntlet and what the finished gauntlet should look like. As shown in
Figure 12, cut some darts into the big end of the gauntlet to help it lay
flat as shown in Figure 13. Put some caulk around the left opening in the
box and, using a heavy duty stapler, shoot some 1/4" staples into the box
around the circumference of the glove to hold it in place. Don't do what
Norm did so make sure you use the left handed gauntlet in the left hole of
the box and make sure you orient the thumb so that it is at about the 12
o'clock position. If you put the wrong gauntlet on that hole, you will have
to stand on the cieling in order to sandblast. Like Norm. Put more of the
caulk on top of the gauntlet and then take one of the rings from Figure 3
and and use enough 1-1/4" drywall screws to hold the gauntlet in place. You
can clean up any of the squeezed out caulk at this time. Install the other
glove. Thumbs up!
Next we need to install the door. You cut out the door opening in Figure 4
and at that time, I instructed you to save the cut out piece. Go get it.
Have an assistant hold the cut out piece in the door opening. Take two old
door hinges from the junk box and mark off the screw positions on the door
and on the frame to the rear of the door. Ensure that the hinge pins lie
directly over the cut line and the hinge lines are in line with each other.
Now take the door piece and lay it onto another piece of plywood that is
bigger than it. Mark off the same general shape but about 1-1/2 inches all
the way around it EXCEPT for the rear edge. This mark off should be even
with the rear edge of the door so the door can swing open.
What we are making here is a piece of plywood that will overlap the door
jamb so as to contain the direct blast of the sand. With your radial saw,
cut out the new piece. As the hinges on the door must lay in the same plane
as the box, it will be necessary to make cutouts to allow this new piece to
clear the door. Cut these out with a sabre saw. The top and side views of
Figure 14 clearly show this. You may design a better way and I know that
there are better ways but this is the way I did it. Go for it! Make the
latch as shown in Figure 14 from some scrap plywood. Attach the door and
latch to the box. If you want, you can get some felt weatherstripping about
1/8" thick and 1/2-3/4" wide and put it around the door jamb as indicated to
help contain some of the sand. An 1/8" looks thick but it will compress
right down.
Well that is it. The box is done. Now we have to come up with the gun.
You want a good one. The reason is that the gun uses air that passes
through a venturi in the gun to create suction which pulls the sand up from
the hopper, through the feed tube, and through the venturi itself,
accelerating the sand along the way. At the venturi, the sand makes a sharp
turn before it exits the nozzle. My dad, the physicist, says that force
times mass equals impact. We want impact as that is what does the
sandblasting. Mass is related to the the size and density of the particle.
Force is the effectiveness of the gun at accelerating the particle. Every
particle of sand that comes out of the gun also is trying to wear down the
venturi of the gun. A cheap ceramic nozzle coupled with a soft steel
venturi will not last long as the sand will abrade it right down and the
venturi will no longer be properly shaped to create a quality vacuum (if a
vacuum sucks, is it good or bad?). Lots of air will come out of the nozzle
but no abrasive. Then you will blame me that the sandblaster does not work.
We need space age materials. We need titanium. We need carbide.
So I will tell you what gun to get. It is shown in Figure 15. It is
available at Grainger, among other places, and can be found on the internet
as of February 2003 at:
http://www.grainger.com/Grainger/catalogpageview.jsp?xi=xi&CatPage=1427
You want model 3JT01 for the 12 CFM model. It lists for a wopping 77
dollars but buddy Jim Markle at jim_markle(at)mindspring.com has agreed to
purchase these guns from Grainger at his substantial discount and have them
drop shipped to interested buyers. The best thing is that parts are
available too as listed on the same web page. The gun does not have a
trigger. You do not want a gun with a trigger. A gun with a trigger takes
up too much room and your finger gets tired holding the trigger. Instead of
a trigger, I merely connect and disconnect a Milton coupling right at the
aft end of the gun. You could get fancy and use a foot pedal air switch or
you could put a valve at the point where the air line goes into the box.
Use what you think you would like.
Once you have your gun, attach it to the end of the pickup tube inside the
box with an appropriate length of 5/8" ID cheap clear vinyl tubing from the
big rack of tubing at Home Depot that I told you to get earlier. Use some
hose clamps to hold the hose on at both ends. Drill the smallest size hole
you can get away with to let the air line into the box. It should be
located near where the pickup tube is located so that both hoses can flop
around more or less together.
You need a vacuum cleaner of the big shop vac variety. This is a necessity
as you are creating a mammoth sandstorm inside the box. Without a shop vac,
it will be so cloudy inside the box after a minute that you won't be able to
see your hand in front of your face. You are pumping air into the box at 100
PSI and at 11-15 Cubic Feet per Minute. All the air has to go somewhere. If
there is no shop vac then this air will blow out through every seam and put
dust all over the garage and make a big mess. It will also go into your
lungs and you will contract silicosis and die a horrible slow death. The key
is to create a negative pressure inside the box so that the dust is trapped
by the filter of the shop vac. Better yet, use an extra long vacuum hose
and put the shop vac outside as even the filter on the shop vac won't trap
all the fines.
Their are endless varieties of abrasives to use. I use number five white
silica sand. You can remember number five as that is how many fingers you
should have on one of your hands. It is the same stuff that you see in sand
filled ashtrays next to the door to elevators in office buildings. Many
sandblasting supply outfits are reluctant to sell you sand for sandblasting
beacuse they are afraid you will not be using proper breathing protection
and they will be sued by your hiers after you die of silicosis. If you tell
them it is for ashtrays, then they will chum right up and gladly sell it to
you. It will come in 50 or 100 lb sacks. 100 lbs should do for starters.
Dick Navratril, a Pietenpol builder here in the Twin Cities area
(horzpool(at)goldengate.net), says you could also try a larger swimming pool
dealer to get sand. In his swimming pool supply shop, he carries red flint
granite sand sized at .45-.55 mm. It is rather aggressive but doesn't dust
nearly as much as white silica sands. Some may try to use glass beads or
walnut shells. It all depends upon the finish you wish, the aggressiveness
of the cleaning, and the price you are willing to pay.
You may consider building more than one sandblasting box. Each can have a
different abrasive. It is difficult to change abrasives from big to little
for the following reason: you will probably never get all the big stuff
out. What will happen is that you will make a change from big particles to
little particles. You will think you have it licked and you will be
blasting away looking at the fine, uniform finish on your blasted piece.
Just as the ten millionth particle comes out of the nozzle, a stray big
particle will come out, and whamo! there appears what will looks like a huge
crater in your work as that single particle hits. It may not bother you and
it may not matter based on the part you are blasting but sometime it may
matter. Again, the choice is yours. Once my new hangar is done, it will
sport a couple of blasting boxes each with a different abrasive.
Additonal abrasives management discussion is outside the scope of this
article. I am sure that industrious users of their new blast cabinet will
seek out information on http://www.google.com for more information.
A few tips on use are in order. All the debris you blast off of the pieces
you are sandblasting will fall down into the sand. Eventually, they will
migrate to the bottom of the hopper as it becomes their "turn" to be sucked
into the pickup tube. Large pieces of debris will clog the venturi of the
gun. The short term fix is to hold your free hand over the discharge nozzle
of the gun, forcing the compressed air down the hose abrasive supply hose
and the pickup tube and blowing all the junk out. This will work for a
while but sooner or later you will have to empty the abrasive out the bottom
of the hopper and sift it. I use a big sifter from the cookingware aisle of
the supermarket that looks like a bowl made out of screening. This is the
long term fix.
Use a pair of pliers kept in the box to hold small parts so you are not
always blasting away at the fingertips of your gloves as you hold parts.
The box makes for really good storage of parts that must be kept rust free.
The large quantity of sand acts as a dessicant to keep the air in the box
dry.
You can also experiment with different air pressures. 50-60 PSI works good
for most work. It is hard for many air compressors to keep this up at 12
CFM so from time to time you need to give the air compressor a chance to
catch up. Also, most air compressors have a duty cycle which means that it
is expected that a certain percentage of the time, the air compressor should
be off and resting. It cools when it rests. You may consider a
supplemental fan blowing on your air compressor to keep it cool.
Do not take stuff out of the blaster unless you have gloves on. The pros
say to use surgical gloves. Oils and acids from your skin will cause the
part to rust, even under paint.
As stressed in the beginning of this series of articles, moisture is the
bane of all sandblasters. you must have adequate moisture control in your
system. The ideal air supply system uses many feet of metal, not plastic or
rubber, air line between the compressor and the sandblaster. The metal
absorbs the heat from the compressed air. As the compressed air cools, the
water in it will condense out and deposit, in the form of water droplets,
onto the inside surface of the cool pipe. As the air passes through the
pipe it will roll these droplets along until they hit a moisture trap that
will inertially snag them and keep them from traveling further. It is
important to note that moisture traps trap water droplets, not water vapor.
Putting a mositure trap at the compressor outlet will not do much good since
the air will carry mostly vapor here as the air is so hot. The best "final"
moisture trap I know of is the 1/2" coalescing air filter as illustrated in
Figure 16 and sold by Tip Sandblasting at 1-800-321-9260. It uses a roll of
toilet paper inside the unit to absorb all remaining mositure after the air
has traveled through the standard inertial moisture traps of your system.
The price is up there on this unit bust the performance is spectacular.
Finally, as you sandblast and between sips of Guiness, USE PROTECTIVE
BREATHING EQUIPMENT APPROPRIATE FOR SANDBLASTING. If it is good for wearing
while doing drywall work, it should be good for sandblasting but read the
labels on the devices you might want to use! Also, use hearing protection
if you have the shop vac next to you. Ideally you can use a Walkman and its
little earplug type earpieces under your hearing protectors so you can
listen to the Grateful Dead as you blast away.
Good luck with your new unit and try to imagine how life was before you had
it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: F*CK Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! |
It can be done. I believe there's software
out there that can take you to his front
door.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: F*CK Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Thanks Matt,
> We really ought to try and identify the SOB and take him for a ride.
> CMC
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John_Duprey(at)vmed.org |
| Subject: | Re: F____ Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!! |
02/07/2003 07:42:26 AM
Hey Matt: Thanks for your quick action in getting rid of that BOZO, some
people have no class.
John Duprey
dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)(at)matronics.com on 02/06/2003 07:27:42 PM
Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: F*CK Y*U!!!!!!!!!!!!!HAIL
VIKTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, I'm not sure what this guy's problem is, but rest assured I have
removed him from the List. Sheeze, sorry people.
Matt Dralle
List Admin
>--------------
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
>
>
>>
>> Experts,
>> Granted that for several reasons the Piet has very little float after
>flair.
>> Question: Would this airfoil of the Cub perhaps extend the float of a
Piet
>> somewhat. It WAS designed several years after the Piet and maybe, just
>maybe,
>> some progress could be identified. Just wondering without using my can
>opener
>> again.
>>
>> An old southern boy just whittlin and dreamin
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John_Duprey(at)vmed.org |
| Subject: | Piet Project on e-bay |
02/07/2003 11:44:15 AM
Not mine
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2402929702&category=26428
Too far away for me to go get.
John Duprey
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Ted ! I used 1/8" birch plywood for my instrument panels and in the rear
cockpit overlayed the
instrument cluster with 1/4" mahogany plywood. I attached the instruments
to the birch and then the mahogany
plywood hides all that. I used small machine screws from behind into, but
not thru the 1/4" mahogany bezel. I drilled out little recess holes in the
back of the 1/4" overlay and epoxied in small machine screw nuts to accept
the screws.....but after 250 hour and temperature extremes the panel
dropped in my lap one day while taxiing. I put a few dabs of RTV on the
back of the 1/4" ply and popped it back in place. Held it there with
masking tape for 24 hours then business as usual. I thought about velcro
for attatching the overlay but the two layers of that would have lifted the
overlay off the 1/8" birch and I didn't want that look. Let us know if you
come up with a better way. I thought about magnets but then that would
have given my compass schizophrenia. Bad enough that I suffer from it:)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)governair.com> |
Mike, Loctite makes a small screw threadlocker that is removeable. Sounds
like it would be just perfect for a removeable panel like that. I think it's
called 222.
