Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-df
June 07, 2003 - July 01, 2003
own homework to satisfy your own fears.
Sorry, I don't mean to step on any toes but his is one of the things that
comes up often in the list archives and I just wanted to make sure any
new people out there get this valuable information.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
writes:
>
>
> Del,,, Originally,, the control tubes were brazed, then I redid them
> after
> learning that was a no no. That was another pain in the butt lesson
> I
> learned but the knowledge never stops on here. So what do you think
> about the tire deal?
> Carl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
>
>
>
> >
> > Carl
> > the pics of the torque tube looks almost like the
> > parts were brazed, not so, I hope.
> > Del
> > --- Carl Loar wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > There seems to be a concern about the knobby
> > > motorcycle tires I have on my
> > > piet.
> > > I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets
> > > you slide on the grass.
> > > But those same
> > > smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways.
> > > Maybe later I will opt for
> > > smoothys but
> > > I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the
> > > ones I have now. I don't
> > > plan on doing a
> > > lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My
> > > early flights will be in
> > > calm weather. And if
> > > I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was
> > > asphalt. I thought I would
> > > throw this out and get a
> > > feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> > > Carl
> > > check out my webpage at
> > > http://members.core.com/skycarl
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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"
> >
> > __________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: knobby tires |
| From: | chris a Tracy <cat_designs(at)juno.com> |
Looking good Carl, what kind of wheels are you using?
Chris
Sacramento, CA
writes:
>
>
> There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have
> on my
> piet.
> I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the
> grass.
> But those same
> smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will
> opt for
> smoothys but
> I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now.
> I don't
> plan on doing a
> lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My early flights will
> be in
> calm weather. And if
> I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was asphalt. I thought I
> would
> throw this out and get a
> feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> Carl
> check out my webpage at http://members.core.com/skycarl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: knobby tires |
I would think the knobbies would be better for
crosswind as the knobs would tend to " walk".
Each one would grip, bend, release in turn.
There's a certain amount of this with any tire
but the knobs are independant of each other
and thus have a greater range of movement.
Also the tire casing's deformation in the direction
of force will be greater with bias ply tires than
radials. I remember when all cars had bias and
they would pull badly when doing things like
crossing train tracks at an angle. So for cross-
wind landings bias might be better- built in
castoring.
Clif
>
> There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have on my
> piet.
> I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the grass.
> But those same
> smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will opt
for
> smoothys but
> I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now. I
don't
> plan on doing a
> lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: knobby tires |
Hey Chris,, The wheels are 18 inch rears for a 650 yamaha. Nice and
beefy with shoe brakes that worked well with my mechanical brake system. I
had to open them up for the one and a half inch axle and machined my own
bushings. They are really strong and I don't think I will have a problem
with side forces trying to bend them.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "chris a Tracy" <cat_designs(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
>
> Looking good Carl, what kind of wheels are you using?
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have
> > on my
> > piet.
> > I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the
> > grass.
> > But those same
> > smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will
> > opt for
> > smoothys but
> > I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now.
> > I don't
> > plan on doing a
> > lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My early flights will
> > be in
> > calm weather. And if
> > I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was asphalt. I thought I
> > would
> > throw this out and get a
> > feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> > Carl
> > check out my webpage at http://members.core.com/skycarl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Hi Carl: You may even get more speed from the knobby tires! You know,
like the way a dimpled golf ball goes faster and farther than a smooth
ball. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
A friend of mine has a Piet and he needs a prop for it. It has a 65 hp
Continental engine. Anybody know of one? Wood preferred.
Jon Botsford
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard deCosta <curiousspider(at)yahoo.com> |
I'm selling this because I feel its too big for my
piet (model-a). If he wants try to make it work, he's
welcome.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26439&item=2418038376
Richard
--- Jon Botsford wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine has a Piet and he needs a prop for
> it. It has a 65 hp
> Continental engine. Anybody know of one? Wood
> preferred.
>
> Jon Botsford
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
=====
http://www.RicharddeCosta.com
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Weld 4130 steel |
Chris Tracy's admonition to avoid brazing 4130 should be underscored.
Everything Chris says is true, save one.
Many, if not most, steel bike frames are brazed, it's true, but those that
are, even though they may be called "chrome-moly," are not generally made from
4130, but from some other high-molybdenum, medium-carbon, steel.
Brazed bike tubing material generally is made with much more manganese than
4130, around three times as much, and less chromium.
Bike frames that are successfully built with 4130 are rare, and either
over-built or welded.
I don't know if the manganese is what enables successful brazing of bike frame
tubing, but a high failure rate is to be avoided, even if your likely outcome
is "only" disfiguring injury.
Mike Hardaway
chris a Tracy wrote:
>
> I think it needs to be said again so no one else has to learn the hard
> way like Carl did.
> If you use 4130 steel it is prone to cracking if you braze it. Do not
> braze 4130. Yes I know bike frames are built out of 4130 and they are
> brazed with a lot of success but if they brake you will most likely not
> be killed. Ever book on aircraft welding I found says not to braze 4130.
> These same books also say you should not weld a joint that has
> previously been brazed. The braze material will contaminate the molten
> metal and make a weaker weld. Now, if you use 1020 steel like the plans
> call for you can braze it just fine and it will be good joint. There is
> nothing wrong with using 1020 steel to build an airplane as long as the
> plane was designed to use it. A lot of the antique airplane are built out
> of it. The only part that BHP calls out as needing to be made out of
> 4130, that I can find, is the rudder bar. Remember, even though most
> people are using 4130 for everything IT IS A CHANGE FROM THE PLANS so you
> need to due your homework on how this change will affect your building
> process. And my study of this change is to weld 4130 in a draft free
> area using a welding method that heats up an area of approximately one*~ half
to one inches on each side of the weld bringing the temperature up
> slowly and after welding you should allow the material to cool slowly in
> a draft free area. Knowing this I choose to gas weld all my parts and
> reheat the weld as well as an area around the welds to release any built
> in stress. I do all me welding in my garage with the doors shut to keep
> the drafts down. I'm not an expert on any of this so you should do your
> own homework to satisfy your own fears.
>
> Sorry, I don't mean to step on any toes but his is one of the things that
> comes up often in the list archives and I just wanted to make sure any
> new people out there get this valuable information.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Del,,, Originally,, the control tubes were brazed, then I redid them
> > after
> > learning that was a no no. That was another pain in the butt lesson
> > I
> > learned but the knowledge never stops on here. So what do you think
> > about the tire deal?
> > Carl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Carl
> > > the pics of the torque tube looks almost like the
> > > parts were brazed, not so, I hope.
> > > Del
> > > --- Carl Loar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There seems to be a concern about the knobby
> > > > motorcycle tires I have on my
> > > > piet.
> > > > I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets
> > > > you slide on the grass.
> > > > But those same
> > > > smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways.
> > > > Maybe later I will opt for
> > > > smoothys but
> > > > I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the
> > > > ones I have now. I don't
> > > > plan on doing a
> > > > lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My
> > > > early flights will be in
> > > > calm weather. And if
> > > > I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was
> > > > asphalt. I thought I would
> > > > throw this out and get a
> > > > feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> > > > Carl
> > > > check out my webpage at
> > > > http://members.core.com/skycarl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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"
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
when I needed one for my tcraft 65 hp cont. I just
nosed around the airport till I found an extra. its a
72 x 42 for climb, or a 44 for cruise. either one
would work.
Del
--- Jon Botsford wrote:
>
>
> A friend of mine has a Piet and he needs a prop for
> it. It has a 65 hp
> Continental engine. Anybody know of one? Wood
> preferred.
>
> Jon Botsford
>
>
>
> 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: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | modified the rudder bar with GREAT results |
Just to let everyone know that with all my complaining about the rudder bar, I
had to do something. Thought of putting my heels in "sturrups" to ride with the
bar, but would be hard getting to the brakes. Besides it's uncomfortable.
Desided to build the mod around the fact that I like to keep my heels on the deck
and use the rudder with my flipper feet.
So I picked a design and went with it,,,,I tried by putting some tubing cut to
give a rectangle above the rudder bar that my toes could push on. This brought
the top of the tube to about where the forward rudder pedals are. Made them
3" wide, and about 3 1/2" high, starting about 1" in from the center line hole
of the cable connecting point on the end of the tube. This wouldn't interfere
with the stops, or the seat, or anything.
Anyway, if anyone wants more details, I'll send it to you.
Now I can feel the rudders with my toes, and the landings are not a mystery, wondering
if I'll make it OK. Now I have much better feel of the plane, and control
on landing.
"My toes were trained,,,my legs were not"
I'm happy as a clam.
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results |
Great to hear this news. There had to be a better way. Was always taught to
keep those heels on the floor and you can't with that rudder bar as designed.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results |
well, if you learned in a nose (training) wheel with toe brakes it was "keep
your heels on the floor." If you learned in a tailwheel, it was "keep your
heels off the floor and toes on the rudder."
;) Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results
>
> Great to hear this news. There had to be a better way. Was always taught
to
> keep those heels on the floor and you can't with that rudder bar as
designed.
> Corky
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
C'mon guys, I have been posting a number of questions on here with minimal
responses! Here is the latest:
Before I put saw to ash, has anyone with a Model A powered Piet had any
reason to extend the engine mount forward? I have my engine mount bearers
which are a couple of inches longer, and before I cut to the length given in
the plans I want to make sure.
As a side story, yesterday I was at a friend's house doing some Piet
woodwork. He is doing trim work on his house (he builds wooden aircraft,
too). He had some trim work he had glued together with Titebond glue. We
took a scrap that was basically three 2" square pieces edge glued together,
so the piece was 6" by 2". I tried to break it apart by hand, nothing
doing. I placed it on the floor with a block under each end and stood on
it, nothing (I weigh about 200). Only when I used the edge of my shoe and
jumped up and down on it did I finally make it break . . . nowhere near a
glue joint. We took another scrap and placed it in a vise and hit it with a
hammer. Broke the wood, never the glue joint. We also found some scraps
that had been out in the rain for several days . . .same result.
This is some stuff!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>As a side story, yesterday I was at a friend's house doing some Piet
>woodwork. He is doing trim work on his house (he builds wooden aircraft,
>too). He had some trim work he had glued together with Titebond glue. We
>took a scrap that was basically three 2" square pieces edge glued together,
>so the piece was 6" by 2". I tried to break it apart by hand, nothing
>doing. I placed it on the floor with a block under each end and stood on
>it, nothing (I weigh about 200). Only when I used the edge of my shoe and
>jumped up and down on it did I finally make it break . . . nowhere near a
>glue joint. We took another scrap and placed it in a vise and hit it with a
>hammer. Broke the wood, never the glue joint. We also found some scraps
>that had been out in the rain for several days . . .same result.
>
>This is some stuff!
>
>Gene
Hi Gene,
Was this the regular carpenter's Titebond, or the waterprooof polyurethane
('Pro-Bond' & 'Gorilla Glue') type?
I've done spruce test pieces with both Pro-Bond & Gorilla Glue - if you
coat both pieces, then clamp them lightly & let it cure at least 24 hrs,
the joint breaks in the wood every time. I'm still not sure I'd use it for
structural joints, but it's a cheap alternative to T-88 for elsewhere.
I also used it to glue together parts of my daughter's sand box & after a
year out in cold, wet Ohio weather (4 seasons full of mostly damp and/or
frozen sand) the joints are still good. This may be a case where the
technology has gotten ahead of anyone's inclination to put a seal of
approval on it.
One disclaimer, however - these glues claim to be 'gap-filling' & they are
- as a non-structural foam. Don't trust it that way - it has bonding
strength in tight joints only.
Kip Gardner
(making NO Piet progress - I'm up to my ass in Spring project alligators)
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gene,
I had some material that I had laminated with Titebond, knowing full well
that it is not water proof, simply water resistant.
Left some samples outside, and sure enough, the manufacturer is right! The
samples delaminated in about 3 months! I would not use Titebond in a plane
unless you could keep the part well protected with varnish etc.
John
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> C'mon guys, I have been posting a number of questions on here with minimal
> responses! Here is the latest:
>
> Before I put saw to ash, has anyone with a Model A powered Piet had any
> reason to extend the engine mount forward? I have my engine mount bearers
> which are a couple of inches longer, and before I cut to the length given
in
> the plans I want to make sure.
>
> As a side story, yesterday I was at a friend's house doing some Piet
> woodwork. He is doing trim work on his house (he builds wooden aircraft,
> too). He had some trim work he had glued together with Titebond glue. We
> took a scrap that was basically three 2" square pieces edge glued
together,
> so the piece was 6" by 2". I tried to break it apart by hand, nothing
> doing. I placed it on the floor with a block under each end and stood on
> it, nothing (I weigh about 200). Only when I used the edge of my shoe and
> jumped up and down on it did I finally make it break . . . nowhere near a
> glue joint. We took another scrap and placed it in a vise and hit it with
a
> hammer. Broke the wood, never the glue joint. We also found some scraps
> that had been out in the rain for several days . . .same result.
>
> This is some stuff!
>
> Gene
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from the
firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those that
soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right, as I
don't want to end up cracking the piece.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rambog(at)erols.com" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
I didn't mean to suggest that I am using Titebond, just that it is strong
stuff, stronger than I would have thought. Name a glue that does not break
down after several months outside without any protection. Aircraft plywood
does not last through one good wetting without delaminating. I am,
however, using titebond for small non-structural items like filler blocks.
If it is well varnished, it could probably be used for everything NOT THAT
I AM DOING IT.
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: John Dilatush dilatush(at)amigo.net
Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2003 06:57:09 -0600
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Gene,
I had some material that I had laminated with Titebond, knowing full well
that it is not water proof, simply water resistant.
Left some samples outside, and sure enough, the manufacturer is right! The
samples delaminated in about 3 months! I would not use Titebond in a plane
unless you could keep the part well protected with varnish etc.
John
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> C'mon guys, I have been posting a number of questions on here with minimal
> responses! Here is the latest:
>
> Before I put saw to ash, has anyone with a Model A powered Piet had any
> reason to extend the engine mount forward? I have my engine mount bearers
> which are a couple of inches longer, and before I cut to the length given
in
> the plans I want to make sure.
>
> As a side story, yesterday I was at a friend's house doing some Piet
> woodwork. He is doing trim work on his house (he builds wooden aircraft,
> too). He had some trim work he had glued together with Titebond glue. We
> took a scrap that was basically three 2" square pieces edge glued
together,
> so the piece was 6" by 2". I tried to break it apart by hand, nothing
> doing. I placed it on the floor with a block under each end and stood on
> it, nothing (I weigh about 200). Only when I used the edge of my shoe and
> jumped up and down on it did I finally make it break . . . nowhere near a
> glue joint. We took another scrap and placed it in a vise and hit it with
a
> hammer. Broke the wood, never the glue joint. We also found some scraps
> that had been out in the rain for several days . . .same result.