Kent Hallsten
OKC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
Thanks Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing tanks
>
> >
> >Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
> >where can I find the information?
> >Barry Davis
>
> Barry,
>
> This topic was covered, perhaps more than once, in the 'old' BPA
> newsletter. A number of us have complete sets that someone on the list (I
> think it was Mike Bell in SC) compiled & sold for the cost of reproduction
> several years ago. I also think one of these articles was reprinted in the
> 'new' BPA newsletter in the past year or so. My 'old' newsletters are
still
> all packed somewhere from my move, but I'll check my collection of 'new'
> ones in the next day or so. If I find it, I'd be happy to run a copy for
> you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | J2-J3 tires, tubes, and wheels for sale |
I have an old set of J-2 wheels (1930s) complete, no brakes, you didn't need
em back then. You could easily put the asuza type brakes on. I had planed
to use them as is. They are in serviceable used condition, not perfect, but
good. With this set up I have some 8:00 x 4:00 newer Good Year tires and
tubes, used also but very nice condition with lots of flying time left.
These would look perfect on your Pietenpol, and really give it that 1930s
look. The first $275.00 + shipping get them. If you want them e-mail me,
the first e-mail saying yes I want them, get's them. No pictures at this
time, but they are well worth it, in fact if you can't live with them I will
refund your money less the shipping cost if returned with in 30 days.
zigodan(at)aol.com
Dan Zigo
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: pleeeeeease stop snowing |
Walt,
It's not a bit better here. Took the trash out a few minutes ago and I
remarked to Isabelle that it looked like snow clouds. Those low dark looking
puffs like they had one winter when I was soldiering at Cp Atterbury, Ind.
That's about 35 miles below Indianoplace. Boy was it cold. Cussed yankees for
the next 20 years. We have had some good signs lately, the robins came
through and striped the cherry laurels of berries about a month before they
were due which says we will probably have an early spring. You can
comfortably fly a Piet down here from 60 and above but not for too long. It
was about 65 last Sat when I flew and after an hour I landed feeling like a
popsicle.
Ya'll come on down
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel overlays |
Thanks Mike. That was kind of what I was figuring. It sure is nice to
follow the pioneers. I will let you know what I come up with for fastening
the overlay.
Ted
By the way, are we planning a mass invasion again in to Oshkosh &/or
Brodhead next summer (04)?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Panel overlays
>
> Ted ! I used 1/8" birch plywood for my instrument panels and in the rear
> cockpit overlayed the
> instrument cluster with 1/4" mahogany plywood. I attached the instruments
> to the birch and then the mahogany
> plywood hides all that. I used small machine screws from behind into, but
> not thru the 1/4" mahogany bezel. I drilled out little recess holes in
the
> back of the 1/4" overlay and epoxied in small machine screw nuts to accept
> the screws.....but after 250 hour and temperature extremes the panel
> dropped in my lap one day while taxiing. I put a few dabs of RTV on the
> back of the 1/4" ply and popped it back in place. Held it there with
> masking tape for 24 hours then business as usual. I thought about velcro
> for attatching the overlay but the two layers of that would have lifted
the
> overlay off the 1/8" birch and I didn't want that look. Let us know if
you
> come up with a better way. I thought about magnets but then that would
> have given my compass schizophrenia. Bad enough that I suffer from it:)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Panel overlays |
In a message dated 2/7/03 9:40:49 PM Central Standard Time,
nfn00979(at)naples.net writes:
<< By the way, are we planning a mass invasion again in to Oshkosh &/or
Brodhead next summer (04)? >>
I'm planning an invasion of One, this year !! Anyone from the mid west, or
Kansas City area going ? I've been looking forward to this adventrue for
years !!
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Panel overlays |
Ted, I'm in for '04.
Bert (Tallahassee)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Panel overlays
>
> Thanks Mike. That was kind of what I was figuring. It sure is nice to
> follow the pioneers. I will let you know what I come up with for
fastening
> the overlay.
>
> Ted
>
> By the way, are we planning a mass invasion again in to Oshkosh &/or
> Brodhead next summer (04)?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Panel overlays
>
>
>
> >
> > Ted ! I used 1/8" birch plywood for my instrument panels and in the
rear
> > cockpit overlayed the
> > instrument cluster with 1/4" mahogany plywood. I attached the
instruments
> > to the birch and then the mahogany
> > plywood hides all that. I used small machine screws from behind into,
but
> > not thru the 1/4" mahogany bezel. I drilled out little recess holes in
> the
> > back of the 1/4" overlay and epoxied in small machine screw nuts to
accept
> > the screws.....but after 250 hour and temperature extremes the panel
> > dropped in my lap one day while taxiing. I put a few dabs of RTV on
the
> > back of the 1/4" ply and popped it back in place. Held it there with
> > masking tape for 24 hours then business as usual. I thought about
velcro
> > for attatching the overlay but the two layers of that would have lifted
> the
> > overlay off the 1/8" birch and I didn't want that look. Let us know if
> you
> > come up with a better way. I thought about magnets but then that would
> > have given my compass schizophrenia. Bad enough that I suffer from it:)
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | pleeeeeease stop snowing |
Walt,
Just got my March Kitplanes, there is a great article about flying
open-cockpit when its cold. Mostly common sense but you may pick up a couple
good hints. Article called Flying Alfresco, page 26.
Skip, in sunny Atlanta, 24F cold
More snow today,,,went up to knock snow off the hanger, and thought about
hugging my Piet. This winter is far tooooooo long. Don't
know what it is. Guess it's because I don't have a project to work
on. Last fall with it's DAR and licencing, and test flying, seems
like a dream. Haven't flown since Nov of last year.
walt
--- csfog(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
Cy Galley is correct, of course. The Cub does use a USA 35B airfoil. I
guess it is just that when I build ribs, the Clark Y and the USA 35B look
the same.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
Barry Davis wrote:
>
>
>>ones in the next day or so. If I find it, I'd be happy to run a copy for
>>you.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Kip Gardner
>>
>>North Canton, OH
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Kip:
>
Could I also get a copy of them? Am leaning toward Prices
fiberglas tank, and have a friend who can heliarc an aluminum tank for
me and actually encourages me to go that way. However, he is not as
young as he used to be and may kick off before I get to it, so I would
like to keep my options open.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>> Hi Kip:
>>
>
> Could I also get a copy of them? Am leaning toward Prices
>fiberglas tank, and have a friend who can heliarc an aluminum tank for
>me and actually encourages me to go that way. However, he is not as
>young as he used to be and may kick off before I get to it, so I would
>like to keep my options open.
>Dennis Engelkenjohn
Dennis,
Sure, I'll be checking shortly & will get back to you.
Regards,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
>where can I find the information?
>Barry Davis
Barry and Dennis,
OK, I found 2 sets of fuel tank sketches/plans in the Brodhead Piet Assoc.
newsletters; Jan 2001 and July 2001. They are rather different designs, so
you can pick whatever suits you. One specifies 6061 alum. & the other terne
plate, but you could probably make either one out of whatever material you
want. I'll be glad to send you copies of both - send me addresses.
Cheers!
KIp Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | I need some welding help.... |
I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding and
it just doesn't seem to be going well. Took a lot longer that the
"recommended" 10 seconds to make a puddle and for some reason I got a lot
more sparks than usual several times....and I'm afraid I may be burning all
the carbon our of the metal and leaving it brittle....
I'm going to call my tech counselor and find someone local that knows what
they're doing to give me some instructions/critiques. But in the
meantime......can some of you welders (I KNOW you're out there, I've seen
some of your welding!) give me a hand? Maybe look at some pictures of what
I've done and see if you can make some suggestions? I know it's not hard but
I have no idea whether I need more practice or a modified technique
(training)...
I'm preheating the general area of the parts to be welded and I'm using a
"forehand" method. Material thickness is .090, using oxy/gas and 3/32"
E70S-2 rod, Victor '0' tip. The flame is tweaked down to where the feather
just dissapears and there is a relatively quiet roaring sound......
I've posted 5 "pre-sandblast" pictures on my mykitplane.com build log:
http://www.mykitplane.com/TaxiWay/TheHangar/PlaneManager/buildLog.cfm?BuildL
ogID=341&PlaneID=52&Menu=BuildLog
I can add the pics of the sandblasted parts if that helps.....
I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm getting
with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate but
replying to the list is fine with me.
Thanks,
a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
Jim,
I'm self taught, with my AP Mentor looking over my shoulder from time to
time, BUT, the hardest thing for me to get used to was the time that it
takes the work to get to puddle temp. .090" is pretty thick and should take
more than the count of ten to puddle. I've never heard that term of 10 sec,
but maybe for something .032" or less. Don't think the time is a factor.
On most of my Piet. I used a 000 tip. Once in a while used a 0 tip , and on
the .090" had to go to a 1 tip. What tip size are you using? If you are
joining a group of .090" matl. Don't think that a 0 tip will ever get you
there. What type rod is that? My mentor advised using mild rod only.
Just another welding tip to remember,,,always point the flame, like an arrow
other depending on matl thickness, mass, etc. You can also "shield" the
thinner matl with the rod, not to burn it up.
Practice, practice, practice.
Took me years to get to a point where they're not necessarily pretty, but I
trust them.
Letting the joint cool in STILL air is VERY important for 4130. Or it'll
shatter like glass
walt
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding
and
> it just doesn't seem to be going well. Took a lot longer that the
> "recommended" 10 seconds to make a puddle and for some reason I got a lot
> more sparks than usual several times....and I'm afraid I may be burning
all
> the carbon our of the metal and leaving it brittle....
>
> I'm going to call my tech counselor and find someone local that knows what
> they're doing to give me some instructions/critiques. But in the
> meantime......can some of you welders (I KNOW you're out there, I've seen
> some of your welding!) give me a hand? Maybe look at some pictures of
what
> I've done and see if you can make some suggestions? I know it's not hard
but
> I have no idea whether I need more practice or a modified technique
> (training)...
>
> I'm preheating the general area of the parts to be welded and I'm using a
> "forehand" method. Material thickness is .090, using oxy/gas and 3/32"
> E70S-2 rod, Victor '0' tip. The flame is tweaked down to where the
feather
> just dissapears and there is a relatively quiet roaring sound......
>
> I've posted 5 "pre-sandblast" pictures on my mykitplane.com build log:
>
>
http://www.mykitplane.com/TaxiWay/TheHangar/PlaneManager/buildLog.cfm?BuildL
> ogID=341&PlaneID=52&Menu=BuildLog
>
> I can add the pics of the sandblasted parts if that helps.....
>
> I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm getting
> with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate
but
> replying to the list is fine with me.
>
> Thanks,
> a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
hmmm, hey, few things I haven't tried!......increase the tip, get some mild
rod (is that the same as R45 maybe?) and keep practicing (well, I've done a
LOT of practicing!).
I've started a list....this is a nice start.
Thanks very much Walt.
jm
----- Original Message -----
From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> Jim,
> I'm self taught, with my AP Mentor looking over my shoulder from time to
> time, BUT, the hardest thing for me to get used to was the time that it
Walt's comments........
> Letting the joint cool in STILL air is VERY important for 4130. Or it'll
> shatter like glass
> walt
> NX140DL
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding
> and
My ranting and raving....
>
> > I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm
getting
> > with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate
> but
> > replying to the list is fine with me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
Could you spare another copy of those plans. Let me know the cost and I will
send it to you.
Address is Doyle Combs
P. O. Box 421
Lometa, Texas 76853
thanks very much
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing tanks
>
> >
> >Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
> >where can I find the information?
> >Barry Davis
>
> Barry and Dennis,
>
> OK, I found 2 sets of fuel tank sketches/plans in the Brodhead Piet Assoc.
> newsletters; Jan 2001 and July 2001. They are rather different designs, so
> you can pick whatever suits you. One specifies 6061 alum. & the other
terne
> plate, but you could probably make either one out of whatever material you
> want. I'll be glad to send you copies of both - send me addresses.
>
> Cheers!
>
> KIp Gardner
>
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
What tip size are you using? if the tip size is too small, you can heat it
all day and it won't puddle.
Also if you want to practice today, use coat hanger for practicing. It's
basically the same soft drawn wire as the welding rod. Just doesn't have
the copper coating to stop rusting. Just kind of preburn the varnish off
as you go.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> hmmm, hey, few things I haven't tried!......increase the tip, get some
mild
> rod (is that the same as R45 maybe?) and keep practicing (well, I've done
a
> LOT of practicing!).
>
> I've started a list....this is a nice start.
>
> Thanks very much Walt.
>
> jm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
> >
> > Jim,
> > I'm self taught, with my AP Mentor looking over my shoulder from time to
> > time, BUT, the hardest thing for me to get used to was the time that it
>
> Walt's comments........
>
> > Letting the joint cool in STILL air is VERY important for 4130. Or
it'll
> > shatter like glass
> > walt
> > NX140DL
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some
welding
> > and
>
> My ranting and raving....
>
> >
> > > I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm
> getting
> > > with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be
appropriate
> > but
> > > replying to the list is fine with me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken" <av8or(at)citizen.infi.net> |
| Subject: | I need some welding help.... |
I have never heard of 10 sec to puddle. What pressure are you setting your
gas and oxy.
Popping can be caused by getting your tip too close to you and/or having the
flow of the gasses set to low.
If you are worried about burning the carbon out of the base metal use a
carborizing flame.
Keep practicing.
Ken
av8or(at)citizen.infi.net
kring(at)mountainviewdogs.com
kring(at)irisweb.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Markle
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding and
it just doesn't seem to be going well. Took a lot longer that the
"recommended" 10 seconds to make a puddle and for some reason I got a lot
more sparks than usual several times....and I'm afraid I may be burning all
the carbon our of the metal and leaving it brittle....
I'm going to call my tech counselor and find someone local that knows what
they're doing to give me some instructions/critiques. But in the
meantime......can some of you welders (I KNOW you're out there, I've seen
some of your welding!) give me a hand? Maybe look at some pictures of what
I've done and see if you can make some suggestions? I know it's not hard but
I have no idea whether I need more practice or a modified technique
(training)...
I'm preheating the general area of the parts to be welded and I'm using a
"forehand" method. Material thickness is .090, using oxy/gas and 3/32"
E70S-2 rod, Victor '0' tip. The flame is tweaked down to where the feather
just dissapears and there is a relatively quiet roaring sound......
I've posted 5 "pre-sandblast" pictures on my mykitplane.com build log:
http://www.mykitplane.com/TaxiWay/TheHangar/PlaneManager/buildLog.cfm?BuildL
ogID=341&PlaneID=52&Menu=BuildLog
I can add the pics of the sandblasted parts if that helps.....
I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm getting
with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate but
replying to the list is fine with me.
Thanks,
a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | I need some welding help.... |
Jim,
the link wouldn't work
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim
Markle
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding and
it just doesn't seem to be going well. Took a lot longer that the
"recommended" 10 seconds to make a puddle and for some reason I got a lot
more sparks than usual several times....and I'm afraid I may be burning all
the carbon our of the metal and leaving it brittle....
I'm going to call my tech counselor and find someone local that knows what
they're doing to give me some instructions/critiques. But in the
meantime......can some of you welders (I KNOW you're out there, I've seen
some of your welding!) give me a hand? Maybe look at some pictures of what
I've done and see if you can make some suggestions? I know it's not hard but
I have no idea whether I need more practice or a modified technique
(training)...
I'm preheating the general area of the parts to be welded and I'm using a
"forehand" method. Material thickness is .090, using oxy/gas and 3/32"
E70S-2 rod, Victor '0' tip. The flame is tweaked down to where the feather
just dissapears and there is a relatively quiet roaring sound......
I've posted 5 "pre-sandblast" pictures on my mykitplane.com build log:
http://www.mykitplane.com/TaxiWay/TheHangar/PlaneManager/buildLog.cfm?BuildL
ogID=341&PlaneID=52&Menu=BuildLog
I can add the pics of the sandblasted parts if that helps.....
I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm getting
with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate but
replying to the list is fine with me.
Thanks,
a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken" <av8or(at)citizen.infi.net> |
| Subject: | I need some welding help.... |
Coat hanger wire is not the same. Coat hanger wire can be of any alloy and
unless you get you coat hangers from the same lot they probably are not even
the same. Now for practice and automobile exhaust systems coat hangers are
ok but for anything else use a rod that you know is correct.
Ken
av8or(at)citizen.infi.net
kring(at)mountainviewdogs.com
kring(at)irisweb.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of walter
evans
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
What tip size are you using? if the tip size is too small, you can heat it
all day and it won't puddle.
Also if you want to practice today, use coat hanger for practicing. It's
basically the same soft drawn wire as the welding rod. Just doesn't have
the copper coating to stop rusting. Just kind of preburn the varnish off
as you go.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> hmmm, hey, few things I haven't tried!......increase the tip, get some
mild
> rod (is that the same as R45 maybe?) and keep practicing (well, I've done
a
> LOT of practicing!).
>
> I've started a list....this is a nice start.
>
> Thanks very much Walt.
>
> jm
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
> >
> > Jim,
> > I'm self taught, with my AP Mentor looking over my shoulder from time to
> > time, BUT, the hardest thing for me to get used to was the time that it
>
> Walt's comments........
>
> > Letting the joint cool in STILL air is VERY important for 4130. Or
it'll
> > shatter like glass
> > walt
> > NX140DL
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some
welding
> > and
>
> My ranting and raving....
>
> >
> > > I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm
> getting
> > > with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be
appropriate
> > but
> > > replying to the list is fine with me.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
I just said " if you want to PRACTICE today, use coathanger. You won't know
the difference, if there is a difference.
Would I want my engine mount done in coathanger?,,,no,,,but practice with
it.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken" <av8or(at)citizen.infi.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> Coat hanger wire is not the same. Coat hanger wire can be of any alloy
and
> unless you get you coat hangers from the same lot they probably are not
even
> the same. Now for practice and automobile exhaust systems coat hangers
are
> ok but for anything else use a rod that you know is correct.
>
>
> Ken
> av8or(at)citizen.infi.net
> kring(at)mountainviewdogs.com
> kring(at)irisweb.net
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of walter
> evans
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
>
> What tip size are you using? if the tip size is too small, you can heat
it
> all day and it won't puddle.
> Also if you want to practice today, use coat hanger for practicing. It's
> basically the same soft drawn wire as the welding rod. Just doesn't have
> the copper coating to stop rusting. Just kind of preburn the varnish off
> as you go.
> walt
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
> >
> > hmmm, hey, few things I haven't tried!......increase the tip, get some
> mild
> > rod (is that the same as R45 maybe?) and keep practicing (well, I've
done
> a
> > LOT of practicing!).
> >
> > I've started a list....this is a nice start.
> >
> > Thanks very much Walt.
> >
> > jm
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Jim,
> > > I'm self taught, with my AP Mentor looking over my shoulder from time
to
> > > time, BUT, the hardest thing for me to get used to was the time that
it
> >
> > Walt's comments........
> >
> > > Letting the joint cool in STILL air is VERY important for 4130. Or
> it'll
> > > shatter like glass
> > > walt
> > > NX140DL
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some
> welding
> > > and
> >
> > My ranting and raving....
> >
> > >
> > > > I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm
> > getting
> > > > with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be
> appropriate
> > > but
> > > > replying to the list is fine with me.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
I've never figured out why links get trashed when you copy them to the
list!!
Oh well, maybe it's best just to go to www.mykitplane.com and look at
builder's logs and look at today's entry in my log....
Jim in Plano....not QUITE so frustrated now......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> Jim,
>
> the link wouldn't work
>
> chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
blah, blah, blah......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
Jim. I found that practicing with .065 or .043 (?) was helpful. .090 and
.125 were more difficult
at first for me. - Icould never feel when he metal was "ready" - I'd get
impatient and start jockeying the flame and sticking the rod in before it
was ready. Also I found that starting with a simple fitting or just just
simply combining two parts with and edge weld made it easier because of the
uniformity of the fitting - you don't have to deal with the heat sink nature
of certain parts of complicated fittings.
2 cents
good luck. Keep practicing..bert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> I've never figured out why links get trashed when you copy them to the
> list!!
>
> Oh well, maybe it's best just to go to www.mykitplane.com and look at
> builder's logs and look at today's entry in my log....
>
> Jim in Plano....not QUITE so frustrated now......
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
>
>
> >
> > Jim,
> >
> > the link wouldn't work
> >
> > chris
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
>
>
> blah, blah, blah......
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
Check out www.airbum.com go to articles and then
to " Zen of the Weld Puddle "
----- Original Message ----- > To: >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
Jim,, I don't know about counting to 10 for a puddle, but I might suggest
trying a #2 tip, bring your flame down to about half an inch. Make small
circles slowly until the puddle starts,, then hold straight and start
feeding with the rod. The #2 tip has a wide range of adjustment so you can
increase or decrease the flame. If she's popping,, pull the tip back a bit
and make sure you use the tip cleaner after that happens. hope this helps.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I need some welding help....
>
> I'm incredibly frustrated........just finished trying to do some welding
and
> it just doesn't seem to be going well. Took a lot longer that the
> "recommended" 10 seconds to make a puddle and for some reason I got a lot
> more sparks than usual several times....and I'm afraid I may be burning
all
> the carbon our of the metal and leaving it brittle....
>
> I'm going to call my tech counselor and find someone local that knows what
> they're doing to give me some instructions/critiques. But in the
> meantime......can some of you welders (I KNOW you're out there, I've seen
> some of your welding!) give me a hand? Maybe look at some pictures of
what
> I've done and see if you can make some suggestions? I know it's not hard
but
> I have no idea whether I need more practice or a modified technique
> (training)...
>
> I'm preheating the general area of the parts to be welded and I'm using a
> "forehand" method. Material thickness is .090, using oxy/gas and 3/32"
> E70S-2 rod, Victor '0' tip. The flame is tweaked down to where the
feather
> just dissapears and there is a relatively quiet roaring sound......
>
> I've posted 5 "pre-sandblast" pictures on my mykitplane.com build log:
>
>
http://www.mykitplane.com/TaxiWay/TheHangar/PlaneManager/buildLog.cfm?BuildL
> ogID=341&PlaneID=52&Menu=BuildLog
>
> I can add the pics of the sandblasted parts if that helps.....
>
> I simply don't know how close to acceptable (or how far away) I'm getting
> with this....... If you can help, a private reply might be appropriate
but
> replying to the list is fine with me.
>
> Thanks,
> a VERY frustrated Piet builder in Plano........
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I need some welding help.... |
Jim,
I have a really good book that I bought at Hastings The Welders Handbook by
Finch/Monroe. Now first I must tell you there are a few lines you have to
read through. For one he talks about your shop temperature, lighting,
breezes, coper coated wire ect. Made me think that a person would need a
semiconductor clean room with perfect atmosphere. But I know dammed well
most Pipers, Aeroncas, and Taylorcrafts were not built to his standards, but
the guy is a certified welder.