>
> This is some stuff!
>
> Gene
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
Bend it dry, its not even getting close to the point
of cracking.
Del
--- Ken Rickards wrote:
>
>
>
> I will be getting into the fuselage within the next
> couple of months.
> Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a
> curve on it from the
> firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear
> cockpit. My question is:
> How many people did the bend dry and how did it work
> out. And for those that
> soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need
> to get this right, as I
> don't want to end up cracking the piece.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
>
> 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: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
Dry is fine.... You'd have to bend it much tighter to cause any sort of
cracking...
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
>
>
> I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
> Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from the
> firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
> How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those
that
> soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right, as
I
> don't want to end up cracking the piece.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
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: | C-85 temperature bulb adapter |
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
Looking for the adapter that fits in the oil-screen of a C-85 for the temperature
bulb. The one I have fits a 3/8 inch capillary tube and I need one for 7/16
diameter. Help in locating one would be appreciated.
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Weld 4130 steel |
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
Just goes to show I am not an expert. I always thought the Chrome-moly on bikes
was 4130. Now I don't.
Thanks
Chris
Sacramento, CA
--- Mike wrote:
Chris Tracy's admonition to avoid brazing 4130 should be underscored.
Everything Chris says is true, save one.
Many, if not most, steel bike frames are brazed, it's true, but those that
are, even though they may be called "chrome-moly," are not generally made from
4130, but from some other high-molybdenum, medium-carbon, steel.
Brazed bike tubing material generally is made with much more manganese than
4130, around three times as much, and less chromium.
Bike frames that are successfully built with 4130 are rare, and either
over-built or welded.
I don't know if the manganese is what enables successful brazing of bike frame
tubing, but a high failure rate is to be avoided, even if your likely outcome
is "only" disfiguring injury.
Mike Hardaway
chris a Tracy wrote:
>
> I think it needs to be said again so no one else has to learn the hard
> way like Carl did.
> If you use 4130 steel it is prone to cracking if you braze it. Do not
> braze 4130. Yes I know bike frames are built out of 4130 and they are
> brazed with a lot of success but if they brake you will most likely not
> be killed. Ever book on aircraft welding I found says not to braze 4130.
> These same books also say you should not weld a joint that has
> previously been brazed. The braze material will contaminate the molten
> metal and make a weaker weld. Now, if you use 1020 steel like the plans
> call for you can braze it just fine and it will be good joint. There is
> nothing wrong with using 1020 steel to build an airplane as long as the
> plane was designed to use it. A lot of the antique airplane are built out
> of it. The only part that BHP calls out as needing to be made out of
> 4130, that I can find, is the rudder bar. Remember, even though most
> people are using 4130 for everything IT IS A CHANGE FROM THE PLANS so you
> need to due your homework on how this change will affect your building
> process. And my study of this change is to weld 4130 in a draft free
> area using a welding method that heats up an area of approximately one*~ half
to one inches on each side of the weld bringing the temperature up
> slowly and after welding you should allow the material to cool slowly in
> a draft free area. Knowing this I choose to gas weld all my parts and
> reheat the weld as well as an area around the welds to release any built
> in stress. I do all me welding in my garage with the doors shut to keep
> the drafts down. I'm not an expert on any of this so you should do your
> own homework to satisfy your own fears.
>
> Sorry, I don't mean to step on any toes but his is one of the things that
> comes up often in the list archives and I just wanted to make sure any
> new people out there get this valuable information.
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> writes:
> >
> >
> > Del,,, Originally,, the control tubes were brazed, then I redid them
> > after
> > learning that was a no no. That was another pain in the butt lesson
> > I
> > learned but the knowledge never stops on here. So what do you think
> > about the tire deal?
> > Carl
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Carl
> > > the pics of the torque tube looks almost like the
> > > parts were brazed, not so, I hope.
> > > Del
> > > --- Carl Loar wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There seems to be a concern about the knobby
> > > > motorcycle tires I have on my
> > > > piet.
> > > > I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets
> > > > you slide on the grass.
> > > > But those same
> > > > smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways.
> > > > Maybe later I will opt for
> > > > smoothys but
> > > > I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the
> > > > ones I have now. I don't
> > > > plan on doing a
> > > > lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My
> > > > early flights will be in
> > > > calm weather. And if
> > > > I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was
> > > > asphalt. I thought I would
> > > > throw this out and get a
> > > > feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> > > > Carl
> > > > check out my webpage at
> > > > http://members.core.com/skycarl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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"
> > >
> > > __________________________________
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
I did mine dry with no problems at all. I have heard that someone had trouble
with doing it dry. I you want to soak them first wrap the portion to be bent
in towels then poor hot water over the towels. Keep the towels hot with more
hot water. Eventually you will have a softened the wood to allow them to be bent.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
--- Ken Rickards wrote:
I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from the
firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those that
soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right, as I
don't want to end up cracking the piece.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Ken,
I drew out the form on my work table which is 24" wide and 16' long. I
drove large nails at the point of the bends where the vertical pieces were
to be glued in. No soaking or steaming. Dry bends on all and I used the
large size I" longerons as shown on the 1932 plans. No problems with
cracking or breaking. Fuselage is now glued with both sides connected and
all plywood glued on. Hope you have the same good results.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
>
>
> I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
> Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from the
> firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
> How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those
that
> soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right, as
I
> don't want to end up cracking the piece.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Travel Air Model A aero engine |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Here is the information on the Travel Air Aviation -Model A Ford
conversion that was pictured in Sport Aviation. Their price seems
reasonable for a very complete engine (does not include prop flange.)
The only thing that I would question is the 7:1 compression ratio. I
have read from other builders that for crank and rod longevity 6:1 is
about max. They do seem flexible though and may be willing to build to
your specs. Their address is 1380 Flightline Blvd., DeLand Airport,
Deland FL 32724. Cell phone 407-497-1090.
Dick Hartwig
THE MODEL A ENGINE
People ask the question, why would a person want to use a 70-year-old
design in a modern homebuilt aircraft? The answer is that the Model A is
a simple, well designed, low priced, four cylinder engine with good
weight to torque ratio. The engine also has a long stroke and develops
maximum torque at low RPM.
The Model A engine was used in several aircraft during the 1930's and
currently powers many aircraft of the Pietenpol line. Probably the
biggest advantage of the Model A is that a multitude of high performance
equipment was developed in the past and is still available today as new
production. Model A powered sprint cars and jalopies are now active in
numerous races and hill climbs across the country. As an example, there
are several different cylinder heads currently available, some aluminum
some cast iron, with various compression ratios. For our particular
configuration, we use a cast aluminum head with dual spark plugs in each
cylinder. There are also various ignition systems available from pure
electronics to the older points and condenser. We use a dual electronic
distributor for our set up.
Carburetors are another area with lots of choices. We use a dual set up
with twin Solexes. Many of the racers prefer either a single or dual
model 94 or 97 Stromberg. Several types of up-drafts are also available.
A selection of different camshaft grinds are also available to enhance
performance.
With various up-grades in performance equipment, it is possible to
achieve torque ranges over 160 lbs./ft at crankshaft speeds as low as
2000 RPM. This little engine will put out half the torque at 2000 RPM
that the Chevrolet 350 engine puts out at 3000 RPM, at less than one half
the weight. Torque at low speeds is important when choosing an efficient
propeller.
There are numerous other mods that we incorporate in our engines such as
pressure oil systems, inserted bearings, aluminum radiators, etc.
Specifications:
Engine basic weight including dual carbs, dual ignition, exhaust pipes,
alternator 196 lbs.
Aluminum radiator and coolant - 22 lbs
Starter Assembly - 10 lbs.
Note - Weight can be reduced by using single ignition, single carb. and
manual start.
MODEL A "AERO" By Travel Air Aviation
Basic Engine Package
1. Reconditioned original Model A block
2. Cylinders bored .080 over standard.
3. Block line bored and machined for modem insert bearings. Block
modified for full pressure oil system.
4. Crankshaft reconditioned, balanced and drilled for full oil pressure
system.
5. Connecting rods balanced and machined for modem inserts.
6. New pistons, rings, valves, springs, guides, tappets, seats, keepers,
oil pump kit and water pump.
7. Camshaft machined for high performance, (special grind)
8. Custom made light weight aluminum oil pan.
9. Light weight aluminum cylinder head with dual spark plugs and 7/1
compression.
10. Custom dual electronic ignition with top mounted distributor.
11. Dual Solex carburetors with associated intake manifold.
12. Custom exhaust - "straight pipes"
13. High torque starter including drive pulley/ring assembly and starter
mount.
14. Light-weight alternator. (30 amp)
Complete package includes spark plugs, ignition wiring, drive belt, break
in oil and oil filter installation. All engines pre-run on test stand
prior to delivery.
Price complete $4,880.00 (plus sales tax for Florida residents and
shipping)
Deposit on complete engine - $2,000.00. Balance on delivery. Delivery
time - generally 30 to 60 days depending on work load.
30 to 60 days depending on work load.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ken,
Leave the longerons about a foot longer at the front end and cut them off
later. This will give you leverage to bend them to the contour that you
want and will allow you to bend them dry.
Hope this helps,
John
++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
> Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from the
> firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
> How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those
that
> soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right, as
I
> don't want to end up cracking the piece.
>
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
> Thanks for all the replies on the longeron issue. As no one seems to have
had a problem doing it dry, that's what I will do. Although, if you are
lying in bed one night and you hear a load scream coming form the north,
you'll know what happened!!
Thanks again to everyone for their input.
>
> Ken
>
> GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Neal" <lneal(at)ev1.net> |
Yes, and bend it slowly. Spruce will do just about anything if you take
your time.
----- Original Message -----
From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
>
> Bend it dry, its not even getting close to the point
> of cracking.
> Del
> --- Ken Rickards wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > I will be getting into the fuselage within the next
> > couple of months.
> > Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a
> > curve on it from the
> > firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear
> > cockpit. My question is:
> > How many people did the bend dry and how did it work
> > out. And for those that
> > soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need
> > to get this right, as I
> > don't want to end up cracking the piece.
> >
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > GN1 2992
> >
> > Canada
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
I have a name ... resorcinol. It will withstand immersion for 24 hours in
boiling water (at least according to the Mil-Spec). I built most of my
Pietenpol with it, the rest with T-88.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rambog(at)erols.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
I didn't mean to suggest that I am using Titebond, just that it is strong
stuff, stronger than I would have thought. Name a glue that does not break
down after several months outside without any protection. Aircraft plywood
does not last through one good wetting without delaminating. I am,
however, using titebond for small non-structural items like filler blocks.
If it is well varnished, it could probably be used for everything NOT THAT
I AM DOING IT.
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
Thanks John, Good tip... definately one for the keeper drawer.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ken,
>
> Leave the longerons about a foot longer at the front end and cut them off
> later. This will give you leverage to bend them to the contour that you
> want and will allow you to bend them dry.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> John
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
> >
> >
> > I will be getting into the fuselage within the next couple of months.
> > Looking at the plans, the lower longeron has quite a curve on it from
the
> > firewall back to almost the inst panel on rear cockpit. My question is:
> > How many people did the bend dry and how did it work out. And for those
> that
> > soaked or steamed the wood how did you do it. Need to get this right,
as
> I
> > don't want to end up cracking the piece.
> >
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > GN1 2992
> >
> > Canada
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | Re: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results |
I wouldn't mind getting your plans on this... I may make the very same
modification.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results
>
> Just to let everyone know that with all my complaining about the rudder
bar, I had to do something. Thought of putting my heels in "sturrups" to
ride with the bar, but would be hard getting to the brakes. Besides it's
uncomfortable.
> Desided to build the mod around the fact that I like to keep my heels on
the deck and use the rudder with my flipper feet.
> So I picked a design and went with it,,,,I tried by putting some tubing
cut to give a rectangle above the rudder bar that my toes could push on.
This brought the top of the tube to about where the forward rudder pedals
are. Made them 3" wide, and about 3 1/2" high, starting about 1" in from
the center line hole of the cable connecting point on the end of the tube.
This wouldn't interfere with the stops, or the seat, or anything.
> Anyway, if anyone wants more details, I'll send it to you.
> Now I can feel the rudders with my toes, and the landings are not a
mystery, wondering if I'll make it OK. Now I have much better feel of the
plane, and control on landing.
> "My toes were trained,,,my legs were not"
> I'm happy as a clam.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
There's a time factor here. How long do you want
your plane sound? Aerolite was considered the
only safe AC glue at one time but I had some of it
come apart in my hand 10 yrs after the fact. It was
all grainy in there. In the fifties some guy bought a
couple of Mossy's ( DH Mosquito's) and was
transfering them across country. He landed at an
airport back east and as he was taxiing out for
takeoff one of the wings fell apart. All the Aerolite
joints gave up the ghost!
A proper joint with any wood glue should break
in the wood and be fine in interior conditions for
years. Look at violins ( rabbit glue ) and guitars.
The stress from tuned strings is enormous. I made
my first steel string flat top 25 yrs ago with yellow
glue and I expect it to outlive me by a rather large
margine.
Would there be anything wrong with leaving the
mounts long, resting the engine on them and
sliding it back and forth to find the balance point?
Cut them off afterwards.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
>
>
> I didn't mean to suggest that I am using Titebond, just that it is strong
> stuff, stronger than I would have thought. Name a glue that does not
break
> down after several months outside without any protection. Aircraft
plywood
> does not last through one good wetting without delaminating. I am,
> however, using titebond for small non-structural items like filler blocks.
> If it is well varnished, it could probably be used for everything NOT THAT
> I AM DOING IT.
>
> Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Travel Air Model A aero engine |
That's quite a weight difference from the 244 lb listed
in the 1932 flying and glider manual.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Travel Air Model A aero engine> Specifications:
> Engine basic weight including dual carbs, dual ignition, exhaust pipes,
> alternator 196 lbs.
> Aluminum radiator and coolant - 22 lbs
> Starter Assembly - 10 lbs.
> Note - Weight can be reduced by using single ignition, single carb. and
> manual start.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters and others,
Am leaving La for a few days in Arkansas this morning. Have a trailer load of
goodies, Model T and old 4 cyl Dodge Bros parts. Swap meet is at Petit Jean
State Park. They have a nice airport also. If any Pieters are thinking of
attending check spot # B-15.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
Again, I was not recommending the use of Titebond, just relating an
interesting incident.