Some excellent things he points out are different tip sizes for different
thickness material, operating pressures of your regulators, carbonizing flame
(good) vs. lean (Bad) pulls the carbon right out of the material, overheating
the tip which causes popping. Now I could go on but typing is not my cup of
tea. If by chance you don't have a book, try and get one.
I looked at your parts, first I hate to see people practice on finished
pieces. Try setting up some scrap without doing all the finish work and
welding on those first, once your happy then do your drilled & shaped finish
parts. To me it looks like your flame went lean, you went to fast and your
pressure on your regulators may be to high. A common mistake is trying to
force to small of tip to weld heavy material, often by doing this you jack up
your regulator pressure to high. Think of it this way, if you blow on a
liquid metal to hard it causes it to puddle out and disfigure the weld. You
need the right size tip, so you get a hot enough flame with a gentle touch.
Watch your tip flame like you watch your airspeed, it must stay slightly rich
Carbonizing (very important). The part you are welding is difficult because
your flame is surrounded by metal fitting, which will make the tip get hot
and pop, especially if using to small of tip. I am no expert but I hope this
helps, and don't be hard on yourself, good welding comes the same way as good
landings.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi friends
Hi Jim
Welding it's not hard, just practice and more
practice, it's very important that you have the
regulators with the correct setting , adjust the flame
so you have a little acetylene feather (1 or 2
millimeters are ok), so you be sure that your flame
it's not oxidizing and maintain the flame over the
puddle with little circles , and at 45 degrees apx..
so you can maintain the heat on the metal, try that
the blue flame don't touch the puddle, the metals have
to joint, and the rod is for fill the metal lost.
About the time, it's hard to know how many, that
depends on your flame.
I would like recommend you that make some weld works
parts for practice and after check this with a hammer,
and cut some welded parts too so you can check your
work, looking for a good penetration... go ahead.
Javier Cruz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Back on track....(welding update from Plano) |
Ok, thanks for the input! I've determined that the following points need attention
(most of these I already knew but old age has a way of....well, whatever.....).
I'll probably print this out and post it in my shop:
1. Use the right tip. Don't be shy!
2. Adjust the flame properly (look AND sound). Avoid an oxidizing flame!
3. Avoid heat sinks. Tack it and then move heat sinking stuff like jigs, clamps,
etc AWAY!
4. Re-read "Zen and the Art of the Weld Puddle" (www.airbum.com)
5. Review my "How to Weld" books.
6. Sit down and have some kind of support for my hands/arms.
7. Practice for a while before starting on the good stuff.
8. Pay attention to those sparks flying all over the place! They're telling you
something!
9. Maintain a proper flame to puddle distance!
10. No puddle and you've held it there for a LONG time? More of item 1 above....
11. Feed the rod consistently.
Items that I left out or forgot and that impacted my frustration level, stress
level and weld quality:
Uhhh, ALL of the above.......
I will still pursue getting my EAA Counselor to recommend someone to look over
my shoulder and give me some input and I'll possibly take a basic welding class.
I went back and did a couple little welds after getting my act together yesterday
and the process was MUCH better. Not quite there, obviously, but better!
Thanks again to everyone's suggestions!
Jim in Plano (feeling a little better about this welding stuff now......)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Piets
Could someone supply me with the name of the man in Minnesota who makes those
little cast hinges for the Pietenpol tail feathers. Thanks
Corky working hard in La on N84CC
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/10/03 9:01:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
> Could someone supply me with the name of the man in Minnesota who makes
those
>
> little cast hinges for the Pietenpol tail feathers. Thanks
>
> Corky working hard in La on N84CC
His name was Vi Kapler, dont have his address tho
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Corky, Check the Archives, I think you'll
find more than one message with address
in the last year or two .
Clif, 1072 miles to your north, Heading -348.5
As the crow flies, of course.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dmott9(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Address
>
> In a message dated 2/10/03 9:01:34 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
>
> > Could someone supply me with the name of the man in Minnesota who makes
> those
> >
> > little cast hinges for the Pietenpol tail feathers. Thanks
> >
> > Corky working hard in La on N84CC
> His name was Vi Kapler, dont have his address tho
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>Piets
>
>Could someone supply me with the name of the man in Minnesota who makes those
>little cast hinges for the Pietenpol tail feathers. Thanks
>
>
Try this:
Vitalis Kapler
1033 Forest Hill Dr.SW
Rochester, MN 55902
His phone # (507) 288-3322
Besides the hinges he sells manifolds for the corvair and prop
hubs, but they cannot use electric on the hub like WW's. He might make
motor mounts, I've heard so, but haven't asked him. If you contact him,
please ask him for me and how much $
Dennis Engelkenjohn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Thanks Clif,
Corky, about 16 Piet hours away
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John and Susan" <sjficklen(at)mchsi.com> |
HI Gang;
I am in the Fla panhandle; on St George Island, 75 miles southwest of Tallahassee.
I have a full size fuselage mockup from rear seat to firewall. Anyone is
welcome to it. It was a great help in locating everything.Come and get it or it
will become a beach bonfire.
My fuselage is done-- here are the adjectives; level,plumb, square, strong, simple,
and light. Thanks Bernie.
Cheers
John Ficklen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Fw: [f-AA] transponder for a 7AC? |
FYI
----- Original Message -----
From: "Government Programs" <govt(at)eaa.org>
Bogenhagen"
Subject: RE: [f-AA] transponder for a 7AC?
Cy and Paul, EAA has been working with the TSA (and the FAA) since they
issued the new ADIZ around the DC area. In a meeting yesterday, they
confirmed the requirements of the ADIZ Notam - all aircraft, including
ultralights, operating within the ADIZ must have a operational transponder
and a two way radio - no exceptions. They also indicated that when the
threat level goes back down the ADIZ will remain, but will be moved in to
match the current Class B airspace, but will move back to it's current
position if the threat level should ever go back up to Orange or Red.
I don't know about cheaper transponder or radio options - I'll pass that
question to Joe and Mark in EAA's Aviation Information Services department.
One good thing that did come out of the meeting is that normal ADIZ's
require all aircraft to have 12" N numbers - but this is not a "normal"
ADIZ, so all aircraft can keep their current markings, vintage/Warbird/AB
ultralight aircraft with small N numbers and ultralight vehicles with small
EAA/ASC/USUA registration numbers.
TSA also acknowledged that procedures must be established to allow owners of
aircraft and ultralight vehicles who elect not to install the required
equipment to fly (or "flush") their aircraft from the effected area. They
kind of did it this time with the 3 day advance warning, but for those who
did not look at Notams during that advance notice they acknowledge that
other procedures must be established for "flushing".
Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: Cy Galley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
Subject: Fw: [f-AA] transponder for a 7AC?
Check with govt(at)eaa.org to see your options. Did they give you an FAR? Or
just badger you with its they way we are going to do it under the "patriot"
act and we make the rules.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Miller" <phmiller(at)usna.edu>
Subject: [f-AA] transponder for a 7AC?
> According to the TSA/FAA, yesterday morning the 7AC Champ (A-65-8) and
many other classic
> aircraft became a threat to national security as they do not have a
transponder. They are no
> longer allowed to fly in the Baltimore-Washington extended Class B
airspace. As our plane was
> based in that area, on Sunday we flew it out of the area. If we decide to
keep the Champ our
> options seem to be:
> 1. Keep it outside and drive an hour to the plane (versus 10 minutes)
> 2. Install a transponder and upgrade the handheld radio so that we can
talk with the FSS and
> Balt. Approach.
>
> Option 2 seems to mean that we need to get: altitude encoder, transponder
antenna, transponder,
> ground plane, battery, battery charger, wires and installation. The
avionics shop quoted $2500
> for the lot. The radio upgrade ranges from $30-$2500 depending on how much
needs to be done.
>
> So, has anyone installed a simpler, less expensive transponder system?!
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aeronca mailing list
> Aeronca(at)mail.westmont.edu
> http://mail.westmont.edu/mailman/listinfo/aeronca
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
Thanks
Barry Davis
728-B Bankhead Ave
Carrollton, Ga.
30117
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing tanks
>
> >
> >Does anyone have a sketch on how to build wing tanks for the piet?, or
> >where can I find the information?
> >Barry Davis
>
> Barry and Dennis,
>
> OK, I found 2 sets of fuel tank sketches/plans in the Brodhead Piet Assoc.
> newsletters; Jan 2001 and July 2001. They are rather different designs, so
> you can pick whatever suits you. One specifies 6061 alum. & the other
terne
> plate, but you could probably make either one out of whatever material you
> want. I'll be glad to send you copies of both - send me addresses.
>
> Cheers!
>
> KIp Gardner
>
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: long fuse gear |
>
>In a message dated 2/2/2003 8:04:58 PM Central Standard Time,
>kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>> I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them
>
>Kip,
>I would very much appreciate any info in this regard that Frank can pass
>along. I have the long fuselage with the Model A and the solid wood gear, the
>same as his. I had built and installed the gear before the thread began on
>this subject. Of course that gear was intended for the original FGM version.
>I positioned mine in the location of the second version ("new, improved")
>which is probably equally wrong but I wanted to resist making any changes
>before doing my w&b and seeing what my tailwheel weight was. There may be
>meaningful differences dpending on whether Frank used fir or spruce on his
>fuselage. I did make a concerted effort to keep mine light in the
>tailfeathers and used spruce throughout. I'm fully covered, painted and
>complete and hopefully will be doing my final w&b this weekend. Thanks agin
>for the offer. Don Hicks
Don,
Well, I made it to the airport this weekend - missed Frank Pavliga by mere
minutes! However, I'm told he's been there a lot recently, finishing up the
Waco; anyone with 170k to burn, it's a gorgeous aircraft.
Anyway, I did get the firewall-to-axle measurement on Sky Gypsy. It's 19",
plus or minus 1/4" It was COLD & DARK in the hangar, so I'm not apologizing
for the sloppy measurement ;). Also ,for what it's worth, the Chunk'o lead
that Chris Bobka mentioned is definitely AWOL from anywhwere on or about
the engine/engine mount.
I will still try to get W&B details from Frank sometime soon, so as to make
things more meaningful.
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
group---my error.
Try this to get to Barnstormers...... http://www.barnstormers2000.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet |
Group--I stumbled on this and it looks nice. Actually there are several
Piets, GN-1's and engines for sale if you go to
http://www.barnstormers.com THEN scroll and pick "experimental" then
scroll down and pick Pietenpol. Neat stuff ! Mike C.
PIETENPOLE -- BIPLANE =95 FLY RIGHT NOW!! .. PHOTO .. PHOTO .. PHOTO .. PHOTO
.. Aerial Pietenpole Biplane; L 0290, 270 SMOH, Electric start, Hydraulic
Breaks. This plane flies and looks great. $16,000.00. Contact Jeff Younce
located Trenton SC USA. Telephone: 803-637-4949. -- Posted 5 January 2003
-- Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser -- To send this Ad to a friend:
Click here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet |
Aerial-plans-St Croix Aircraft. From Jan Kitplanes
list of plansbuilt AC. Page 27, Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Kip,
Please ask him about the lead. It was there last time his ship was at
Brodhead. I took a picture of it so I know I ain't lyin'.
The measurement was with the longerons level fore and aft?
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kip &
Beth Gardner
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: long fuse gear
>
>In a message dated 2/2/2003 8:04:58 PM Central Standard Time,
>kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net writes:
>
>> I can ask him for details or make measurements for anyone that wants them
>
>Kip,
>I would very much appreciate any info in this regard that Frank can pass
>along. I have the long fuselage with the Model A and the solid wood gear,
the
>same as his. I had built and installed the gear before the thread began on
>this subject. Of course that gear was intended for the original FGM
version.
>I positioned mine in the location of the second version ("new, improved")
>which is probably equally wrong but I wanted to resist making any changes
>before doing my w&b and seeing what my tailwheel weight was. There may be
>meaningful differences dpending on whether Frank used fir or spruce on his
>fuselage. I did make a concerted effort to keep mine light in the
>tailfeathers and used spruce throughout. I'm fully covered, painted and
>complete and hopefully will be doing my final w&b this weekend. Thanks agin
>for the offer. Don Hicks
Don,
Well, I made it to the airport this weekend - missed Frank Pavliga by mere
minutes! However, I'm told he's been there a lot recently, finishing up the
Waco; anyone with 170k to burn, it's a gorgeous aircraft.
Anyway, I did get the firewall-to-axle measurement on Sky Gypsy. It's 19",
plus or minus 1/4" It was COLD & DARK in the hangar, so I'm not apologizing
for the sloppy measurement ;). Also ,for what it's worth, the Chunk'o lead
that Chris Bobka mentioned is definitely AWOL from anywhwere on or about
the engine/engine mount.
I will still try to get W&B details from Frank sometime soon, so as to make
things more meaningful.
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Frank Pavliga lost quite a bit of weight during the past year so he removed
the lead weight
that was attached to his motor mount on his long fuse. Cont. 65 Pietenpol.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
The truth comes out. I remember him to be slight of build. Is he ok
healthwise?
Chris Bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Michael D
Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Sky Gypsy Lead
Frank Pavliga lost quite a bit of weight during the past year so he removed
the lead weight
that was attached to his motor mount on his long fuse. Cont. 65 Pietenpol.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet |
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but why do they call the bi-plane a
Piet? The tail isn't a Piet, the wing tips aren't a Piet. The rear fuse
isn't a Piet. What on there is a Piet?
If you have a Model A, and rip the body off it and put a Chrysler nose on it
and a Buick rear on it, and a Hudson roof on it, is it still a Ford?
How would you possibly recognize that as a Piet? (even the name is spelled
wrong) Or is that the key?
Should have been "Stearman for sale" (two holes,,,got to be a Stearman)
Sorry,,, bad mood tonite. More snow on the way, 1 foot by Sunday nite
:
()
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet
>
>
> Group--I stumbled on this and it looks nice. Actually there are several
> Piets, GN-1's and engines for sale if you go to
> http://www.barnstormers.com THEN scroll and pick "experimental" then
> scroll down and pick Pietenpol. Neat stuff ! Mike C.
>
> PIETENPOLE -- BIPLANE =95 FLY RIGHT NOW!! .. PHOTO .. PHOTO .. PHOTO ..
PHOTO
> .. Aerial Pietenpole Biplane; L 0290, 270 SMOH, Electric start, Hydraulic
> Breaks. This plane flies and looks great. $16,000.00. Contact Jeff Younce
> located Trenton SC USA. Telephone: 803-637-4949. -- Posted 5 January 2003
> -- Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser -- To send this Ad to a friend:
> Click here.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: this is Way cool ! A biplane Piet |
Hey it's not Piet that's for sure. But in defense of it I thought you might
want to know that the one in the Barnstormers add had been modified to look
more like a Waco. The St. Croix version looks more like a Piet with an extra
wing. They also sell the mono wing Piet plans, but of course like Grega it
just ain't a Pietenpol, unless the plans come from Pietenpol.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Sky Gypsy Lead |
Walt---you are right about that biplane Piet. Doesn't even look like a
Piet after I got to looking at all the photos of it. Also we are bogged
down with cold and snow too. I'm getting a bit anxious to fly too. It's
been since Nov. 15th. Normally we get to fly at least once per month even
in Jan/Feb/March. Not this year.
Chris---Frank Pavliga is in good health. His dad passed on from
heart/cholesterol problems so Frank took on a workout program to keep
himself pretty lean to guard against those problems.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us. I
had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
look in that bird eyes.
It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my right
at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
center of the windshield or an engine intake.
Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure we
were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
through into the cockpit.
I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a heart
shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't as
scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in one
day have a handful.
I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
DJ Vegh
www.raptoronline.com
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
Tell your friend that he deffinitely saved one life today,,, and maybe
three.
Can you imagine getting hit in the face with a bag of sugar at 100mph? I
can't.
I could have taken you both out, not to mention the loss to the raptor
neighborhood.
All of us in the sky have a special bond, either bird or Piet. (that the
people walking the dirt don't understand)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
>
> I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
> flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
> valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
>
> Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
> Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us.
I
> had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
> the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
> look in that bird eyes.
>
> It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my
right
> at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
>
> If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
> center of the windshield or an engine intake.
>
> Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure
we
> were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
>
> I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
> through into the cockpit.
>
> I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
>
> What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a
heart
> shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't
as
> scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
>
> Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in
one
> day have a handful.
>
> I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
> logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.raptoronline.com
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
<http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
DJ,
No way in the world you could hit that falcon.....Isn't it a protected
species? :)
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
> flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
> valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
>
> Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
> Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us.
I
> had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
> the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
> look in that bird eyes.
>
> It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my
right
> at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
>
> If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
> center of the windshield or an engine intake.
>
> Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure
we
> were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
>
> I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
> through into the cockpit.
>
> I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
>
> What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a
heart
> shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't
as
> scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
>
> Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in
one
> day have a handful.
>
> I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
> logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.raptoronline.com
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
<http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
DJ,
A cessna will not fly with the windshield. It disturbs the airflow so much
over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a lucky day.
The mylar balloons are lots of fun to chase. Unless the prop actually hits
them, they will bounce off the windshield and you have to go back and do it
again. It is pretty hard to find it the second time around too. I used to
live on the north side of Dallas and with the prevailing south wind, every
afternoon had its handfull of balloons. I was a regular Frank Luke. At
least a double ace and maybe even a triple. One time, in my Taylorcraft, I
hit the balloon low and to the right. After bursting, the big piece of
mylar wrapped itself around the wing strut and I landed with the "victim" as
a souvenir.
As far as the falcon, I have seen flight of ducks pass over the top of the
cockpit, in the SAAB 340 without lights on, at 250KTS, at 9000 feet, AT
NIGHT.
chris bobka
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
Subject: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us. I
had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
look in that bird eyes.
It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my right
at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
center of the windshield or an engine intake.
Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure we
were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
through into the cockpit.
I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a heart
shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't as
scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in one
day have a handful.
I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
DJ Vegh
www.raptoronline.com
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
<http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
DJ,
A cessna will not fly with the windshield gone. It disturbs the airflow so
much
over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a lucky day.
The mylar balloons are lots of fun to chase. Unless the prop actually hits
them, they will bounce off the windshield and you have to go back and do it
again. It is pretty hard to find it the second time around too. I used to
live on the north side of Dallas and with the prevailing south wind, every
afternoon had its handfull of balloons. I was a regular Frank Luke. At
least a double ace and maybe even a triple. One time, in my Taylorcraft, I
hit the balloon low and to the right. After bursting, the big piece of
mylar wrapped itself around the wing strut and I landed with the "victim" as
a souvenir.
As far as the falcon, I have seen flight of ducks pass over the top of the
cockpit, in the SAAB 340 without lights on, at 250KTS, at 9000 feet, AT
NIGHT.
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
I think you met to say... "A Cessna will not fly withOUT the windshield. It
disturbs the airflow so much over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a
lucky day."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
>
> DJ,
>
> A cessna will not fly with the windshield. It disturbs the airflow so
much
> over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a lucky day.
>
> The mylar balloons are lots of fun to chase. Unless the prop actually
hits
> them, they will bounce off the windshield and you have to go back and do
it
> again. It is pretty hard to find it the second time around too. I used
to
> live on the north side of Dallas and with the prevailing south wind, every
> afternoon had its handfull of balloons. I was a regular Frank Luke. At
> least a double ace and maybe even a triple. One time, in my Taylorcraft,
I
> hit the balloon low and to the right. After bursting, the big piece of
> mylar wrapped itself around the wing strut and I landed with the "victim"
as
> a souvenir.
>
> As far as the falcon, I have seen flight of ducks pass over the top of the
> cockpit, in the SAAB 340 without lights on, at 250KTS, at 9000 feet, AT
> NIGHT.
>
> chris bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
>
>
> I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
> flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
> valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
>
> Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
> Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us.
I
> had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
> the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
> look in that bird eyes.
>
> It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my
right
> at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
>
> If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
> center of the windshield or an engine intake.
>
> Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure
we
> were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
>
> I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
> through into the cockpit.
>
> I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
>
> What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a
heart
> shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't
as
> scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
>
> Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in
one
> day have a handful.
>
> I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
> logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.raptoronline.com
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
> Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
> information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
> <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
In a message dated 2/16/2003 3:14:58 AM Central Standard Time,
cgalley(at)qcbc.org writes:
> think you met to say... "A Cessna will not fly withOUT the windshield. It
> disturbs the airflow so much over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a
> lucky day."
>
Actually, they will fly without a windshield but it's a bit windy and noisy.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
true. I corrected it in a minute. My mind gets ahead of my fingers.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Cy Galley
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
I think you met to say... "A Cessna will not fly withOUT the windshield. It
disturbs the airflow so much over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a
lucky day."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
>
> DJ,
>
> A cessna will not fly with the windshield. It disturbs the airflow so
much
> over the tail that they can't fly. Call it a lucky day.
>
> The mylar balloons are lots of fun to chase. Unless the prop actually
hits
> them, they will bounce off the windshield and you have to go back and do
it
> again. It is pretty hard to find it the second time around too. I used
to
> live on the north side of Dallas and with the prevailing south wind, every
> afternoon had its handfull of balloons. I was a regular Frank Luke. At
> least a double ace and maybe even a triple. One time, in my Taylorcraft,
I
> hit the balloon low and to the right. After bursting, the big piece of
> mylar wrapped itself around the wing strut and I landed with the "victim"
as
> a souvenir.
>
> As far as the falcon, I have seen flight of ducks pass over the top of the
> cockpit, in the SAAB 340 without lights on, at 250KTS, at 9000 feet, AT
> NIGHT.
>
> chris bobka
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of DJ Vegh
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: near birdstrike
>
>
> I just had a heart stopping experience.... Went around for some local
> flying today in the club 152. A friend and I were just zipping around the
> valley (nice day today... partly cloudy and 68 degrees).
>
> Just as I'm calling Falcon Field Tower for landing my friend yells "Bird!"
> Straight ahead at same altitude is a huge Falcon heading straight at us.
I
> had about 1 second to react... I nosed over hard and to the right just as
> the bird slipped passed us right over the windshield... I swear I saw the
> look in that bird eyes.
>
> It's a damn good thing my friend yelled cause I was looking off to my
right
> at Falcon Field as I was calling in for landing.
>
> If I hadn't have nosed over that Falcon would have hit either smack in the
> center of the windshield or an engine intake.
>
> Those Falcons are big too.. probably 6lbs and 4 ft. wingspan. I figure
we
> were doing around 100kts and the bird was probably doing 20kts.
>
> I could only imagine if it had hit the windshield... it'd have gone right
> through into the cockpit.
>
> I've come close to birds before, but this was a definate near miss.
>
> What's amazing is just about 20 minutes prior to that we almost hit a
heart
> shaped mylar helium balloon (Valentine's balloon no doubt). That wasn't
as
> scary since a balloon would most likely not do any damage....
>
> Just goes to show you, you can have months of boring flying and then in
one
> day have a handful.
>
> I'm definately gonna mark down some remarks of today's flight in the
> logbook... look back at it 20 yrs from now and chuckle.
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.raptoronline.com
>
>
> This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by
> Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more
> information on an anti-virus email solution, visit
> <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
Hi Chris,
I've hit a bunch of birds over the years but, so far, haven't lost a
windshield yet. A couple of friends have had windshields taken out and they
say it's really niosy but they mostly talked about the mess inside the
airplane.