As for leaving the mount long and slilding the engine, that is an excellent
idea with one question, though, would it matter if the engine sat farther
forward on the mount legs if I did it that way (unless I could rig up a
temporary mount and rebuild it after deciding on a length)
I mostly wanted to know if any other Model A person made his mount longer.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "clif" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
>
> There's a time factor here. How long do you want
> your plane sound? Aerolite was considered the
> only safe AC glue at one time but I had some of it
> come apart in my hand 10 yrs after the fact. It was
> all grainy in there. In the fifties some guy bought a
> couple of Mossy's ( DH Mosquito's) and was
> transfering them across country. He landed at an
> airport back east and as he was taxiing out for
> takeoff one of the wings fell apart. All the Aerolite
> joints gave up the ghost!
> A proper joint with any wood glue should break
> in the wood and be fine in interior conditions for
> years. Look at violins ( rabbit glue ) and guitars.
> The stress from tuned strings is enormous. I made
> my first steel string flat top 25 yrs ago with yellow
> glue and I expect it to outlive me by a rather large
> margine.
>
> Would there be anything wrong with leaving the
> mounts long, resting the engine on them and
> sliding it back and forth to find the balance point?
> Cut them off afterwards.
>
> Clif
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rambog(at)erols.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: questions
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > I didn't mean to suggest that I am using Titebond, just that it is
strong
> > stuff, stronger than I would have thought. Name a glue that does not
> break
> > down after several months outside without any protection. Aircraft
> plywood
> > does not last through one good wetting without delaminating. I am,
> > however, using titebond for small non-structural items like filler
blocks.
> > If it is well varnished, it could probably be used for everything NOT
THAT
> > I AM DOING IT.
> >
> > Gene
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Glues and plywood |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Glues
Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about glues
for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue and
Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof. Joints
made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't think
I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them for
structural work on aircraft.
Plywood
I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that will
delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot of
summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | save your back--leave the firewall for last |
Frank Pavliga told me to leave my firewall off til the very end of
construction so I could easily lean in from the
front and install things like front rudder pedals, aileron torque tube
guide, service lines coming to and from the engine
compartment. I made the firewall very early in the building process but
only had it held in place by wood screws, not
glue. Only until my white posterboard firewall template had all the holes
and markings for things like oil pressure, throttle,
tachometer cable, oil temperature, carb heat, and smoke oil line did I
transfer those marks to the 1/8" plywood firewall and cut
them out. Then I broke out the T-88 and glued it in place.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
| Subject: | save your back--leave the firewall for last |
Thanks for the information Mike. To new builders, like myself, it's nice to
have so much experience to fall back on. It's little bit's of information
like this that will take the frustration out of building.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy [mailto:Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: save your back--leave the firewall for last
Frank Pavliga told me to leave my firewall off til the very end of
construction so I could easily lean in from the
front and install things like front rudder pedals, aileron torque tube
guide, service lines coming to and from the engine
compartment. I made the firewall very early in the building process but
only had it held in place by wood screws, not
glue. Only until my white posterboard firewall template had all the holes
and markings for things like oil pressure, throttle,
tachometer cable, oil temperature, carb heat, and smoke oil line did I
transfer those marks to the 1/8" plywood firewall and cut
them out. Then I broke out the T-88 and glued it in place.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rambog(at)erols.com" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Glues and plywood |
I'm sorry I brought it up.
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0500
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
Glues
Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about glues
for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue and
Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof. Joints
made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't think
I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them for
structural work on aircraft.
Plywood
I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that will
delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot of
summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Gene: ( re-low response to some questions ) I for one sometimes am a
little bit leary about making suggestions about what I am doing because
I haven't flown yet and my suggestions may not prove out in flight, then
I would feel bad for passing along an idea that turned out to be crap,
but here is what I am doing on my engine mt. I am extending my ash
engine mt. 4 inches longer than the plans. The main reason is because on
the engine I bought ( already converted ) the builder didn't shorten the
water pump as shown on the plans. Also the Fairbanks Morris mag. has a
long slender input shaft making the engine length longer than the plans.
If I didn't move the engine foreward I would need to cut a hole in the
back of the shelf for the end of the mag. Another reason, Ken Perkins (
Orange and cream Piet - Brodhead last 3 years ) with a tail wheel, no
wing slant back, at least 230 lbs had to remake his engine mt. 7 in
longer to properly balance it. Also, Chuck Ganzer- ( no small guy, but
looks slim next to Ken ) with a tail skid and wing moved back 4 in. had
to cast a 14 lb. lead doughnut which he placed on the Model A's nose
behind the cowling nose bowl. I'm hoping 4 in. extension works for me.
If anything I would like to be nose heavy during weigh in, then I can
balance it with a few oz.'s of lead or something on the tail. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rambog(at)erols.com" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
Thanks Leon, don't ever doubt your opinions. Are you planning to make the
engine mount tubing extend all the way out to the end of the ash as well?
What about drop, are you making the downthrust one inch at the 21 1/2 inch
point as per the plans (I don't remember what the plans say, something like
that)so that the drop at the end of your extended mount will be lower,
although at the same angle as the plans?
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 08:50:42 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Questions
Gene: ( re-low response to some questions ) I for one sometimes am a
little bit leary about making suggestions about what I am doing because
I haven't flown yet and my suggestions may not prove out in flight, then
I would feel bad for passing along an idea that turned out to be crap,
but here is what I am doing on my engine mt. I am extending my ash
engine mt. 4 inches longer than the plans. The main reason is because on
the engine I bought ( already converted ) the builder didn't shorten the
water pump as shown on the plans. Also the Fairbanks Morris mag. has a
long slender input shaft making the engine length longer than the plans.
If I didn't move the engine foreward I would need to cut a hole in the
back of the shelf for the end of the mag. Another reason, Ken Perkins (
Orange and cream Piet - Brodhead last 3 years ) with a tail wheel, no
wing slant back, at least 230 lbs had to remake his engine mt. 7 in
longer to properly balance it. Also, Chuck Ganzer- ( no small guy, but
looks slim next to Ken ) with a tail skid and wing moved back 4 in. had
to cast a 14 lb. lead doughnut which he placed on the Model A's nose
behind the cowling nose bowl. I'm hoping 4 in. extension works for me.
If anything I would like to be nose heavy during weigh in, then I can
balance it with a few oz.'s of lead or something on the tail. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Minimum Bend Radiuses |
Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where to download one.
I have seen many over the years, but now when we need one, presto! they are hiding.
Thanks
Barry Davis
Bought another Corvair yesterday and assembled and glued another wing panel last
night, only 9 more to go. Wheee
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Bend Radiuses |
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
Barry, what do you mean by bend chart? If you are talking about minimum radius
of bends in 4130 I believe it's 1 x the thickness.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
--- "Barry Davis" wrote:
Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where to download one.
I have seen many over the years, but now when we need one, presto! they are hiding.
Thanks
Barry Davis
Bought another Corvair yesterday and assembled and glued another wing panel last
night, only 9 more to go. Wheee
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Bend Radiuses |
Page 60 of my Aircraft Spruce catalog.
Cy Galley - Bellanca Champion Club
Newsletter Editor & EAA TC
www.bellanca-championclub.com
Actively supporting Aeroncas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Minimum Bend Radiuses
>
> Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where to download
one. I have seen many over the years, but now when we need one, presto! they
are hiding.
> Thanks
> Barry Davis
>
> Bought another Corvair yesterday and assembled and glued another wing
panel last night, only 9 more to go. Wheee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: C-85 temperature bulb adapter |
Bill
I went thru this a while back. I'm not sure which one the C-85 uses and I
had to order and return a couple of times. Try Wag Aero catalog p/n
A-007100 or A-007200 pg 13 . I have a A-65 so it may not be the same one.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: C-85 temperature bulb adapter
>
> Looking for the adapter that fits in the oil-screen of a C-85 for the
temperature bulb. The one I have fits a 3/8 inch capillary tube and I need
one for 7/16 diameter. Help in locating one would be appreciated.
>
> Bill Sayre
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Bend Radiuses |
Air Craft Spruce says 3 times the thickness.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <cat_designs(at)juno.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Minimum Bend Radiuses
>
>
> Barry, what do you mean by bend chart? If you are talking about minimum
radius of bends in 4130 I believe it's 1 x the thickness.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> --- "Barry Davis" wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where to download
one. I have seen many over the years, but now when we need one, presto! they
are hiding.
> Thanks
> Barry Davis
>
> Bought another Corvair yesterday and assembled and glued another wing
panel last night, only 9 more to go. Wheee
>
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Minimum Bend Radiuses |
| From: | "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
I think I saw a chart in one of the Tony Bingelis books? Don't know which one,
sorry.
Kent Hallsten
OKC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Davis [mailto:bed(at)mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:27 AM
> To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Minimum Bend Radiuses
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where
> to download one. I have seen many over the years, but now
> when we need one, presto! they are hiding.
> Thanks
> Barry Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Minimum Bend Radiuses |
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
This is where I got the information from:
Making Fittings - Part 2
Sport Aviation - 10/80
By Tony Bingelis
1x thickness for 0.016 0.032 0.064 0.125 0.188 0.25 4130 steel
Same as the table in his book
Chris
Sacramento, CA
--- "Kent Hallsten" wrote:
I think I saw a chart in one of the Tony Bingelis books? Don't know which one,
sorry.
Kent Hallsten
OKC
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barry Davis [mailto:bed(at)mindspring.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 9:27 AM
> To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Minimum Bend Radiuses
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where
> to download one. I have seen many over the years, but now
> when we need one, presto! they are hiding.
> Thanks
> Barry Davis
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: save your back--leave the firewall for last |
I kind of did the same thing, but when I finally put it in I cut a hole(
about 6" dia or big enough to fit a hand thru) in both the firewall ply in
the center of the lower section below the ash crossmember. And also one
under the fwd tank ply. Made it accessable right up to the steel firewall
installation.
walt
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: save your back--leave the firewall for last
>
> Frank Pavliga told me to leave my firewall off til the very end of
> construction so I could easily lean in from the
> front and install things like front rudder pedals, aileron torque tube
> guide, service lines coming to and from the engine
> compartment. I made the firewall very early in the building process but
> only had it held in place by wood screws, not
> glue. Only until my white posterboard firewall template had all the holes
> and markings for things like oil pressure, throttle,
> tachometer cable, oil temperature, carb heat, and smoke oil line did I
> transfer those marks to the 1/8" plywood firewall and cut
> them out. Then I broke out the T-88 and glued it in place.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Laser cut order from EmachineShop |
Well.... GOOD NEWS!
I just got my order in from EmachineShop.com.
I have three words....
OH MY GOD!
The quality is PERFECT. All laser cut to within +/- .005". I had a total
of 36 pieces cut. Wing spar plates, rudder & elevator horns, lugs, cabane
plates...
I had 4 of all the parts cut for two reasons... it was cheaper and because
I figured at some point some GN-1 Builders would benefit from having them
available since Replicraft evaporated.
Cost was INSANELy cheap.... $170 for 36 pieces. Some pieces are over 13"
long and 6" wide. This place is VERY inexpensive and the quality is top
notch.
I will post pics on my site tonight or tomorrow.
If you need any steel or aluminum parts precision machined emachineshop.com
is the place to go...
DJ Vegh
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
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: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Laser cut order from EmachineShop |
What materials are your e-machine shop parts? Do they provide paperwork
proving the materials were what you ordered?
Terry B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | ANNCARLEK(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 18 Msgs - 06/09/03 |
In a message dated 6/9/03 11:57:12 PM, pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
writes:
<< >
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Longeron
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Ken,
> >>
I know that the bottom longerons can be bent dry, and that they should be
about a foot longer so they can be wired until the gussets are in on both sides.
But I laminated mine using three strips i/3" thick, on the fuse jig. This
was such a pleasure to work with that I wouldn't even consider anything else,
were I to build another Piet. And there is very little residual stress left
with this method. The T-88 was great to use to laminate.
Carl at the Compton Airport
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Laser cut order from EmachineShop |
My parts were 4140 normalized steel.
They did not provide any certification papers as they are not an "aircraft"
machine shop... but they assured me the metal is what it is supposed to
be....
It sure looks and feels like 4140.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Laser cut order from EmachineShop
>
> What materials are your e-machine shop parts? Do they provide paperwork
> proving the materials were what you ordered?
>
> Terry B
>
>
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 & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Laser cut order from EmachineShop |
Hey DJ,
I'll take one of each. Just let me know how much I owe you. As soon as you
have the price could you give me a guestimate on the weight and I'll sort
out the shipping.
Thanks,
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Laser cut order from EmachineShop
>
> Well.... GOOD NEWS!
>
> I just got my order in from EmachineShop.com.
>
> I have three words....
>
> OH MY GOD!
>
> The quality is PERFECT. All laser cut to within +/- .005". I had a
total
> of 36 pieces cut. Wing spar plates, rudder & elevator horns, lugs, cabane
> plates...
>
> I had 4 of all the parts cut for two reasons... it was cheaper and
because
> I figured at some point some GN-1 Builders would benefit from having them
> available since Replicraft evaporated.
>
> Cost was INSANELy cheap.... $170 for 36 pieces. Some pieces are over 13"
> long and 6" wide. This place is VERY inexpensive and the quality is top
> notch.
>
> I will post pics on my site tonight or tomorrow.
>
> If you need any steel or aluminum parts precision machined
emachineshop.com
> is the place to go...
>
> DJ Vegh
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> 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" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Glues and plywood |
Yeah, Gene - you've been around this list long enough to know that there are
certain topics, like what glue to use, or whether Douglas Fir is as good as
Sitka Spruce that just naturally stir up the discussions, because
everybody's got an opinion on them.
I'm getting in the short rows on mine, now. Got the left wing covered and
ribstitched this past weekend. I'm starting to believe I'll actually fly it
a few more months.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rambog(at)erols.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
I'm sorry I brought it up.
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0500
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
Glues
Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about glues
for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue and
Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof. Joints
made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't think
I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them for
structural work on aircraft.
Plywood
I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that will
delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot of
summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Angle of Incidence |
What is the recommended AOI for a Piet airfoil?
According to my calculations, my AOI is .56 degrees.
When taking my measurements, I assumed the chord line to be at the center of
the radius of the L.E. to the center of the T.E. I then referenced this
angle to the top longeron.
Seems to me that the AOI should be around 1 or 1.5 degrees
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
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: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Glues and plywood |
You are my hero!! I am glad to hear you are so close.
As for issues, I think it is about time we re-hash, let me see, how about
how to make/get wire wheels, or maybe whether house latex paint is good
enough, or maybe whether cardboard can be pressed into a laminated spar and
save 15 cents.
Thanks for all of your sage advice, mainly how to make the gear. I made a
working pattern that is dead on using your method. I made cardboard
patterns and then cut out and bent the steel fittings (no holes yet) I
bought the spruce and cut all of the angles on the top and bottom of the
side legs, and I just received the ash bottom pieces all cut to size and
length. Now I just have to get up the nerve to clamp it all together and
drill the fitting holes. I assume I will pre-drill the inner (probably)
fittings, clamp them in place, and drill through to the outer.
What I am debating right now is somehow glueing the sides and ash bottom
together first to make it a little easier. Did you? I was helping my
friend with his house the other day (the one who builds wooden airplanes,
too) and we were playing with his biscuit cutter. I am now debating cutting
and installing biscuits to hole the side vees together while I attach the
lower fittings. The upper fittings are only partially cut out.
As for streamlining, did you do it after it was all bolted together? Is it
easier than it looks, or harder? Did you end the streamlining several
inches from each end or carry it all the way to the ends?
Too much to do. I still want to get down to see yours . . .maybe first
flight??????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
> Yeah, Gene - you've been around this list long enough to know that there
are
> certain topics, like what glue to use, or whether Douglas Fir is as good
as
> Sitka Spruce that just naturally stir up the discussions, because
> everybody's got an opinion on them.
>
> I'm getting in the short rows on mine, now. Got the left wing covered and
> ribstitched this past weekend. I'm starting to believe I'll actually fly
it
> a few more months.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> rambog(at)erols.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:26 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
>
> I'm sorry I brought it up.
>
> Gene
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0500
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
> Glues
> Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
> surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
> aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about glues
> for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
> brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
> aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
> are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue and
> Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof. Joints
> made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
>
> The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
> one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't think
> I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
> not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
> pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
> have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
> long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them for
> structural work on aircraft.
>
> Plywood
> I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
> consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
> then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
> and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that will
> delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot of
> summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
> Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
> boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
> underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
> not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
> use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Laser cut order from EmachineShop - pics |
Here's a couple shots of some of the parts
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/Log/image-pages/06-10-03.htm
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
_
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: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Glues and plywood |
Gene,Don't be sorry! You did make it perfectly clear
you weren't going to use it. But somewhere down
the road some neubie builder will read these archived
posts, throw away the hardware store glue he thought
was OK and buy the right stuff. You will have saved his butt.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
> I'm sorry I brought it up.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | clif <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Minimum Bend Radiuses |
EAA Sportplane-January2003-p94.
Bend radius chart on p96.
Below is an excel spread sheet program that will
calculate your entire bracket layout.
Kitplanes-May2001-Brackets The Easy Way-p37
Download the excel program here;
http://www.kitplanes.com/features/supplements/brackets.xls
Calculates everything.
Look here under basic construction then to the
three " making fittings articles
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/list.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Minimum Bend Radiuses
>
> Does anyone have a bend chart for 4130 fittings or know where to download
one. I have seen many over the years, but now when we need one, presto! they
are hiding.
> Thanks
> Barry Davis
>
> Bought another Corvair yesterday and assembled and glued another wing
panel last night, only 9 more to go. Wheee
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Glues and plywood |
Good Questions, Gene ...
I did not glue the "V" blocks to the struts, but just allowed the fittings
to hold them in place. I drilled the holes in one set of fittings (I think
I drilled the outside fittings first) then clamped everything together and
drilled through the outside fittings just barely into the wood, took
everything apart and drilled all the way through the wood on the drill press
so the holes stayed nice and straight and perpendicular, then clamped it all
back together and drilled through the inside fittings.
I streamlined the struts after all the drilling was done (which is one
reason why I didn't glue the struts to the V blocks. I left the ends square
so they would give as much bearing area on the fittings as possible and
streamlined in between the fittings. I clamped the struts down to my
workbench, clamping on the square ends and shaped them by hand, using coarse
sandpaper. This was where my laminated struts were a big advantage. The
laminations made it easy to see if I was shaping them consistently down the
length of the strut.
As Mike Cuy says, the sttraight axle landing gear is the most difficult part
of the entire project, but it gives an awful lot of satisfaction when it's
done.
Hang in there.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene Rambo
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
You are my hero!! I am glad to hear you are so close.
As for issues, I think it is about time we re-hash, let me see, how about
how to make/get wire wheels, or maybe whether house latex paint is good
enough, or maybe whether cardboard can be pressed into a laminated spar and
save 15 cents.
Thanks for all of your sage advice, mainly how to make the gear. I made a
working pattern that is dead on using your method. I made cardboard
patterns and then cut out and bent the steel fittings (no holes yet) I
bought the spruce and cut all of the angles on the top and bottom of the
side legs, and I just received the ash bottom pieces all cut to size and
length. Now I just have to get up the nerve to clamp it all together and
drill the fitting holes. I assume I will pre-drill the inner (probably)
fittings, clamp them in place, and drill through to the outer.
What I am debating right now is somehow glueing the sides and ash bottom
together first to make it a little easier. Did you? I was helping my
friend with his house the other day (the one who builds wooden airplanes,
too) and we were playing with his biscuit cutter. I am now debating cutting
and installing biscuits to hole the side vees together while I attach the
lower fittings. The upper fittings are only partially cut out.
As for streamlining, did you do it after it was all bolted together? Is it
easier than it looks, or harder? Did you end the streamlining several
inches from each end or carry it all the way to the ends?
Too much to do. I still want to get down to see yours . . .maybe first
flight??????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
> Yeah, Gene - you've been around this list long enough to know that there
are
> certain topics, like what glue to use, or whether Douglas Fir is as good
as
> Sitka Spruce that just naturally stir up the discussions, because
> everybody's got an opinion on them.
>
> I'm getting in the short rows on mine, now. Got the left wing covered and
> ribstitched this past weekend. I'm starting to believe I'll actually fly
it
> a few more months.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> rambog(at)erols.com
> Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:26 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
>
> I'm sorry I brought it up.
>
> Gene
>
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0500
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
> Glues
> Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
> surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
> aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about glues
> for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
> brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
> aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
> are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue and
> Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof. Joints
> made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
>
> The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
> one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't think
> I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
> not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
> pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
> have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
> long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them for
> structural work on aircraft.
>
> Plywood
> I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
> consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
> then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
> and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that will
> delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot of
> summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
> Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
> boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
> underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
> not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
> use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Hello Gene. Yah, I'm going to build my V's to extend to the foreward end
of the ash bearers. If I had already made them standard length, I would
use them as made, but since I haven't built them yet i'm going to attach
them per the plans. They will just be a bit longer. I am going to use
the same 1" drop at the front for the same down thrust as the plans. The
V's are the only steel parts that I still need to build. I am not going
to put in any offset. If I have any trouble there I will put a bendable
trim tab on the rudder. I have made attachment points for tabs on my
rudder and elevators just in case I need them. 2 years ago I bit the
bullet and just bought the engine mt. V's from Replicraft. They are
built from the 1929 plans in the Flying and Glider manual. Those plans
have an error on the down thrust. ( at least I think it's an error ) The
plans say 2 1/2" down trust. I think that should be 2 1/2 degree, not
inches. I put my Smart Tool level on the barers and found that 1" drop
comes out to 2 1/2 degrees. 2 1/2 in. looks like a radical drop. So I
have a pair of Replicraft engine mt. V's that I can't use. I bought them
because I am building in my living room, and can't do any welding there.
In the Flying and Glider Manual there is a picture of a Piet with the
cowling off. The tubing part of the mt. is not joined together in V
fashion. The lower tube is bolted under the ash bearers, and the upper
tube is bolted to the side of the bearers. BHP got away from that on the
later plans. This is a simpler way to build the tubing part of the
engine mt. ( less flitting, less welding, etc. ) Does any one know if
this is an inferior way to build the tube part of the engine mt? Buy the
way, in an old Buckeye news letter, Frank Pavliga suggested building the
Model A fus. fire wall 4 in. foreward rather than extending the engine
mt. Either way, I think it shows that that old Ford A "boat anchor"r
needs to be moved foreward at least 4 in. Good luck, I'm off to dream
land. Leon S. Hutchinson Ks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
Sorry this reply is so late, but I really hate writing.
> John wrote
>
> >has anyone done anything with a longer-winged Piet?
> >Slats perhaps? I'm curious about anything that might
> >make it more STOL-ish in a respectful (and safe) way.
If you are looking for a good slow speed airfoil, that would be very
effective on a Piet, I would recommend you check out the airfoils that
have been developed by Harry Ribblett (spelling?).
My partner and I spoke to him at Oshkosh about 5 years ago. He said he
is a fan of the pietenpol, but did say that his airfoils would give it a
little gentler stall and slightly better low speed characteristics. He
recommended one of his numbers in particular, but I don't remember which
one it was. His publication, which details these airfoils, I believe is
available from the EAA.
I did meet a man at Brodhead the next year (sorry, but I don't remember
who that was either) who had talked to Harry about the same thing, and
decided to modify his already built wing to get some of the advantages of
Harry's research. On Harry's advice, he simply added some foam to the
front 25% of the wing to make the nose more fully rounded. He was very
pleased with the result.
Many builders back in the fifties and sixties modified Pietenpol's design
by using airfoils such as the Clark Y or the NACA 4412, but I think most
of these were really worse. I believe one of the dangers of using one of
these more "modern" airfoils is that most of them produce greater
movement of the Center of Pressure as the C/L increases. This requires
more careful placement of the center of gravity and a larger tail volume
than the piet has. But Harry Ribblett's airfoils are similar to
Pietenpol's in that one of his design aims is to minimize movement of the
C/P. Ribblett's airfoil will be deeper and have a more rounded leading
edge that Pietenpol's, but they both have the same reflexive back half
(which I guess is a major factor in limiting the movement of the C/P).
John Fay in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | biscuits and streamlining |
Gene-- I flush-fit glued my gear leg bottoms to the ash blocks at the
bottom while the whole affair was rigged in place on the plane but prior to
installing the metal plates that bind those three items together on each
side. To use biscuits there (or even a few dowell rods) It think would be
of great benefit. Though I've had no joint problems in that area I like
the idea of the biscuits there. I copied how Frank P. and his father
faired their spruce gear legs in a teardrop/streamlined shape---larger in
the front and slimmer on the trailing edges and did not carry the
streamlining to each gear leg end. I tapered the streamline about 3.5" to
flat so that the fittings would have nice straight, full dimension sized
wood to clamp to. This tapering was done with a draw/spoke shave and
shur-form hand rasp type deal from Stanley and the courses of sandpaper
after that. This was all done prior to gluing the bottom ash pieces in
place. If you'd like to see more up close pics of the gear leg and other
items, check out the Matronics photoshare site:
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.12.11.2001/
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
As promised, I have had some brass data plates made up and have them
available for sale. They are a direct knock-off of the aluminum ones
offered earlier (through the BPA or Frank Pavliga, I'm not sure which),
except that I changed the wording from "The Original Model 'A' Powered
Lightplane" to "Low and Slow Since 1929". There are quite a few Piets using
engines other than the Ford, so I thought the new wording might be of
interest to a wider audience. You can see a picture and get ordering
information at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/dataplate.html and they are
$10 postpaid to anyone in the known universe. I'm doing this for fun, not
for profit, so if you're located on Johnston Atoll or someplace remote, cut
me some slack and we'll discuss postage!
I had them made up on rectangular blanks to keep the cost down and to make
it easier to hold the plate in alignment while you do your
engraving/embossing/stamping of the data on it, but upon request I will trim
them to their final oval shape and punch the mounting holes for you prior to
shipping. An ulterior motive for leaving the plates rectangular is that you
can practice your engraving on the corners which get trimmed off later ;o)
My thanks to Doc Mosher for providing me with an example of the aluminum
data plate and to Mike Cuy for his help with AvGrafix. Both you gentlemen
will receive complimentary data plates with my regards. I am also offering
free data plates to anyone who gives me a ride in their Piet!
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> |
Oscar--- Nice looking data plates. Dennis Demeter at AvGrafix is a pretty
good guy. Pilot too. What you might want to do is mail off your data plate
info/ad to the BPA (Brodhead Pietenpol Association Newsletter) that comes
in the mail.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | BPA news & the discussion group |
Group-- Many of the guys who get the paper newsletter in the mail might not
know about this Matronics online discussion group that we enjoy so I was
going to e-mail them with that information so they can put it in the next
newsletter. (they have an e-mail link on their web page below to the
publisher.) I'm wondering why Don and his son Andrew Pietenpol don't have
an ad in that newsletter for plans as well. (or did I miss it ?) Mike
C.
http://www.pietenpol.org/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | pics of my modified rudder bar |
pics of my modified rudder bar at
http://photos.yahoo.com/joepiet
walt evans
NX140DL
hope this goes thru
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Glues and plywood |
Hey Gene
As long as you brought up house paint, I'll throw in one small point. I
used it and am still happy with it except I dribbled a little gasoline on it
and when I went to wipe off, it became soft and tacky. It did re-dry but I
have a small spot to touch up.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
> You are my hero!! I am glad to hear you are so close.
>
> As for issues, I think it is about time we re-hash, let me see, how about
> how to make/get wire wheels, or maybe whether house latex paint is good
> enough, or maybe whether cardboard can be pressed into a laminated spar
and
> save 15 cents.
>
> Thanks for all of your sage advice, mainly how to make the gear. I made a
> working pattern that is dead on using your method. I made cardboard
> patterns and then cut out and bent the steel fittings (no holes yet) I
> bought the spruce and cut all of the angles on the top and bottom of the
> side legs, and I just received the ash bottom pieces all cut to size and
> length. Now I just have to get up the nerve to clamp it all together and
> drill the fitting holes. I assume I will pre-drill the inner (probably)
> fittings, clamp them in place, and drill through to the outer.
>
> What I am debating right now is somehow glueing the sides and ash bottom
> together first to make it a little easier. Did you? I was helping my
> friend with his house the other day (the one who builds wooden airplanes,
> too) and we were playing with his biscuit cutter. I am now debating
cutting
> and installing biscuits to hole the side vees together while I attach the
> lower fittings. The upper fittings are only partially cut out.
>
> As for streamlining, did you do it after it was all bolted together? Is
it
> easier than it looks, or harder? Did you end the streamlining several
> inches from each end or carry it all the way to the ends?
>
> Too much to do. I still want to get down to see yours . . .maybe first
> flight??????
>
> Gene
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
>
>
>
> >
> > Yeah, Gene - you've been around this list long enough to know that there
> are
> > certain topics, like what glue to use, or whether Douglas Fir is as good
> as
> > Sitka Spruce that just naturally stir up the discussions, because
> > everybody's got an opinion on them.