I think the worst story I ever heard was the guy who hit a buzzard on the
left wing root in a 172. Buzzard innards came in through the vent and
covered him. He said the smell was just overpowering.
One time I hit a bird going into Memphis in a 727. It hit just above the
left eyebrow window. Being a young eager captain I followed all the
procedures and reported a bird strike. FedEx sent a mechanic over with a
stand and he checked #2 engine for damage. No problem. I started the
paperwork and soon got bogged down. They wanted to know what species, sex,
direction of flight and all sorts of silly stuff. They almost demanded his
mother's maiden name. Hell, it was just a bird. From then on I only hit
bugs - some of them had feathers though.
Hit a duck one night in my Bonanza. He went through the prop and impacted
the lower left side of the cowl. The damage was about $5,000. I could tell
it was a green-head mallard though. Sure made a loud sound and the airplane
jerked sideways so there was no doubt that I had hit something.
Did a lot of flying down in South America and always wondered what a condor
would do to a jet.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: near birdstrike |
Oops. Sorry guys. Thought I was responding to Chris off the board.
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Kip,
>
>Please ask him about the lead. It was there last time his ship was at
>Brodhead. I took a picture of it so I know I ain't lyin'.
>
>The measurement was with the longerons level fore and aft?
>
>chris bobka
Chris,
The measurement was taken by dropping a line at 90 degrees from the top
longeron to the axle & measuring from that. I'm not at liberty to go
horsing Sky Gypsy around without Frank present. Like I said, it was COLD
and DARK in that damn hangar! The main doors were snowed shut & the power
was off at the panel, so all I had to go by was the light from the 'clear'
fiberglass skylights. Hence my disclaimer about accuracy!
Glad Mike C. cleared up the lead issue. Frank looks MUCH slimmer these days
than he did in the pictures I've seen of him from several years ago, before
I met him. He's not exactly a tall guy either; the top of his head just
barely clears the cockpit on the Waco. Don't know how he plans on seeing
out - presuming he doesn't sell it before he gets a chance to fly it!
Regards,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Walt: Just 32 days until spring. Leon S. In Ks. counting the days. I've
become a big fan of global warming.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
Leon,
Right now crocus are my hero.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spring:
>
> Walt: Just 32 days until spring. Leon S. In Ks. counting the days. I've
> become a big fan of global warming.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
Sorry to tell you folks up north. I will be putting a rebuilt cylinder on
my GN-1 tomorrow. The hanger door will be open and I will be looking at
green grass. Had enough sense to leave Wisconsin.
jon b
Hewitt, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jerome Bush" <jjbush(at)egl.net> |
| Subject: | Using substitute wood |
There is a nice article in the March issue of CustomPlanes magazine on
knowing how and where to substitute different kinds of wood in building an
airplane.You don't HAVE to use expensive Sitka spruce to build a safe wood
airplane. Also several other good articles in that issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Light Plane Heritage |
Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light Plane
Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the Piet is
an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong about this
pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out there,
but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is "ugly"...
;op
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Plane Heritage |
Right on, Oscar!
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
There is no such thing as a "fact" that any person, thing or Piet is ugly or,
for that matter, beautiful.
(However, it might be a "fact" that some columnists are "forgetful" of that.)
What's Mary's address?
Mike Hardaway
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
>
> I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
> Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
> Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light Plane
> Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the Piet is
> an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
>
> I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
> today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong about this
> pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out there,
> but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is "ugly"...
> ;op
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)startribune.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Plane Heritage |
Hi Oscar,
I didn't think it was an offending comment. Bob Whittier is the biggest
supporter of Pietenpols I've ever met. He refers to Brodhead as "Mecca"
or "Heaven". Even in his 80's, he is content to sleep on a concrete
hangar floor just to be at Brodhead.
Greg Cardinal
>>> taildrags(at)hotmail.com 02/18/03 08:18AM >>>
Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light
Plane
Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the
Piet is
an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong about
this
pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out
there,
but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is
"ugly"...
;op
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Plane Heritage |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Light Plane Heritage
>
> Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
>
> I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
> Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
> Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light Plane
> Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the Piet
is
> an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
>
> I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
> today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong about
this
> pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out
there,
> but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is
"ugly"...
> ;op
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Plane Heritage |
Come on guy's! It isn't Mary's opinion. Why pick on her?
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs (Mary's flunky)
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Plane Heritage
>
> Right on, Oscar!
> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
> There is no such thing as a "fact" that any person, thing or Piet is ugly
or,
> for that matter, beautiful.
> (However, it might be a "fact" that some columnists are "forgetful" of
that.)
> What's Mary's address?
> Mike Hardaway
>
>
> Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> >
> > Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
> >
> > I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
> > Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
> > Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light
Plane
> > Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the
Piet is
> > an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
> >
> > I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
> > today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong about
this
> > pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out
there,
> > but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is
"ugly"...
> > ;op
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Here is a question! Answers to quietpilot(at)aol.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Quietpilot" <quietpilot(at)aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:34 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol Mods
>
>
> > Okay, this may be heresy, but I was wondering if anyone has ever built
an
> > Aircamper with a metal wing/ragwing covering?
> >
> > Thanks in advance..
> >
> > MG
> > San Diego
>
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Hey all,
I noticed this GN1 for sale on ebay Item # 2404116435
Located in Casper WY it says.
Steve e.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cy Galley [mailto:cgalley(at)qcbc.org]
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
Here is a question! Answers to quietpilot(at)aol.com
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Quietpilot" <quietpilot(at)aol.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:34 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol Mods
>
>
> > Okay, this may be heresy, but I was wondering if anyone has ever
built
an
> > Aircamper with a metal wing/ragwing covering?
> >
> > Thanks in advance..
> >
> > MG
> > San Diego
>
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bob Whittier's column |
Pietenpolers: hold your calls and letters to Mary Jones! Please read her
reply to my email to her, and I apologized to her for causing any ruckus. I
only intended to stick up for the Piet in a good way, not to bark or snap.
==================================
From: "Mary Jones" <mjones(at)eaa.org>
Subject: RE: Bob Whittier's column
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:10:44 -0600
Hey Oscar ...
Please don't get riled about Bob's comment that the Pietenpol "is no
beauty." Honestly, I don't think you could find a bigger fan of the
Pietenpol airplane than Bob Whittier. In fact, I'm suspecting he may have
made the statement just to be more "journalistically objective"; that's how
much he loves Pietenpols.
Witness that he plans his trips to AirVenture to include time to attend the
Pietenpol Fly-in in Brodhead ... and, frankly, that's his favorite fly-in to
go to, bar none. He goes to great effort to be able to go there. This past
summer, his usual ride, Jim (who's last name I can't remember at the moment)
wasn't going to go to the fly-in, but Jim helped find someone else to give
Bob a ride, and we arranged for him and his new ride to meet at Oshkosh. He
goes to great lengths to get that fly-in, and he'd be heartbroken if he
wasn't welcome there again.
So, fear not, Bob wasn't trying to disparage this wonderful airplane in any
way...and if he thought that he upset Pietenpol owners, he'd be very
distraught. So much so that I'll gladly take any guff anyone wants to give
him. I won't mention this to him, and I'd ask Pietenpol owners to not write
him. If someone has to let off steam, write me.
Bob probably wouldn't want me to say this, but he's having a lot of
struggles in his life now as his wife is in advancing stages of Alzheimer's
Disease. Sometimes just being able to get an article done is a lot of stress
for him. But, he's adamant about wanting to keep writing as long as he
possibly can. This is what he lives for.
I guess what I'm asking ... let's give Bob a break on this one. I wouldn't
want to see his heart broken over this ... and that could easily happen.
Oscar, feel free to put this on the Pietenpol list, if necessary.
Thanks for your consideration.
Mary
=============================================
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Plane Heritage |
Oscar,
I havent read the article, my EAA magazines (Aport Aviation and
Experimenter) get here about two month late, if they get here...
I AM SURE there has to be a mistake. I have been reading everything I
can get about the Piet since the late 70's and I am sure Mr. Whittier
is one of the biggest fans of the Pietenpol.
I know my word is of no weight, you barely know me, but trust me. I
felt in love with the Piet reading his wonderfull articles.
Please re-read the article, maybe there is a mispelling or something.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Piet dreaming since the 80's here where snowed 1/4" about four years
ago, once in 95 years.
--- Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
>
> Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
>
> I hope I'm not the only one who dropped Mary Jones (editor of EAA
> Experimenter) a note about Bob Whittier's column in the most recent
> Experimenter. Now don't get me wrong... I love Bob's column (Light
> Plane
> Heritage) and drawings, but when he says that it's a "fact" that the
> Piet is
> an ugly plane- I have to speak up! So I dropped Mary a note.
>
> I mean, thousands of homebuilders over several generations (including
>
> today's 'fast glass' and 'fast tin' generation) can't be so wrong
> about this
> pretty little ship, can they? True, there are some homely Piets out
> there,
> but I dare anybody to tell (for example) Mike Cuy that his baby is
> "ugly"...
> ;op
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blizzard of '03 |
>
>Kip,
>
>Do you think that with all that snow, there will be flooding problems
>in the spring?
>
>I still remember the article about the Neuport 11 (Kansas Dawn
>Patrol)that was rescued from a flood...
>
>Saludos
>Gary Gower
Gary,
Spring flooding can always be a potential problem in the Eastern part of
the US, with the biggest problems being in the Appalachian Mountains.
However, I think this recent storm won't cause trouble in our area as it
should melt off pretty gradually. Here in northeastern OH, flooding tends
to be confined to the creek and river valleys, since we have a low,
rolling-hill topography (not unlike the Hill Country between San Antonio
and Austin, TX, if you've ever been there, but wetter & with more trees).
When I was young, I lived for a time near the Mississippi River, and spring
floods there were a big deal. I remember standing at the top of a bluff
overlooking the river and seeing the old St. Paul, MN airport under about
10 feet of water down in the river's flood plain. Any hangar queens that
were down there were pretty much out of luck!
At any rate, I hope no one has to deal with rescuing planes this Spring!
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
Do Not Arcive
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Bob Whittier's column |
My Two cents worth.
Beauty is the eye of the beholder. Went to Brodhead to see if I really
liked Pietenpols. Got in very late after a twenty hour non stop drive. (two
drivers) A couple of guys were sitting around the campfire they told us to
basically set up camp where you want to. The next morning I was awoken to
the sound of an A Ford swinging a prop. Nicest alarm clock ever built!
Met Bob Whittier and found him to very interesting, his hearing disability
made it a bit difficult to converse with, but he was extremely interested in
the aircraft. He genuinely does like Pietenpols and has a thing for A
powered Piets.
We should be thanking him for writing about Pietenpols and spreading the
good word about them.
Piets ugly never!......Beauty, well a MK IX Spit does that for me......But
I can if I persist have a pretty little Piet.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Piet owner Jimmy Dean featured in "Sportsman Pilot" |
Pieters -
Jimmy Dean, who owns NX15767, a Ford-powered Piet, lives in Sanford
NC. Jack Cox, who writes and publishes "Sportsman Pilot" quarterly
magazine ($12 a year to Sportsman Pilot, P.O.Box 400, Asheboro NC
27204-0400 www.sportsmanpilot.com) has a great article on Jimmy in the
recent Winter 2003 issue.
The article is about Jimmy's 1933 cabin Waco UIC that he purchased in
2000. It required "some work" and he regularly flies it now. He also has
a Waco ASO that he is rebuilding. In the Summer 1990 issue, Jack had
featured Jimmy Deans' Pietenpol, which Jimmy still has.
As usual with Jack, the airplanes get their due in his writing and photos,
but it usually turns out that the people get their share of ink too. And
Jimmy is sure worthy of the effort.
Good going, Jimmy - and Jack and Golda!