> >
> > I'm getting in the short rows on mine, now. Got the left wing covered
and
> > ribstitched this past weekend. I'm starting to believe I'll actually
fly
> it
> > a few more months.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > rambog(at)erols.com
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 8:26 AM
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
> >
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry I brought it up.
> >
> > Gene
> >
> >
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: rhartwig11(at)juno.com
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 06:42:31 -0500
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Glues and plywood
> >
> >
> >
> > Glues
> > Most modern woodworking glues make joints that are stronger than the
> > surrounding wood, but that does not mean that they are acceptable for
> > aircraft structures. We should be very specific when talking about
glues
> > for aircraft use. There are many different types of glue sold under the
> > brand names of "Weldwood" or "Titebond". Some are excellent for
> > aircraft--such as Weldwood Resorcinol or Weldwood Plastic Resin and some
> > are not --such as Weldwood Contact Glue. Titebond Original Wood Glue
and
> > Titebond II Premium Wood Glue glue are definitely not waterproof.
Joints
> > made with them will come apart when the glue joint is thoroughly wetted.
> >
> > The urethane glues (like Gorilla Glue) are waterproof and I thought at
> > one time that they might be an easy to use alternative, but I don't
think
> > I would use them for anything structural. If a urethane glue joint is
> > not perfect and cured with at least mild clamping or staple/nailing
> > pressure it can come apart with very little effort. Some boat builders
> > have quit using urethanes--I am trying to find the specific reason. As
> > long as there is a question about urethanes I would not consider them
for
> > structural work on aircraft.
> >
> > Plywood
> > I have tested many samples of aircraft and marine plywoods. The testing
> > consists of immersing them in boiling water for at least two hours and
> > then trying to delaminate them. I then let them dry and boil them again
> > and soak them for a couple of days. I have not tested a sample that
will
> > delaminate. I have left some samples outside for months (we get a lot
of
> > summer rain here) and the glue lines still could not be pried apart.
> > Many interior grades of plywood will delaminate the first time they are
> > boiled--one exception is Tec-Ply which is used on floors for
> > underlayment. I did a boil-soak-dry cycle on it several times and could
> > not get it to delaminate. Aircraft plywood is the only ply that I would
> > use in an aircraft without first testing a sample.
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | data plates & re-hash |
Howdy, folks; thanks for the excellent response to my data plate offer.
I'll be sending them out in the next day or three. I had 100 made up and
when those 100 are gone, they're gone... cuz I'll probably be in my 80's by
then and unable to fly the rocket-powered planes being flown by then (I'll
be 52 next month). I added one more picture on the webpage at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/dataplate.html showing the new plate
alongside the previously-offered aluminum plate so you can see exactly what
you get (thanks, Doc).
And as far as re-hashing old topics, how's about the wire ferrules for the
empennage brace rods? I enjoyed that discussion. And in closing, if you
haven't looked at the pictures of Walt's Piet, be sure to. Really nice
airplane, and very exemplary work. The rudder bar modifications are towards
the last of the pictures but don't go there just for the rudder bar
pictures... it's all good.
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: | UK site for metal Piet fittings |
stumbled across
this.......
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.aviationmetalcraft.co.uk/images/acrosport1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.aviationmetalcraft.co.uk/productindex.htm&h=158&w=200&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPietenpol%26start%3D80%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: data plates & re-hash |
Oscar, I will take one. Email me the process for payment.
Doyle Combs
Box 421
Lometa, Texas 76853
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: data plates & re-hash
>
> Howdy, folks; thanks for the excellent response to my data plate offer.
> I'll be sending them out in the next day or three. I had 100 made up and
> when those 100 are gone, they're gone... cuz I'll probably be in my 80's
by
> then and unable to fly the rocket-powered planes being flown by then (I'll
> be 52 next month). I added one more picture on the webpage at
> http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/dataplate.html showing the new plate
> alongside the previously-offered aluminum plate so you can see exactly
what
> you get (thanks, Doc).
>
> And as far as re-hashing old topics, how's about the wire ferrules for the
> empennage brace rods? I enjoyed that discussion. And in closing, if you
> haven't looked at the pictures of Walt's Piet, be sure to. Really nice
> airplane, and very exemplary work. The rudder bar modifications are
towards
> the last of the pictures but don't go there just for the rudder bar
> pictures... it's all good.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
Seeing as there is not traffic on the list today I figured I would ask this. How
are people dealing with not owning a Nicopress tool. Did you go out and buy
one? Where did you get it? What price did you pay? The ones in Aircraft Spruce's
catalog are $36.50 for the "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool" and $72.85 for
"Locoloc Handswaging tool" and $169.95 for the "Nicopress Tool". Does anyone
know if the "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool" works? Is the "Locoloc Handswaging
tool" the same thing as a nicopress tool but only for smaller dimeter wire?
I doubt I can find one these things to borrow so I will most likely have
to buy one when I need it.
Chris
Sacramento, CA
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nicopress Tool |
Chris,
Try your local EAA chapter. They sometimes have loaners.
Tom Travis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nicopress Tool |
Just my input to say that the "economy" version works fine. Did two
projects with one. Just have to make sure the threads are lubed.
sometimes they are better because some of the cables have to be swaged in a
tight spot in the plane.
Like any swage tool, make sure you check the crimps with the go/no go
dimension that is given with the tool. Never had a bad one with the cheap
one.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: <cat_designs(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nicopress Tool
>
>
> Seeing as there is not traffic on the list today I figured I would ask
this. How are people dealing with not owning a Nicopress tool. Did you go
out and buy one? Where did you get it? What price did you pay? The ones in
Aircraft Spruce's catalog are $36.50 for the "Economy Nicopress Swaging
Tool" and $72.85 for "Locoloc Handswaging tool" and $169.95 for the
"Nicopress Tool". Does anyone know if the "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool"
works? Is the "Locoloc Handswaging tool" the same thing as a nicopress tool
but only for smaller dimeter wire? I doubt I can find one these things to
borrow so I will most likely have to buy one when I need it.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Nicopress Tool |
Go to your local EAA chapter and ask around. Many Chapters have a tool
library. Or do a mechanics search on the landings. I found over 100 and that
is just thru the "Cs".
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <cat_designs(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nicopress Tool
>
>
> Seeing as there is not traffic on the list today I figured I would ask
this. How are people dealing with not owning a Nicopress tool. Did you go
out and buy one? Where did you get it? What price did you pay? The ones in
Aircraft Spruce's catalog are $36.50 for the "Economy Nicopress Swaging
Tool" and $72.85 for "Locoloc Handswaging tool" and $169.95 for the
"Nicopress Tool". Does anyone know if the "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool"
works? Is the "Locoloc Handswaging tool" the same thing as a nicopress tool
but only for smaller dimeter wire? I doubt I can find one these things to
borrow so I will most likely have to buy one when I need it.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
"piet discussion"
| Subject: | one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks |
Hopefully doing my last 1 1/4 hr tomorrow and need to get these numbers for the
phase 1 signoff.
Since I have a vertical speed guage, can I assume that the "best rate of climb
would be the fastest that I can go and still maintaining the highest FPM climb?
And the best angle of climb would be to pull it back till the rate of climb
starts to drop off , and that would be best angle of climb?
thanks,
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks |
Sorry Walt, that's too easy.
There were some pretty good discussions in Sport Aviation a few months ago
about how to do these tests. Youn might want to dig through those, or go to
your local Barnes and Nobles and buy a book called "Flight Testing Homebuilt
Aircraft by Vaughn Askue - full of good stuff.
Basically for rate of climb, you will want to do a series of tests at
different airspeeds and time it for a minute, holding the airspeed as
constant as possible (helps to do it early in the morning when the air is
still) and see what change you see on the altimeter in that minute. Try one
airspeed, then go back to your starting altitude (the climb rate will vary
with altitude so you need to do the tests at approximately the same starting
altitude) - you can do best glide speed tests on the way down, and then
change the airspeed by a couple of knots and do it again. Plot the result
and you will have a curve of climb rate (in feet per minute) versus
airspeed. Where the curve peaks is your best rate of climb speed.
Best angle of climb is done by flying along a road with two distinct
landmarks, like a powerline crossing, that you can tell when you have
passed. Fly along the road at the test airspeed and note the altimter
setting at your first landmark. Fly at that airspeed until you cross the
second landmark and note your altitude. Do it again with different
airspeeds and plot the results on a curve of altitude climbed versus
airspeed. The airspeed that gave you the most altitude climbed between your
two fixed landmarks is your best angle of climb speed. You would do well to
do it on a windless day, or do each speed twice, once in each direction and
average the results.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of w b evans
Subject: Pietenpol-List: one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks
Hopefully doing my last 1 1/4 hr tomorrow and need to get these numbers for
the phase 1 signoff.
Since I have a vertical speed guage, can I assume that the "best rate of
climb would be the fastest that I can go and still maintaining the highest
FPM climb? And the best angle of climb would be to pull it back till the
rate of climb starts to drop off , and that would be best angle of climb?
thanks,
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks |
Vy, best rate of climb, is the speed at which the airplane will gain the
most altitude per unit of time.
Vx, best angle of climb (I can only remember because an "x" is all angles),
is the speed at which the airplane will gain the most altitude in a given
horizontal distance.
Vy would be the speed at which you can maintain the maximum rate of climb on
your VVI. If you can maintain 600 fpm, and that is the highest ROC you can
hold, that speed is your Vy. (the highest rate per unit of time - a minute)
Vx is usually lower than Vy. Suppose you can climb at 55 mph, but at that
speed can only maintain 500 fpm, while at 60 mph you can maintain 600 fpm.
This is where you have to do some math. At 55 mph and 500 fpm, you gain 968
feet per 100 feet you move forward. At 60 mph and 600 fpm, you only gain
880 feet per 100 feet forward. (I hope my math is right, but it still makes
my point if it is not). Therefore, 55 mph would be your best angle while 60
mph would be your best rate.
So, the short answer to the question is that you can read your best rate off
of the VVI, but have to calculate your best angle by recording your best
maintainable ROC at different airspeeds and comparing them.
Make sense?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks
>
> Hopefully doing my last 1 1/4 hr tomorrow and need to get these numbers
for the phase 1 signoff.
> Since I have a vertical speed guage, can I assume that the "best rate of
climb would be the fastest that I can go and still maintaining the highest
FPM climb? And the best angle of climb would be to pull it back till the
rate of climb starts to drop off , and that would be best angle of climb?
> thanks,
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nicopress Tool |
Here I own the only nico pliers in the city, all builders use it (now
5 planes in progress) my problem is keeping track of its location, we
have "loose" them for about a month a couple of times, but they
eventualy get back home.
Since last time, I ask $200.00 Dls full returnable deposit, now always,
come back. We are thinking of renting especial tools for a nominal fee
and save the money, then with that money buy some more "one of a kind"
tools for all of us... We are so few builders around here that is a
good idea, now that we almost have a certfied repair shop in the
Aerodrome it might work..
Saludos
Gary Gower
Guadalajara, Mexico.
--- cat_designs(at)juno.com wrote:
>
>
> Seeing as there is not traffic on the list today I figured I would
> ask this. How are people dealing with not owning a Nicopress tool.
> Did you go out and buy one? Where did you get it? What price did you
> pay? The ones in Aircraft Spruce's catalog are $36.50 for the
> "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool" and $72.85 for "Locoloc Handswaging
> tool" and $169.95 for the "Nicopress Tool". Does anyone know if the
> "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool" works? Is the "Locoloc Handswaging
> tool" the same thing as a nicopress tool but only for smaller dimeter
> wire? I doubt I can find one these things to borrow so I will most
> likely have to buy one when I need it.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan(at)capable.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: one last quick discussion on Vx and Vy, thanks |
w b evans wrote:
> And the best angle of climb would be to pull it back till the
> rate of climb starts to drop off , and that would be best angle of climb?
That sounds dubious to me. I'm no aerodynamicist (well, I guess I'm an
armchair aerodynamicist), but my physics and geometry tell me that the best
angle of climb airspeed would be the one where the vertical speed divided
by the airspeed is the highest (strictly speaking, it would be vertical
speed divided by the airspeed-projected-onto-the-ground, but the angles
involved are small enough that you'd never be able to tell the difference).
So if you try a bunch of airspeeds, and record the vertical speed at each
airspeed, you can find the one that gives you the best vertical speed to
airspeed ratio.
For example, in a C152, the best rate of climb speed is 67 kt, and that
will get you about 700fpm (for some loading and density altitude). The best
angle speed is 55 kt, which might get you only 650fpm. However, 650/55 is
bigger than 700/67, hence you'll be climbing at a steeper angle.
Stefan Vorkoetter
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nicopress Tool |
Chris,,, If you have a Tractor Supply Co. near you,, they have a press that
will work great just like the one for 150 plus dollars for about 50 bucks.
It will press three sizes and they just happen to be the ones you need. It
doesn't have cutters on it but what the hey. Check it out.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: <cat_designs(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nicopress Tool
>
>
> Seeing as there is not traffic on the list today I figured I would ask
this. How are people dealing with not owning a Nicopress tool. Did you go
out and buy one? Where did you get it? What price did you pay? The ones in
Aircraft Spruce's catalog are $36.50 for the "Economy Nicopress Swaging
Tool" and $72.85 for "Locoloc Handswaging tool" and $169.95 for the
"Nicopress Tool". Does anyone know if the "Economy Nicopress Swaging Tool"
works? Is the "Locoloc Handswaging tool" the same thing as a nicopress tool
but only for smaller dimeter wire? I doubt I can find one these things to
borrow so I will most likely have to buy one when I need it.
>
>
> Chris
> Sacramento, CA
>
> The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | A65 First Engine Run |
I did the first engine run on the new engine on Tuesday evening. Fuel on,
mags off, pull 4 blades, mags hot, started on the 2nd blade and idled pretty
smooth !! Music to my ears !! What a great sound !! Ran for 1/2 hr, not over
1100 RPM and shut down for inspection. Fixed a couple of minor oil leaks, and
did the second series of 4 runs with 15 minute cool down periods on
Wednesday. All went well. Ground runs complete. Buttoned up everything under
the
cowl and installed the cowling and did W&B and Symatry on Friday. Gotta crunch
the numbers & do the paperwork, and a thourough airframe inspection, but it's
looking good for first flight on the new engine on Saturday.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A65 First Engine Run |
Chuck,
Good for you! Great feeling isn't it? I have a program for W/B if you'd
like it. Just plug in the numbers and watch the results correct
automatically. Let me know.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A65 First Engine Run
>
> I did the first engine run on the new engine on Tuesday evening. Fuel on,
> mags off, pull 4 blades, mags hot, started on the 2nd blade and idled
pretty
> smooth !! Music to my ears !! What a great sound !! Ran for 1/2 hr, not
over
> 1100 RPM and shut down for inspection. Fixed a couple of minor oil leaks,
and
> did the second series of 4 runs with 15 minute cool down periods on
> Wednesday. All went well. Ground runs complete. Buttoned up everything
under the
> cowl and installed the cowling and did W&B and Symatry on Friday. Gotta
crunch
> the numbers & do the paperwork, and a thourough airframe inspection, but
it's
> looking good for first flight on the new engine on Saturday.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Don Hicks
Subject: Don H. Piet Progress Photos
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.06.14.2003/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Looks beautiful, Don!
I'm right behind you. Finishing covering the left wing today, starting on
the right wing tomorrow or Monday.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Email List
Photo Shares
Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Don Hicks
Subject: Don H. Piet Progress Photos
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.06.14.2003/in
dex.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
"Email List Photo Shares"
| Subject: | Re: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
Don Hicks,
Great pics! Don't know if you will get this directly or second hand. but
it looks like you are comming along nicely. Nice fuse color (smile).
Keep the pics comming.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Don Hicks
>
>
> Subject: Don H. Piet Progress Photos
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.06.14.2003/index.html
>
>
> o Main Photo Share Index
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> o Submitting a Photo Share
>
> If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include
the
> following information along with your email message and files:
>
> 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
> 2) Your Full Name:
> 3) Your Email Address:
> 4) One line Subject description:
> 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
> 6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
>
> Email the information above and your files and photos to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Don,
Looks great! And better yet, you have built it to the original plans. I'ts
really hard to improve on what Bernie did! Congratulations!
John ++++++++++++++++++++++>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Don Hicks
>
>
> Subject: Don H. Piet Progress Photos
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.06.14.2003/index.html
>
>
> o Main Photo Share Index
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> o Submitting a Photo Share
>
> If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include
the
> following information along with your email message and files:
>
> 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
> 2) Your Full Name:
> 3) Your Email Address:
> 4) One line Subject description:
> 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
> 6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
>
> Email the information above and your files and photos to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
Thanks Jack, Walt and John for your kind words...particularly gratifying
coming from those who have first rate projects and high flyin' Piets of their
own. And also to Mike Cuy who posted them for me when I couldn't figure it out
myself. But I'm gonna work on that and post some more as soon as I get it to the
airport and all together with the wings and engine cowling. Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A65 First Engine Run |
Congrats Chuck! And with that N- number, you'll always be "within" the
CG!!!!!
Ours is about 2 weeks away - mounted the engine today!!!
Craig
Bakeng Duce NX96CW
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A65 First Engine Run
>
> I did the first engine run on the new engine on Tuesday evening. Fuel on,
> mags off, pull 4 blades, mags hot, started on the 2nd blade and idled
pretty
> smooth !! Music to my ears !! What a great sound !! Ran for 1/2 hr, not
over
> 1100 RPM and shut down for inspection. Fixed a couple of minor oil leaks,
and
> did the second series of 4 runs with 15 minute cool down periods on
> Wednesday. All went well. Ground runs complete. Buttoned up everything
under the
> cowl and installed the cowling and did W&B and Symatry on Friday. Gotta
crunch
> the numbers & do the paperwork, and a thourough airframe inspection, but
it's
> looking good for first flight on the new engine on Saturday.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Stefan Vorkoetter <stefan(at)capable.ca> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol in Ontario |
Does anyone know where I might see a Pietenpol in Southern Ontario (say
within an hour's flight by C172 from Kitchener)?
Stefan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A65 First Engine Run |
Chuck
I'm right there with you. Got her started last weekend. Ran it for about
an hour. I've got to finish some work on the brakes and it will be time to
start the taxi tests.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A65 First Engine Run
>
> I did the first engine run on the new engine on Tuesday evening. Fuel on,
> mags off, pull 4 blades, mags hot, started on the 2nd blade and idled
pretty
> smooth !! Music to my ears !! What a great sound !! Ran for 1/2 hr, not
over
> 1100 RPM and shut down for inspection. Fixed a couple of minor oil leaks,
and
> did the second series of 4 runs with 15 minute cool down periods on
> Wednesday. All went well. Ground runs complete. Buttoned up everything
under the
> cowl and installed the cowling and did W&B and Symatry on Friday. Gotta
crunch
> the numbers & do the paperwork, and a thourough airframe inspection, but
it's
> looking good for first flight on the new engine on Saturday.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 1st Flight on New Engine |
YEEEE HHAAAAWWWW !!
What a beautiful evening to do a first flight !! As they say, it was
uneventful, and went just as I hoped it would...prayers answered. A little after
7pm, the cross wind died down, and we did a short run with the cowling on for the
first time, and shut down for a quick inspection, re-started, taxi to the
south end of the field, turn around, add full power, help the tail come up a
little with forward stick, and WOW, I could see the whole runway ahead of me !!
What a sight and sound. Tippee Toed a little bit around 35 MPH, then held it
off the ground around 40 MPH. Speed shot right up, and I had to control the
airspeed with lots of aft stick around 55, and was over 60 feet altitude by the
time I got to the crowd of people standing at the other end of the field. She
was climbing like the perverbial 'Homesick Angle' !! What a rush !! Gave
'em a big "YEEEE HAAAWWW" !! I did 5 or 6 fly-bys, and then went out to our
test area where there is lots of fields, then did fly-bys at a couple of other
fields, just to let them know another Pietenpol is in the air. Flew for 1.1
hours, then came back and greased in a one bounce landing. It's been six months
since I flew this little gem, and it behaves just like she did with the Model
A, except for the substantial increase in climb rate. She sure is a 'Stick &
Rudder' airplane. Weight & Ballance came in just as I estimated, and she's
almost 60 lbs lighter, and almost twice the power. I was actually having fun
in the air again !! I love flying this plane !! Next flight...tomorrow
morning, then another flight tomorrow evening. Weather is looking perfect.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
p.s. Brodhead / Oshkosh / Wheeling is closer than ever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Don Hick's Piet: |
Don: Beautiful plane. I can;t wait until I am where you are. Chuck, I
was in Wichita today. I should have driven out t Benton to check out
your new engine. I came over for the Ch. 88 meeting which I found out
too late that is nest week!! -- Stefan, Has anyone ever told you that
you have an interesting first name?!, Jump in that Sky Hawk and fly to
Brodhead, you'll get to see a Piet or two. Leon Stefan Hutchinson
Ks. See you at Brodhead. ( wow, it's barely a month away ) Do not
archive.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> (by way of Matronics Photo Share <pictures(at)matronics.com>) |
| Subject: | Re: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share |
Available!
of Matronics Photo Share )
Don Hicks,
Great pics! Don't know if you will get this directly or second hand. but
it looks like you are comming along nicely. Nice fuse color (smile).
Keep the pics comming.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Don Hicks ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Don Hicks
>
>
> Subject: Don H. Piet Progress Photos
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/Michael.D.Cuy@grc.nasa.gov.06.14.2003/index.html
>
>
> o Main Photo Share Index
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> o Submitting a Photo Share
>
> If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include
the
> following information along with your email message and files:
>
> 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
> 2) Your Full Name:
> 3) Your Email Address:
> 4) One line Subject description:
> 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
> 6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
>
> Email the information above and your files and photos to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: modified the rudder bar with GREAT results |
Gene,
My memory is getting real bad but I'm sure the instructor make me keep my
heels on the floor AWAY from those aeronca heel brakes and it was if my memory
serves me correctly a tail wheel airplane. I certainly could be wrong.
Corky, back in La again
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
"Fishnet"
| Subject: | a great feeling,,,phase l complete |
Now with 25 hours, pulled all inspection covers and the engine cowling. Changed
the oil, cleaned the screen on the A-65. All seems in order. Inspected all
pullies and cable runs and lubed.
Put it all together and ready to go.
But now at 1730 got to go home and do my Fathers Day thing.
Ain't life grand!
walt evans
NX140DL
consider this fair warning to all airports in North Jersey to get ready for a visit
from an antique!
To all people still building.....YES, It IS worth it!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
I have some pietenpol parts I need to get out of my way.
If someone wants this stuff you can have it for hauling it
off. First one gets it. Contact me off list at 417-574-6993
or duane@mo-net.com
w b evans wrote:
>
> Now with 25 hours, pulled all inspection covers and the engine cowling. Changed
the oil, cleaned the screen on the A-65. All seems in order. Inspected all
pullies and cable runs and lubed.
> Put it all together and ready to go.
> But now at 1730 got to go home and do my Fathers Day thing.
> Ain't life grand!
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> consider this fair warning to all airports in North Jersey to get ready for a
visit from an antique!
> To all people still building.....YES, It IS worth it!!!
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
I talked to Duane this morning and have arranged to go pick up all the parts.
I'll inventory everything (this is basically a complete but broken Pietenpol that
had a mishap...) and what I don't need (sounds like there are a few items I've
already built...) will be available to a good home......what he gives me will
be available for the cost of shipping and what he wants to sell, I'll ship
and you can pay him directly.....
If practical, I may bring some additional items he wants to sell (A-65, etc) to
Brodhead....
Jim in Plano.....
-------Original Message-------
From: Duane <duane@mo-net.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: piet parts
>
I have some pietenpol parts I need to get out of my way.
If someone wants this stuff you can have it for hauling it
off. First one gets it. Contact me off list at 417-574-6993
or duane@mo-net.com
w b evans wrote:
>
> Now with 25 hours, pulled all inspection covers and the engine cowling.
Changed the oil, cleaned the screen on the A-65. All seems in order.
Inspected all pullies and cable runs and lubed.
> Put it all together and ready to go.
> But now at 1730 got to go home and do my Fathers Day thing.
> Ain't life grand!
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> consider this fair warning to all airports in North Jersey to get ready
for a visit from an antique!
> To all people still building.....YES, It IS worth it!!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
Just updated my web site with pictures from the Ontario Piet Fly in, at
Armstrong Aerodrome, June 14th
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
| Subject: | Web site addendum |
Sorry forgot the link.
http://home.cogeco.ca/~pietbuilder/index.htm
Ken GN1 2992
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol in Ontario |
Stefan,
You might try Jim Armstrong, in Brussels, Ontario. About 20 minutes flying
time from west of Kitchener.
Or Brian Kenney at the EAA hanger @ CYHM.
Ken
GN1 2992
Stoney Creek.
Canada
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Vorkoetter [mailto:stefan(at)capable.ca]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol in Ontario
Does anyone know where I might see a Pietenpol in Southern Ontario (say
within an hour's flight by C172 from Kitchener)?
Stefan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "A. Moll" <cte77537(at)centurytel.net> |
To thoes of you using motorcycle wheels: are you using the braking system thet
came with the wheels? If so, how do you set-up the brakes when one wheel turns
in a normal direction and the other is turning in reverse? Thanks for the help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Chad and Susan Johnson" <chadnsue(at)earthlink.net> |
Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.
Chad Johnson
--- Susan Johnson
--- chadnsue(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
July 25th to 27th 2003.
>Could someone post the dates of this years Brodhead event. Thank you.
>Chad Johnson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I hate to jump in here to quickly because I'm Not finished with the brake
hook up. I have Yahama 650 wheels and went with the front rotors but I'm
having them milled down to fit a go kart caliper. The rotor is solid so it
isn't directional.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Moll" <cte77537(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wheels
>
> To thoes of you using motorcycle wheels: are you using the braking system
thet came with the wheels? If so, how do you set-up the brakes when one
wheel turns in a normal direction and the other is turning in reverse?
Thanks for the help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
I used motorcycle rims with hubs that I fabricated. Then used go kart
brakes, which were very reasonable in price, and not too hard to add to the
hubs. Some thought that they wouldn't be enough, but they hold fine during
runup, and with all the horror stories about nosing over braking during
rollout, these are just what the doctor ordered for me.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Moll" <cte77537(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wheels
>
> To thoes of you using motorcycle wheels: are you using the braking system
thet came with the wheels? If so, how do you set-up the brakes when one
wheel turns in a normal direction and the other is turning in reverse?
Thanks for the help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net> |
I also have 650 yamaha's and what I did was run one cable and bracket from
the rear of the landing gear and the other
from the front. I use the original shoe brakes and the cam lever on the
brake hub. They are mechanical and won't
stop on a dime but will hold the plane for turning on tight strips.
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Moll" <cte77537(at)centurytel.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wheels
>
> To thoes of you using motorcycle wheels: are you using the braking system
thet came with the wheels? If so, how do you set-up the brakes when one
wheel turns in a normal direction and the other is turning in reverse?
Thanks for the help.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
I am assuming you have drum brakes. If so the cam will spread the shoes with
left or right rotation. I made my own cable attachments and simply
repositioned the levers to both pull the same way. If there is only one shoe
actuator then the braking will be even. "Single leading shoe".
If it is a drum brake with two actuator and a link between them then the
wheel running in reverse will not have the same braking power. "Double
leading shoe" was a big improvement in motorcycle drum brakes but didn't
hold worth a dam going backwards. But then again a bike isn't likely to do
that.
John Mc
To thoes of you using motorcycle wheels: are you using the braking system
thet came with the wheels? If so, how do you set-up the brakes when one
wheel turns in a normal direction and the other is turning in reverse?
Thanks for the help.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
Just went on line yesterday to epanelbuilder.com. This site was in Sport
Aviation, June edition. For those of us that are currently building, this
is a great tool. All panels are to scale as are the instruments. It gives
you a really good idea of how your panel will look.
I updated my web site with the panel I want for my GN1. I would appreciate
any comments on the layout that I have chosen, link below is my web site.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
http://home.cogeco.ca/%7Epietbuilder/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: knobby tires |
Another thought:
I remember reading an article which was probably one of Bob Whittier's re
smooth tires. It was noted that in addition to the sliding on grass aspect
which was thrown off at speed splattering the wings and tail feathers.
Lou Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
>
> There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have on my
> piet.
> I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the grass.
> But those same
> smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will opt
for
> smoothys but
> I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now. I
don't
> plan on doing a
> lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My early flights will be in
> calm weather. And if
> I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was asphalt. I thought I would
> throw this out and get a
> feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> Carl
> check out my webpage at http://members.core.com/skycarl
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sentimental Journey |
Is anyone else on here planning on going to Sentimental Journey in Lock
Haven?? I am planning, last minute, to go up in my Travel Air, it looks
like the weather might be nice for the first time this
year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd like to see/meet whoever is going . . .