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet owner Jimmy Dean featured in "Sportsman Pilot" |
Now for the REALLY cool part....5 back issues contain Pietenpol Articles (or
mention of Piets in some way.....)
http://www.sportsmanpilot.com/back_issues.htm
I'm betting there's some GOOD reading in those issues!
Jim in Plano....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Mosher" <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet owner Jimmy Dean featured in "Sportsman Pilot"
>
> Pieters -
>
> Jimmy Dean, who owns NX15767, a Ford-powered Piet, lives in Sanford
> NC. Jack Cox, who writes and publishes "Sportsman Pilot" quarterly
> magazine ($12 a year to Sportsman Pilot, P.O.Box 400, Asheboro NC
> 27204-0400 www.sportsmanpilot.com) has a great article on Jimmy in the
> recent Winter 2003 issue.
>
> The article is about Jimmy's 1933 cabin Waco UIC that he purchased in
> 2000. It required "some work" and he regularly flies it now. He also has
> a Waco ASO that he is rebuilding. In the Summer 1990 issue, Jack had
> featured Jimmy Deans' Pietenpol, which Jimmy still has.
>
> As usual with Jack, the airplanes get their due in his writing and photos,
> but it usually turns out that the people get their share of ink too. And
> Jimmy is sure worthy of the effort.
>
> Good going, Jimmy - and Jack and Golda!
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)charter.net> |
Pieters,
In honor of those snowed under I have posted three photos I snapped at
Brodhead last summer. Use them to bring warmth to your lives. These were
taken about 6:00 A.M. from the west side of the runway right after I awoke.
The yellow Piet is Larry Williams and the Blue one is Dennis Hall's. I think
I got the identification right. I have a few more from this year and last if
anyone cares. Enjoy!
-john-
http://www.johnnyskyrocket.com/bh/
Follow the above link for the photos.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken" <av8or(at)citizen.infi.net> |
Here in Va they are forcasting rain later in the week. Back int 96 we had a
similar snow fall followed by rain and had sever flooding along the Potomac.
Ken
av8or(at)citizen.infi.net
kring(at)mountainviewdogs.com
kring(at)irisweb.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kip &
Beth Gardner
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Blizzard of '03
>
>Kip,
>
>Do you think that with all that snow, there will be flooding problems
>in the spring?
>
>I still remember the article about the Neuport 11 (Kansas Dawn
>Patrol)that was rescued from a flood...
>
>Saludos
>Gary Gower
Gary,
Spring flooding can always be a potential problem in the Eastern part of
the US, with the biggest problems being in the Appalachian Mountains.
However, I think this recent storm won't cause trouble in our area as it
should melt off pretty gradually. Here in northeastern OH, flooding tends
to be confined to the creek and river valleys, since we have a low,
rolling-hill topography (not unlike the Hill Country between San Antonio
and Austin, TX, if you've ever been there, but wetter & with more trees).
When I was young, I lived for a time near the Mississippi River, and spring
floods there were a big deal. I remember standing at the top of a bluff
overlooking the river and seeing the old St. Paul, MN airport under about
10 feet of water down in the river's flood plain. Any hangar queens that
were down there were pretty much out of luck!
At any rate, I hope no one has to deal with rescuing planes this Spring!
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
Do Not Arcive
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
I realize there is the risk that my earlier message about flying in shirt
sleeves might create a boycott on answering my questions. But, I could help
it.
I really enjoy reading the thoughtful answers given here. I am looking for
suggested paint schemes. I think I decided on Silver wings and HStab. The
front part of the fuselage will be natural wood. The cowling will be
brushed aluminum. I was thinking about making the rear fuselage something
like a maroon color. Something from the 30s. I am open to suggestions. My
main question is about all the metal fittings. Would you blend them in with
the surroundings or make a contrasting color?
I know this is subjective, but I am looking for ideas. Thanks.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Bob Whittier's column |
Wait a minute! To me the expression " no beauty "
is a far cry from " ugly ". There are many things out
there that are " no beauty " but are still easy on the
eye because all the parts fit well together. This goes
for cars, boats, airplanes, and women.( or maybe I should say
" those of the opposite gender", just to be politicaly correct.)
Morgans and MG TC's aren't beautiful in any conventional
sense but I sure woudn't pass either one up! Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bob Whittier's column
>
> Pietenpolers: hold your calls and letters to Mary Jones! Please read her
> reply to my email to her, and I apologized to her for causing any ruckus.
I
> only intended to stick up for the Piet in a good way, not to bark or snap.
> ==================================
>
> From: "Mary Jones" <mjones(at)eaa.org>
> To: "Oscar Zuniga"
> Subject: RE: Bob Whittier's column
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 11:10:44 -0600
>
> Hey Oscar ...
>
> Please don't get riled about Bob's comment that the Pietenpol "is no
> beauty." Honestly, I don't think you could find a bigger fan of the
> Pietenpol airplane than Bob Whittier. In fact, I'm suspecting he may have
> made the statement just to be more "journalistically objective"; that's
how
> much he loves Pietenpols.
>
> Witness that he plans his trips to AirVenture to include time to attend
the
> Pietenpol Fly-in in Brodhead ... and, frankly, that's his favorite fly-in
to
> go to, bar none. He goes to great effort to be able to go there. This past
> summer, his usual ride, Jim (who's last name I can't remember at the
moment)
> wasn't going to go to the fly-in, but Jim helped find someone else to give
> Bob a ride, and we arranged for him and his new ride to meet at Oshkosh.
He
> goes to great lengths to get that fly-in, and he'd be heartbroken if he
> wasn't welcome there again.
>
> So, fear not, Bob wasn't trying to disparage this wonderful airplane in
any
> way...and if he thought that he upset Pietenpol owners, he'd be very
> distraught. So much so that I'll gladly take any guff anyone wants to
give
> him. I won't mention this to him, and I'd ask Pietenpol owners to not
write
> him. If someone has to let off steam, write me.
>
> Bob probably wouldn't want me to say this, but he's having a lot of
> struggles in his life now as his wife is in advancing stages of
Alzheimer's
> Disease. Sometimes just being able to get an article done is a lot of
stress
> for him. But, he's adamant about wanting to keep writing as long as he
> possibly can. This is what he lives for.
>
> I guess what I'm asking ... let's give Bob a break on this one. I
wouldn't
> want to see his heart broken over this ... and that could easily happen.
>
> Oscar, feel free to put this on the Pietenpol list, if necessary.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> Mary
> =============================================
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Relief |
thanks much John!
what a vantage point. I believe I speak for everyone
in saying that these were definitely a shot in the arm
to beat the winter doldrums. I've just finished up my
vair powered sonex, and have thoughts of getting back
on my piet project. vair powered, of course.
Del
--- John Hofmann wrote:
>
>
> Pieters,
>
> In honor of those snowed under I have posted three
> photos I snapped at
> Brodhead last summer. Use them to bring warmth to
> your lives. These were
> taken about 6:00 A.M. from the west side of the
> runway right after I awoke.
> The yellow Piet is Larry Williams and the Blue one
> is Dennis Hall's. I think
> I got the identification right. I have a few more
> from this year and last if
> anyone cares. Enjoy!
>
> -john-
>
> http://www.johnnyskyrocket.com/bh/
>
> Follow the above link for the photos.
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Relief |
>
>thanks much John!
>what a vantage point. I believe I speak for everyone
>in saying that these were definitely a shot in the arm
>to beat the winter doldrums. I've just finished up my
>vair powered sonex, and have thoughts of getting back
>on my piet project. vair powered, of course.
>Del
>--- John Hofmann wrote:
>>
Del,
How did you manage the Corvair in your Sonex? I seem to recall that WW had
some concerns about this combination because of the Sonex's firewall-area
geometry, and maybe weight?
I'd be interested to know how you did it, I'm thinking of building a Sonex
one day as a cross-country plane, but don't want the expense of a Jabiru or
the potential problems of a VW (there's always someone writing in to the
Engine column of Experimenter with a VW problem).
Regards,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Colors, Flooding in VA |
>
>I realize there is the risk that my earlier message about flying in shirt
>sleeves might create a boycott on answering my questions. But, I could help
>it.
>
>I really enjoy reading the thoughtful answers given here. I am looking for
>suggested paint schemes. I think I decided on Silver wings and HStab. The
>front part of the fuselage will be natural wood. The cowling will be
>brushed aluminum. I was thinking about making the rear fuselage something
>like a maroon color. Something from the 30s. I am open to suggestions. My
>main question is about all the metal fittings. Would you blend them in with
>the surroundings or make a contrasting color?
>
>I know this is subjective, but I am looking for ideas. Thanks.
>
>Ted
Ted,
Sky Gypsy is painted solid red on the fuselage with black fittings - the
contrast looks very cool. In general, I think contrasting colors look good,
as long as they don't clash (i.e. purple & pink, or some such ridiculous
combination.)
I'm planning on a dark blue fuse with orange wings and black fittings
throughout.
******************************************************************************
Ken, I remember the flooding throughout VA in '96 very well. A friend of
mine in the Shenandoah Valley nearly lost his dam & had 2 roads on his
property washed out. It took us the better part of the summer to get things
back to normal. That's why my resoponse to Gary emphasized the importance
of topography in the East. Here in this part of OH, the rolling nature of
the land gives things time to soak in more than in the Piedmont or
Appalchian region. Hope you guyts don't get blasted again by the warm
weather.
Cheers (with a little 'chill' thrown in)
Kip Gardner in snowy OH.
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
Ted there is a great program on the UK Piet site. Chris Tracys MS paint
program. It allows you to play with your paint scheme before you commit.
It uses 3 basic engine models, Model A, A65 and Corvair. I found it very
useful.
http://www.flyerworld.com/shenty/ukaircampers/libraryindex.htm
Ken
GN1 2992
-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Brousseau [mailto:nfn00979(at)naples.net]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Colors
I realize there is the risk that my earlier message about flying in shirt
sleeves might create a boycott on answering my questions. But, I could help
it.
I really enjoy reading the thoughtful answers given here. I am looking for
suggested paint schemes. I think I decided on Silver wings and HStab. The
front part of the fuselage will be natural wood. The cowling will be
brushed aluminum. I was thinking about making the rear fuselage something
like a maroon color. Something from the 30s. I am open to suggestions. My
main question is about all the metal fittings. Would you blend them in with
the surroundings or make a contrasting color?
I know this is subjective, but I am looking for ideas. Thanks.
Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Winter Relief |
Kip
mounting the vair was a piece of cake. I did some
weight cutting which you can see in my pics. I've got
2 hrs run time and am happy with it so far.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=53
Del
> Del,
>
> How did you manage the Corvair in your Sonex? I seem
> to recall that WW had
> some concerns about this combination because of the
> Sonex's firewall-area
> geometry, and maybe weight?
>
> I'd be interested to know how you did it, I'm
> thinking of building a Sonex
> one day as a cross-country plane, but don't want the
> expense of a Jabiru or
> the potential problems of a VW (there's always
> someone writing in to the
> Engine column of Experimenter with a VW problem).
>
> Regards,
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
>
> Contributions
> any other
> Forums.
>
> latest messages.
> List members.
>
> http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm
>
Digests:http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list
> http://www.matronics.com/archives
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
>
>
>
>
>
=====
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken" <av8or(at)citizen.infi.net> |
Where in Texas do they have green grass. When I was down there back in 60
all the grass was brown.
Ken
av8or(at)citizen.infi.net
kring(at)mountainviewdogs.com
kring(at)irisweb.net
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jon
Botsford
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Blizzard of 03'
Sorry to tell you folks up north. I will be putting a rebuilt cylinder on
my GN-1 tomorrow. The hanger door will be open and I will be looking at
green grass. Had enough sense to leave Wisconsin.
jon b
Hewitt, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Kip,
I still go on the same hill by the indian mounds and look at the same
airport under water.
chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Kip &
Beth Gardner
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Blizzard of '03
>
>Kip,
>
>Do you think that with all that snow, there will be flooding problems
>in the spring?