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Sentimental Journey |
Gene,
I really want to but the weather coming in from Rochester, NY does not
sound too promising. Plus, Saturday morning is the Retsof Garage
Sale. All 4 streets of town. If things look good I may come down so if
you see a ratty white and dark green Taylorcraft say hi.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
>Is anyone else on here planning on going to Sentimental Journey in Lock
>Haven?? I am planning, last minute, to go up in my Travel Air, it looks
>like the weather might be nice for the first time this
>year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>I'd like to see/meet whoever is going . . .
>
>Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
Yet another thought:
I don't remember where I first saw or read about shaving the knobs off of
knobby tires for that vintage look.
But here are some points I discovered while experimenting with old 21"
knobbys to get the technique down pat.
The tire carcass for knobbies is much heavier than the same size street
tire. The reason, I assume, is to get the stability required when driving on
the outer knobs. I also sectioned though two old tires to see the ply
structure. Knobbies definitely have more plys.
The shaved and sanded tire weighed about the same as a street tire. I
haven't recorded the weights but I did weight the amputated knobs and both
tire types.
I cut the lugs off with a sharp utility knife wetted with dish soap.
Followed by 24 grit disks in a large hand held angle grinder. (Stinks, lots
of rubber dust) I let the tire rotate on the wheel during this operation.
Someone else, perhaps in an EAA publication, polished the sanded tire by
doing "burnouts" on grass with the tire while it was mounted on a
motorcycle. This is not an option for me as 21" tires are not used on the
rear of bikes.
On a Piet the difference may not be much but the shaved smooth look might
reduce drag?
John Mc
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lauritz
Larsen
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
Another thought:
I remember reading an article which was probably one of Bob Whittier's re
smooth tires. It was noted that in addition to the sliding on grass aspect
which was thrown off at speed splattering the wings and tail feathers.
Lou Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
>
> There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have on my
> piet.
> I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the grass.
> But those same
> smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will opt
for
> smoothys but
> I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now. I
don't
> plan on doing a
> lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My early flights will be in
> calm weather. And if
> I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was asphalt. I thought I would
> throw this out and get a
> feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> Carl
> check out my webpage at http://members.core.com/skycarl
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Ken wrote-
>Just went on line yesterday to epanelbuilder.com. This site was in
>Sport Aviation, June edition.
>All panels are to scale as are the instruments.
Hmmm... this raises a question. As it turns out, there was no Pietenpol
panel available on the site this time last year so I drew one up to scale in
CAD and forwarded it to the site owner, and he put it up for our use. My
question is, since the panel on the epanelbuilder site is for a Pietenpol,
how different is the panel on a GN-1?
Side note: I'll be hitting the road tomorrow morning headed up to Boulder,
CO to pick up my daughter. On the way, I plan to stop in Salida to see John
Dilatush's Subaru-powered Piet up in that rarefied mountain-high air.
Pictures next week, if the side trip works out...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ken Rickards <krickards(at)cvci.com> |
Good question... Not having the dimensions of the Piet panel, I assumed
that the GN1 panel would be the same size! I am making my fuse 2" wider
than plans so the panel will not be per plans. Would be interesting to hear
from anyone that has seen both panels!
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Zuniga [mailto:taildrags(at)hotmail.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: panel builder
Ken wrote-
>Just went on line yesterday to epanelbuilder.com. This site was in
>Sport Aviation, June edition.
>All panels are to scale as are the instruments.
Hmmm... this raises a question. As it turns out, there was no Pietenpol
panel available on the site this time last year so I drew one up to scale in
CAD and forwarded it to the site owner, and he put it up for our use. My
question is, since the panel on the epanelbuilder site is for a Pietenpol,
how different is the panel on a GN-1?
Side note: I'll be hitting the road tomorrow morning headed up to Boulder,
CO to pick up my daughter. On the way, I plan to stop in Salida to see John
Dilatush's Subaru-powered Piet up in that rarefied mountain-high air.
Pictures next week, if the side trip works out...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
_
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
For that matter, are there any Piet owners/builders/pilots in or around the
Jefferson County Airport in the Boulder/Broomfield area? I'll be staying
the night in Boulder and would be glad to buy a round...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Split axel landing gear |
| From: | cat_designs(at)juno.com |
The time for a decision on what type of landing gear I am going to build is drawing
near. I am hoping by the end of summer to finally have my fuselage on the
gear. I always thought I was going to build the wood strait axel gear but so
many of you are building it I figured I might want to be different and build
the steel split axel gear. Last night as I was looking at the 1933 plans for
the split axel gear, I noticed that the drawings are different then the gear used
on the Last Original Air Camper built by BHP. The plans show that the shock
struts cross and the shock cords are near the top. On the modified gear the
shock struts come together at a metal fitting about halfway up and the springs
(no shock cords used) are below this fitting. I think this is similar to
the Piper Cub gear. I also noticed a lot of the split axel geared Piets are using
this setup. Anyone know how or better yet have the plans on how to build
this gear? Take a look at this picture to see what I am talking about.
www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=piet-lastoriginal.jpg&PhotoID=521
Also, on the plans it shows a List of Material required to build the split axel
gear. Does anyone know where the 15 x 1x 1/2 strip steel is used? I cant seem
to find where it is used on the plans.
I hate trying to decide things like this. I think I should be building two planes
so I can have both.
Thanks
Chris
Sacramento, CA
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: panel builder |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: panel builder
Just went on line yesterday to epanelbuilder.com. This site was in Sport
Aviation, June edition. For those of us that are currently building, this
is a great tool. All panels are to scale as are the instruments. It gives
you a really good idea of how your panel will look.
I updated my web site with the panel I want for my GN1. I would appreciate
any comments on the layout that I have chosen, link below is my web site.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
http://home.cogeco.ca/%7Epietbuilder/index.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
> Another thought:
>
> I remember reading an article which was probably one of Bob Whittier's re
> smooth tires. It was noted that in addition to the sliding on grass
aspect
> , another attribute was reducing the accumulation of mud/crud on the tires
> which was thrown off at speed splattering the wings and tail feathers.
>
> Lou Larsen
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Loar" <skycarl(at)megsinet.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 11:43 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: knobby tires
>
>
> >
> > There seems to be a concern about the knobby motorcycle tires I have on
my
> > piet.
> > I know most aircraft have smooth tires and it lets you slide on the
grass.
> > But those same
> > smooth tires don't slide much on asphalt runways. Maybe later I will opt
> for
> > smoothys but
> > I think that there shouldn't be a problem with the ones I have now. I
> don't
> > plan on doing a
> > lot of heavy cross wind landings for a while. My early flights will be
in
> > calm weather. And if
> > I do get a cross wind, I'll land like it was asphalt. I thought I would
> > throw this out and get a
> > feel for the groups opinions. Thanks as always.
> > Carl
> > check out my webpage at http://members.core.com/skycarl
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Hello Chris: I built the plans gear with the cross shock struts and
bungees at the top. After building the the shock struts the second time
it dawned on me that I could have made the chore of installing the
bungees so much easier by building these struts J-3 style--turning the
lower 1 1/4" cross tube 90 degree to the top one, then welding it at the
same distance from the top cross tube as the J-3 Cub. Then you can use
off the shelf J-3 bungee cord rings and install them in seconds with a
home made tool, rater than mess with the single 6' piece cord.
Installing that 6' cord has been discussed on the list before, and it
sounds like a real pain. I thought this was an original idea I came up
with, but I've seen several Piets at Brodhead with shock struts built
this way. On building the gear, I built a cradle fixture the same with
and shape as my fus. bottom. This allowed me to build the gear "on the
fuselage" without actually building it on the fuselage, I tack welded it
together, than had a friend mig weld it. ( The wood kind of takes a
beating ) When finished, I moved it to the fus. for fitting. You will
need to move one gear leg foreward 1/16", and the other back 1/16" to
give you 1/8 gap where the shock tubes cross each other, other wise they
will hit and rub on each other. Then drill your holes. Getting your
fuselage on the gear is a real physiological boost and a major turning
point in your building. You didn't ask for all of this, but you got it
any way. Good luck. See you at Brodhead. Leon S. Soon to move into a
house with a real garage!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Malcolm Morrison" <morrisons5(at)adelphia.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sentimental Journey |
Gene
I'll be up there Friday evening. I live just 20 minutes away.
Malcolm Morrison
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sentimental Journey
>
> Is anyone else on here planning on going to Sentimental Journey in Lock
> Haven?? I am planning, last minute, to go up in my Travel Air, it looks
> like the weather might be nice for the first time this
>
year!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I'd like to see/meet whoever is going . . .
>
> Gene
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | split axle landing gear |
I saw "the last original" last saturday at the SAA flyin at
Champaign/Urbana, Ill. It was bought from Andrew Pietenpol by Bill
Knight of Brodhead, Wisc. He may have an e-mail address, but I don't
have it. Also there was Tom Brown of Unity, Wisc. who flew down with
Bill. I was in Piet heaven!
Both planes used that type of landing gear, but the last original
used streamline tubing, although it doesn't look like it in the photo. I
believe the 15" of 1 1/2" material is cut up and part is used at the
junction where the springs attach and part is used down where the other
end is attached at the axle as a gusset to give more strength. The
streamline tubine is mashed flat and bent at the fuselage and a bolt
goes through the landing gear fitting up through the ash 1 X 2 also.
Why this gear isn't in the plans is beyond me. I too would like to
know what the benefit if any there is to this setup. I took some
pictures of the details of the two Piets, but they should both be at
Brodhead this summer so people can look at the details they are
interested in themselves.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | split axle landing gear |
I was told by an old guy at Brodhead several years ago that the 1934 plans
gear could spring "past center" and that is why it is good to use the Cub
style gear using the V shaped cabane. Don't know if this is just Piet lore,
but he claimed to have seen it happen on 9-27 at Brodhead.
If you look at either type gear, from in front of the plane, there is a
triangle formed where one side is the spring leg. The plans triangle has a
bigger aspect ratio and I think that makes its spring leg have to work
harder, and therefore not as efficient, that is why I chose the Cub style
design.
The SAA flyin was great, as Dennis said two Corvair Piets to ogle.
Skip
>I too would like to know what the benefit there is to this setup.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Spring gear-split axle |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Another "advantage" of having the Cub type "V" that I have heard is that
it helps carry the front wing strut loads. I don't know if that is
valid, but I do know that on some Pietenpols the thin strip of steel that
goes across the fuselage bottom at the front wing struts becomes bulged
out because of landing loads. The ash cross member apparently compresses
enough to cause this.
Dick H.
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: split axle landing gear
I was told by an old guy at Brodhead several years ago that the 1934
plans
gear could spring "past center" and that is why it is good to use the Cub
style gear using the V shaped cabane. Don't know if this is just Piet
lore,
but he claimed to have seen it happen on 9-27 at Brodhead.
If you look at either type gear, from in front of the plane, there is a
triangle formed where one side is the spring leg. The plans triangle has
a
bigger aspect ratio and I think that makes its spring leg have to work
harder, and therefore not as efficient, that is why I chose the Cub style
design.
The SAA flyin was great, as Dennis said two Corvair Piets to ogle.
Skip
>I too would like to know what the benefit there is to this setup.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters, One of you must have experienced what I went through this afternoon.
Opening and trying to clean a long dormant A-65 carb. With drills and e-z
outs I finally performed the necessary surgery. HOWEVER, what can one use, beg,
borrow, steal or buy to clean that varnish and the carb itself?
Corky in La getting ready to fire up the powerplant for Repiet (NX311CC)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
MEK or lacquer thinner works well. Spray can of carb cleaner also works.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Carb A-65
>
> Pieters, One of you must have experienced what I went through this
afternoon.
> Opening and trying to clean a long dormant A-65 carb. With drills and e-z
> outs I finally performed the necessary surgery. HOWEVER, what can one use,
beg,
> borrow, steal or buy to clean that varnish and the carb itself?
> Corky in La getting ready to fire up the powerplant for Repiet (NX311CC)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Thanks,
I've plenty of both on hand. Will let you know
CMC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "TWINBOOM" <TWINBOOM(at)msn.com> |
Corky,
There is a product called "Gunk". It comes in aerosol and also comes in
a gallon container complete with dip basket. Nasty nasty sstuff. Use it
outside. Wroks awesome, comes out like a new carb!
Doug Blackburn
Douglas Harley/Elizabeth Blackburn
Yucaipa California
Inland Slope Rebels, Riverside Ca. http://inlandsloperebels.com
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Carb A-65
>
> Pieters, One of you must have experienced what I went through this
afternoon.
> Opening and trying to clean a long dormant A-65 carb. With drills and e-z
> outs I finally performed the necessary surgery. HOWEVER, what can one use,
beg,
> borrow, steal or buy to clean that varnish and the carb itself?
> Corky in La getting ready to fire up the powerplant for Repiet (NX311CC)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Doug,
Been so long since in military I forgot about Gunk but I still remember the
smell. Think I have an aerosol can on a shelve somewhere. Thanks for your
reply. That carb should shine like a new dime tomorrow
CMC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Oscar,
I'm in Utah, but got my ticket at BJC. Great airport, and great
controllers. I was there last week for business. Didn't bring the
piet. I don't think I could convince myself to use it for business
travel...
Stevee
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar
Zuniga
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Colorado Piets
For that matter, are there any Piet owners/builders/pilots in or around
the
Jefferson County Airport in the Boulder/Broomfield area? I'll be
staying
the night in Boulder and would be glad to buy a round...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | John Dilatush's Piet |
Howdy, folks;
I've been to the Rockies and seen John Dilatush's Subaru-powered Piet and
all I can say is... WOW! The problem with people on this list is that you
just can't get 'em to toot their own horns! John's Piet is a masterpiece,
and I got some great photos of it. I just got back home after 4 days and
2100 miles on the road, but as soon as I get the photos downloaded I'll set
up a webpage so all y'all can see the outstanding workmanship and really
innovative installation that John has done. It's an eye-popper.
And thanks, John, for your hospitality and some of that Rocky Mountain "rare
air"!
More to come...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com> |
I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks, pullies,
bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I am now reading
that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole assembly sure
looks good and strong. Matt
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Matt,
This subject has been covered on this list many times in the past.
When the plans were drawn, indicating brazing for parts of the control
system, 4130 didn't exist. I'm sure you noticed that the plans did not call
for 4130.
4130, developed after BHP's early work, has many benefits for aircraft
structure, as well as high-stress items like control systems. It can be
welded easily by a competent hobbyist with inexpensive equipment and, when
welded, is very strong.
However, brazability isn't one of the benefits. (I got lost listening to a
metallurgical engineer in my office expound on the reasons why and it has
something to do with dilution of some of the alloying agents which causes
adverse granularity, or something.) Anyhow, the upshot is: do not braze
4130.
The parts you've brazed, unfortunately, cannot be salvaged because the
brazing has permanently weakened the areas involved in each brazed joint,
even if the joints are melted apart and cleaned.