>
>I still remember the article about the Neuport 11 (Kansas Dawn
>Patrol)that was rescued from a flood...
>
>Saludos
>Gary Gower
Gary,
Spring flooding can always be a potential problem in the Eastern part of
the US, with the biggest problems being in the Appalachian Mountains.
However, I think this recent storm won't cause trouble in our area as it
should melt off pretty gradually. Here in northeastern OH, flooding tends
to be confined to the creek and river valleys, since we have a low,
rolling-hill topography (not unlike the Hill Country between San Antonio
and Austin, TX, if you've ever been there, but wetter & with more trees).
When I was young, I lived for a time near the Mississippi River, and spring
floods there were a big deal. I remember standing at the top of a bluff
overlooking the river and seeing the old St. Paul, MN airport under about
10 feet of water down in the river's flood plain. Any hangar queens that
were down there were pretty much out of luck!
At any rate, I hope no one has to deal with rescuing planes this Spring!
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
Do Not Arcive
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
"Fishnet"
| Subject: | Does anyone want to ante up? |
Just thought of a crazy idea. Maybe it's the cabin fever progressing to a fatal
stage,,,
figured if we took time to talk about the unsung heros that ,,,,,,,
Got us into flying,,
Got us into building,,,
Stood behind us with technical input which seemed easy when they said it, but we
forget how much they went thru to get that knowledge.
We can never brag that they are somehow connected to us,,only that fate brought
them to us. Just the same way that we hope fate will bring us to some young/young
at heart person that will want to pick up what we know.
I'll start.....
My first instructor (in 1966) was a P-47/P-51 pilot in WW11, last saw him
4 years ago at 83, still teaching, and hope he,s OK Hi Dick Plahn.
Who got me into building , was a guy, hope I can call him a friend, Bob Cook
,on the fishnet group, who showed me his beautiful Celebrity on the gear without
the fabric, and I was hooked.
And lastly,,,Dick Lawson, AP, EAA #0000000000000272, builder of many airplanes,
and an all around wealth of knowledge, lost his wife a few years ago, but
keeps plugging along. My N # reflects his initials, and he WILL be the first
butt cheeks in the front seat of my Piet after the 25 hours are flown off .
Corky, Your Edwin Johnson for instance, what is his past? Even if this thread
doesn't hold interest, I'd like to know Edwins story, I'll bet it's very interesting.
walt
NX140DL
(north N.J.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>Kip,
>
>I still go on the same hill by the indian mounds and look at the same
>airport under water.
>
>chris
>When I was young, I lived for a time near the Mississippi River, and spring
>floods there were a big deal. I remember standing at the top of a bluff
>overlooking the river and seeing the old St. Paul, MN airport under about
>10 feet of water down in the river's flood plain. Any hangar queens that
>were down there were pretty much out of luck!
>
>At any rate, I hope no one has to deal with rescuing planes this Spring!
>
>Cheers!
>
>Kip Gardner
>
>Do Not Arcive
Chris,
Exactly the spot! When I was young, we always believed there was buried
treasure in those mounds.
My Dad grew up on a farm not far from there, up near Carver Lake. They
moved to town when the farmhouse burned down in the 20's. His Aunt & Uncle
had a small farm down on McKnight Road that they kept up until the early
'60's. It's all gone now, probably condos. It was really cool to sit in
their lower pasture (still up on the bluff) & watch planes come & go from
the airport - when it wasn't under water of course ;).
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Does anyone want to ante up? |
Walt,
Edwin truly is a very remarkable young man. But for particulars I'd rather
you contact him direct as I've found Edwin to be a very private person and I
would not want to say anything which might offend, disclose or otherwise
fringe on his personal life.
elj(at)shreve.net will get him
Corky in La where it's raining but no snow
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Blizzard of '03 |
Kip, thanks for the plans for the gas tank for the piet. I really do
appreciate it. I received them in the mail today. Hope things are going well
for you and yours.
Doyle
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Blizzard of '03
>
> >
> >Kip,
> >
> >I still go on the same hill by the indian mounds and look at the same
> >airport under water.
> >
> >chris
>
>
> >When I was young, I lived for a time near the Mississippi River, and
spring
> >floods there were a big deal. I remember standing at the top of a bluff
> >overlooking the river and seeing the old St. Paul, MN airport under about
> >10 feet of water down in the river's flood plain. Any hangar queens that
> >were down there were pretty much out of luck!
> >
> >At any rate, I hope no one has to deal with rescuing planes this Spring!
> >
> >Cheers!
> >
> >Kip Gardner
> >
> >Do Not Arcive
>
> Chris,
>
> Exactly the spot! When I was young, we always believed there was buried
> treasure in those mounds.
>
> My Dad grew up on a farm not far from there, up near Carver Lake. They
> moved to town when the farmhouse burned down in the 20's. His Aunt & Uncle
> had a small farm down on McKnight Road that they kept up until the early
> '60's. It's all gone now, probably condos. It was really cool to sit in
> their lower pasture (still up on the bluff) & watch planes come & go from
> the airport - when it wasn't under water of course ;).
>
> Cheers!
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Firewall shaping |
I have looked through the archive pictures and see some of the firewall
metal having been shaped with what I will call a rolled edge about 1/2"
wide. I can figure on how to bend the straight edges on the sides and
bottom. But, as usual, I can't figure how to roll the curved edge at the
top of the firewall and make it look nice. Do you need special tools or is
this something that can be done at home.
Thanks, Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Ted,
Use a metal stretcher or expander, neat little devices. Try to borrow one
they are somewhat expensive. But you can take a piece of straight angle and
make it curved.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Ted:
Tony Bingelis' book has a neat way to do it. You do it by drilling a bunch
holes in
one leg of the angle and bending it around. If I can remember (I have CRS
disease you know)
I'll copy it and mail to you (oops, copyright infringement) I'll call you
and tell you about it.
Bert.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Firewall shaping
>
> I have looked through the archive pictures and see some of the firewall
> metal having been shaped with what I will call a rolled edge about 1/2"
> wide. I can figure on how to bend the straight edges on the sides and
> bottom. But, as usual, I can't figure how to roll the curved edge at the
> top of the firewall and make it look nice. Do you need special tools or
is
> this something that can be done at home.
>
> Thanks, Ted
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Cross bracing on a GN-1 |
I bought a GN-1 last fall. I have only flown it about 3 hours (it needed
some engine work and some other small things). The plane has about 60 hours
total on it. Recently when doing an inspection, I realized that the cross
bracing between the lift struts on the right hand side of the passenger
cockpit was missing. Further inspection revealed that it had never been
installed. I have looked at the plans and they do not seem to indicate
these. Question: Is this an optional item or do I need to place the cross
bracing before further flights?
Many thanks for any information that the group can provide,
Jon Botsford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Ted--Bert C. is right on about one of the Bingelis books showing how to
shape the top curve of the firewall. I used that method and all I used
was a small drill bit and tin snips and a rubber mallet. Ok, I guess I
made a 3/4" thick plywood template the exact shape of the firewall with
magic marker spots where the engine mounts poke thru and various cables,
etc. and rounded the edges with some coarse sandpaper and block to give the
1/2" bend some radius. On every hole to that I drilled on any
metal---even those tiny holes where needed to bend the firewall over, I
used a countersink bit by hand on both side of the drill hole for stress
relief / to take out any burs or drill marks. (again as per Tony B's
books.) Sorry...this is more than what you asked.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
| Subject: | 1932 Flying & Glider Manual |
I just found my copy of the 1932 Flying & Glider Manual. In on discussion
last week about airfoil shapes I think the opinion of most is that it was a
modified Eiffel. In the manual BP states that he tried many different
shapes, including the Clark Y. He finally settled on a design that Don
Finke , his neighbor, and himself, sketched out one night. He was told by
experts that it was practically an Eiffel 36 with ordinates increased 25%
all along the cord. It also states that the Eiffel 36 was used on the
Curtiss Jenny. I also placed the 2 airfoil shapes from the Piet and the
Gn1, side by side to see the differences. Although basically the same
airfoil shape, there are some differences in the construction and leading
edge shape, as well as the placement of the leading edge spar. If anyone
wants to see this I can email it to them.
Another interesting piece in the manual talks about the spars. It says" the
wings are built up the regular way. Spars are built first( no dihedral,
clotilde). does anyone know what clotilde is? I couldn't find any reference
to the word on the net.
Ken
GN1 2992
Ken Rickards
Cole Vision Canada
80 Centurion Drive,
Markham, Ontario.
L3R 8C1
tel 905-940-8675 ext 237
krickards(at)CVCI.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 1932 Flying & Glider Manual |
Clotilde is a girls name, in spanish.
Maybe is something they used to say at that time, like "see you later
aligator" or something like that...
Saludos
Gary Gower
> Another interesting piece in the manual talks about the spars. It
> says" the
> wings are built up the regular way. Spars are built first( no
> dihedral,
> clotilde). does anyone know what clotilde is? I couldn't find any
> reference
> to the word on the net.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Ken Rickards
> Cole Vision Canada
> 80 Centurion Drive,
> Markham, Ontario.
> L3R 8C1
>
> tel 905-940-8675 ext 237
> krickards(at)CVCI.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | updated GN-1 pics - construction log |
FINALLY.... I have updated my log and added a couple more entries.
Lots of good pics of my turtle deck and rear panel assembly here:
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/10-27-02.htm
and
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/11-20-02.htm
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walter evans" <wbeevans(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Dan,
Think you are talking about a metal "shrinker" neat tool that actually
grabs the metal and pushes it together to make that section shorter. The
"jaws" are about 1" deep, to kind of work on a flange or angle piece to
curve it.
Have it on loan from my mentor.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: <ZigoDan(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Firewall shaping
>
> Ted,
>
> Use a metal stretcher or expander, neat little devices. Try to borrow one
> they are somewhat expensive. But you can take a piece of straight angle
and
> make it curved.
>
> Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Walt,
Sounds right, I just couldn't figure out how to spell "shinker", so I looked
it up in a Wag Aero catalog and it said stretcher.
PS these guys talking about Tony Bingels way must have never seen the nice
job a shinker will do. However I do realize the tool is expensive, and
hacksaws, and drills are not making Tony's way a little more feasible for
most.
Dan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
Why not make your own shrinker/stretcher?
3 pieces 1" x 1/8" steel 10" long and a 1/4" bolt.
I found this on the net but can't find it again now.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ZigoDan(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Firewall shaping
>
> Walt,
>
> Sounds right, I just couldn't figure out how to spell "shinker", so I
looked
> it up in a Wag Aero catalog and it said stretcher.
>
> PS these guys talking about Tony Bingels way must have never seen the nice
> job a shinker will do. However I do realize the tool is expensive, and
> hacksaws, and drills are not making Tony's way a little more feasible for
> most.
>
> Dan
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <jackphillips(at)earthlink.net> |
Here's a question for the colleective wisdom of this group. I'm about to
make the windshields for my Pietenpol (the last task before beginning to
cover it!). I'm making the flat style three piece windshield rather than
the curved type. Does anyone know what the typical design parameters are
for windshields? Should they come up as high as the pilot's eyes, or even
with the top of the pilot's head? I believe the old Wacos reduced the
windblast effect somewhat by sloping the front windshield pretty severely,
but that is not really an option with a Pietenpol due to the roll wires
between the front cabane struts. How tall have other folks made their
windshields, and are they happy with the results?
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Firewall shaping |
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Firewall shaping
Why not make your own shrinker/stretcher?
3 pieces 1" x 1/8" steel 10" long and a 1/4" bolt.
I found this on the net but can't find it again now.
----- Original Message -----
From: <ZigoDan(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Firewall shaping
February 02, 2003 - February 21, 2003
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-da