Mike Hardaway
on 6/24/03 11:39, Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta) at Matt.Miller(at)cox.com wrote:
>
>
> I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
> pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I am
> now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
> assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Matt, while I am not an authority on welding, I do know you are not supposed to
braze 4130. Here is some good reading that may help you:
http://members.eaa.org/home/homebuilders/building/welded/articles.html
-Gary
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
>I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks, pullies,
bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I am now reading
that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole assembly sure
looks good and strong. Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Here too.
http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/trikes/2000q4/005540.html
-Gary
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
>I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks, pullies,
bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I am now reading
that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole assembly sure
looks good and strong. Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
And here, about 1/2 way down, though the whole article is good. 43-13 has good
information.
http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:ZVEDWPf1AsIJ:av-info.faa.gov/dst/43-13/Ch_04-05.doc+brazing+4130+steel&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
(here is the whole document - see chapter 4)
http://av-info.faa.gov/dst/43-13/
I think of the flight controls as sort of structural. I wonder if they brazed the
control stick in that old Three Stooges movie where Curly pulls the stick out
tosses it over the side. ;)
-Gary
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
>I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks, pullies,
bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I am now reading
that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole assembly sure
looks good and strong. Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Gary,
You know, the human mind is a strange thing,,,,on the ground , the three
stooge thing gives us a chuckle, but in the air stuff like that does cross
my mind.
Just today, I wanted to fly really bad. The wind on the ground was light
but with the strong sun made thermals like I was riding a bucking bronco.
You have this feeling that with each shot, something just flew off the back.
Ain't life a kick!
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
snip>
> I think of the flight controls as sort of structural. I wonder if they
brazed the control stick in that old Three Stooges movie where Curly pulls
the stick out tosses it over the side. ;)
>
> -Gary
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
> >
> >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Just after I clicked send, thought of this.
When I started building, my AP mentor told me something that seemed cute,
but just another cleche (sp) that you hear everyday. Now that I am flying
what I built, it's the most important bit of advice he ever told me.
He said,,,"there is no such thing in aircraft building as " that's good
enough" . Nice to know when you are getting beat around in the wind , or
crossing that tree covered forrest and mountain, that you didn't "half
arse" anything.
walt evans
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
snip>
> I think of the flight controls as sort of structural. I wonder if they
brazed the control stick in that old Three Stooges movie where Curly pulls
the stick out tosses it over the side. ;)
>
> -Gary
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
> >
> >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
LOL Walt. I know. I am going so slow and being so meticulous on this Nieuport I
am building. It can be maddening to work for 6 hours and you have one little
metal part in your hand. But I KNOW I did it right and it will hold up in the
air.
-Gary
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:18:50 -0400
>
>Gary,
>You know, the human mind is a strange thing,,,,on the ground , the three
>stooge thing gives us a chuckle, but in the air stuff like that does cross
>my mind.
>Just today, I wanted to fly really bad. The wind on the ground was light
>but with the strong sun made thermals like I was riding a bucking bronco.
>You have this feeling that with each shot, something just flew off the back.
>Ain't life a kick!
>walt evans
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
>snip>
>> I think of the flight controls as sort of structural. I wonder if they
>brazed the control stick in that old Three Stooges movie where Curly pulls
>the stick out tosses it over the side. ;)
>>
>> -Gary
>>
>> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
>> From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
>> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>>
>
>> >
>> >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
>pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
>am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
>assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Am looking for the Pieter in Calgary who I promised to give a center/section
10 gal fuel tank. I lost your name. Would you please contact me direct.
Corky in hot La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Richard Finch wrote the Welder's Handbook and also wrote the welding section
of AC 43-13 so his bias, right or wrong, appears both places. On the other
hand Steve Wittman and his Tailwind builders routinely braze the Tailwind
Tail feathers USING 4130 and vigorously defend the practice. That is why
they call it experimental.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
> Here too.
>
> http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/trikes/2000q4/005540.html
>
> -Gary
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
>
> >
> >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
I should have added I would NOT braze!
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
> Richard Finch wrote the Welder's Handbook and also wrote the welding
section
> of AC 43-13 so his bias, right or wrong, appears both places. On the
other
> hand Steve Wittman and his Tailwind builders routinely braze the Tailwind
> Tail feathers USING 4130 and vigorously defend the practice. That is why
> they call it experimental.
>
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
>
>
> >
> > Here too.
> >
> > http://www.ihpva.org/pipermail/trikes/2000q4/005540.html
> >
> > -Gary
> >
> > ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> > From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
> > Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
> >
>
> > >
> > >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube,
sticks,
> pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
> am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
> assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Gary,
I think we all have to keep the big picture in mind,,,,,if you want to fly
in a rush= buy a plane. But if you want a great hobby for your free time
with a big reward at the end= enjoy building.
(and my hat is off to the guys with little kids and trying to build,,they
have to be a special breed)
Like I've read so many times, and I know it's true,,,,,at any gathering, if
the mention comes out that your hobby is to build planes........Don't care
if there are brain surgeons there. All the conversation will turn to the
airplanes! (including the questions from the brain sergeon)
Ain't life grand!!!
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
> LOL Walt. I know. I am going so slow and being so meticulous on this
Nieuport I am building. It can be maddening to work for 6 hours and you have
one little metal part in your hand. But I KNOW I did it right and it will
hold up in the air.
>
> -Gary
>
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 17:18:50 -0400
>
> >
> >Gary,
> >You know, the human mind is a strange thing,,,,on the ground , the three
> >stooge thing gives us a chuckle, but in the air stuff like that does
cross
> >my mind.
> >Just today, I wanted to fly really bad. The wind on the ground was light
> >but with the strong sun made thermals like I was riding a bucking bronco.
> >You have this feeling that with each shot, something just flew off the
back.
> >Ain't life a kick!
> >walt evans
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com>
> >To:
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
> >
> >snip>
> >> I think of the flight controls as sort of structural. I wonder if they
> >brazed the control stick in that old Three Stooges movie where Curly
pulls
> >the stick out tosses it over the side. ;)
> >>
> >> -Gary
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> >> From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
> >> Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:39:37 -0400
> >>
> >
> >> >
> >> >I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube,
sticks,
> >pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them.
I
> >am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
> >assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
I don't know guys. Most of the references I have seen as proof NOT to braze
4130 is someone on the internet in a chat room saying not to. I have seen
far more examples of aircraft (and other things, like motorcycles) where
4130 WAS brazed and is completely satisfactory. I have done it and seen it
done for years.
This prohibition against brazing 4130 seems to be a fairly recent thing as
far as I am aware (which may simply mean that I am unaware). I have been
searching the internet looking at different companies materials properties
pages and have found no authority for such a prohibition. On the other
hand, I have found many sites which refer to brazing 4130 as an acceptable
method.
Can anyone point to some respectable authority saying that it is not
allowable?
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "James Dallas" <BEC176(at)msn.com> |
Sitting at work today thumbing through my EAA desktop calendar, 29 Aug is the Bi-plane
Piet.
Jim D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
The current line of thought is to scrap any 4130 that is brazed that is
primary structure including the flight controls. Sorry. Should have asked
first.
Chris Bobka
EAA Tech counselor
A&P IA
----- Original Message -----
From: Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta) <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
> I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Wood prop balancing |
Group--- I know there are some of you out there who have built and flown
behind your own wood propellors on your Piets and for that, my hat is off
to you. I was one not to go that far and opted to buy a Falcon wood prop
for my 65 Continental. It's been fine and I've been following the
re-torquing and tracking directions that came with the prop but I've got a
balance problem I think right now. I touched up a few little cinder dings
and re-varnished them a few weeks ago. I'm finding that the plane vibrates
more than usual now in full-power climbs and even somewhat at cruise
settings. Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find the
heavy blade ?
Thanks !
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Wood prop balancing |
Mike,
Check our "How I make Wood Propellers" here
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID=5. Around page 42 or
so. It's a big pdf file (11Mb) but worth the download.
Peter.
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://cpc-world.cable.nu/Pietenpol/pietenpol.htm
-----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: Wood prop balancing
-->
Group--- I know there are some of you out there who have built and flown
behind your own wood propellors on your Piets and for that, my hat is off
to you. I was one not to go that far and opted to buy a Falcon wood prop
for my 65 Continental. It's been fine and I've been following the
re-torquing and tracking directions that came with the prop but I've got a
balance problem I think right now. I touched up a few little cinder dings
and re-varnished them a few weeks ago. I'm finding that the plane vibrates
more than usual now in full-power climbs and even somewhat at cruise
settings. Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find the
heavy blade ?
Thanks !
Mike C. in Ohio
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Share: Share photos & files with other List members.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | FAA's definition of "Electrical System" |
I live and fly within a 30nm of Phoenix class B airspace so I am required to
have a xponder if I also have an "engine driven electrical system" according
to the FAR's.
I'll be running a Corvair engine so I must have a battery since the 'Vair
uses coil/points ignition.
Here's my thought..... what if I used a wind driven generator instead of
alternator driven by the engine. Does this exclude me from having to
operate a xponder??
I really don't want to have to buy & install a transponder/altitude encoder.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | welding vs brazing |
Here's an idea.......... if there is someone out there who is going to scrap their
brazed parts, how about testing them to destruction?
Clamp those suckers in a vise and wail away! Bend them, twist them, hit 'em with
a BIG hammer. Then, report back to the group whether or not you think they would
have held up under the rigors of an Air Camper wafting along at 60 kts. Or
even a Tailwind at 150 kts.
As I look at drawings 4 & 6, it seems that the brazed parts are either captured
inside a torque tube, holding a bolt in place, or are in a compression or other
low-stress application. I have not made a detailed study of each part so maybe
someone else will reply on this.
I've brazed bicycle frames (some are 20 yrs old still providing service), car parts
and admit to having brazed parts on my Piet. The bike parts and Piet parts
are indeed 4130.
Just a thought. Seems like empirical data for something like this on-going argument
might put it to bed for a while.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brazing 4130 |
Matt
Why don't you come out to Carrollton and weld up your stuff. We have 3 very
good tig welders and 3 machines. We have the steel, but haven't started on
the 7 fuselages yet and there is some free time on the machines. We are
welding up all the wing fittings for all the planes, but you could probably
work yours through with no problem. Tig is as about as easy as it comes.
Barry Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miller, Matt (CEI-Atlanta)" <Matt.Miller(at)cox.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: brazing 4130
>
> I recently completed all interior flight controls...torque tube, sticks,
pullies, bell crank. I built exactly like the plans said, I brazed them. I
am now reading that you can't braze 4130. Any comments on this? The whole
assembly sure looks good and strong. Matt
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
"pietenpol"
Gene,
Performance Welding by Richard Finch page 130 published 1997. You can find this
book in Home Depot by the welding stuff. Finch wrote the revised part on welding
in the new AC43 1b
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: bobka(at)compuserve.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 6:18 AM
Subject: brazing
I know what you are saying, but is there any reliable information to support
"the current line of thought"?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | from the archives on brazing |
Gene,
We have been over this before in the archives. This is from the archives:
I will quote from Performance Welding by Richard Finch who is an expert in
welding, is in the aerospace industry, and wrote the parts of AC 43-1B
relating to welding. He says, and I quote without permission:
"Brazing Steel
Always avoid brazing 4130 steel. The reason to not braze chromemoly is
that the steel has a definite grain structure that actually opens up at
medium red brazing temperatures. When brazing alloy is melted onto the
steel surface, it flows easily into the many small cracks and crevices in
the chromemoly steeel. Then as the braze joint cools, the brass will not
compress and it forces MAJOR cracks to form in the 4130 steel. Often, a
brazed 4130 steel part will crack completely in two before your eyes as it
cools.
Mild steel (1020, 1025, and so on) is ready made for
brazing..........Brazing, when done correctly, can last as long as any
other metal-joining method. And it can be as strong as fusion welding when
it is done correctly."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gary McNeel, Jr." <gmcneel(at)mykitplane.com> |
| Subject: | Re: welding vs brazing |
To add to this, why not first take them and have them NDI'd (Non-Destructive Inspection).
See if there are already cracks BEFORE beating on them. Magnaflux at
an engine shop should do the trick.
-Gary
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 10:59:26 -0400
>
>Here's an idea.......... if there is someone out there who is going to scrap their
brazed parts, how about testing them to destruction?
>
>Clamp those suckers in a vise and wail away! Bend them, twist them, hit 'em with
a BIG hammer. Then, report back to the group whether or not you think they
would have held up under the rigors of an Air Camper wafting along at 60 kts.
Or even a Tailwind at 150 kts.
>
>As I look at drawings 4 & 6, it seems that the brazed parts are either captured
inside a torque tube, holding a bolt in place, or are in a compression or other
low-stress application. I have not made a detailed study of each part so maybe
someone else will reply on this.
>
>I've brazed bicycle frames (some are 20 yrs old still providing service), car
parts and admit to having brazed parts on my Piet. The bike parts and Piet parts
are indeed 4130.
>
>
>Just a thought. Seems like empirical data for something like this on-going argument
might put it to bed for a while.
>
>Larry
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craigo" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: from the archives on brazing |
wrote:
Then as the braze joint cools,
> the brass will not
> compress and it forces MAJOR cracks to form in the
4130
> steel.
I used to own and race Formula Ford cars, made in
England with BRAZED joints. True, they were
silicon-bronze brazed, BUT: Whilst rounding turn 9
onto the straight, the right rear upright let go,
putting me into the wall at about 135. Major damage to
both the car and to me. Why did it let go? A major
crack in the brazed joint at the top of the upright!
Convinced me to always use welded joints!!!!
Craig
Lake Worth, FL
Bakeng Duce NX96CW
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craigo" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: from the archives on brazing |
wrote:
Then as the braze joint cools,
> the brass will not
> compress and it forces MAJOR cracks to form in the
4130
> steel.
I used to own and race Formula Ford cars, made in
England with BRAZED joints. True, they were
silicon-bronze brazed, BUT: Whilst rounding turn 9
onto the straight, the right rear upright let go,
putting me into the wall at about 135. Major damage to
both the car and to me. Why did it let go? A major
crack in the brazed joint at the top of the upright!
Convinced me to always use welded joints!!!!
Craig
Lake Worth, FL
Bakeng Duce NX96CW
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
Mike,
I've balanced both my U/L blades, and my Sensinich this way. Its fairly
easy and effective...
For the shaft that you will pivot on I used a chainsaw file. Real cheap,
straight, and vertually wont bend. Then I made two circles out of 1/8" (or
could use 1/4") aircraft ply. Drill clean hole in two pieces of ply to
match the size of the file. Then bolt them together using that hole, and
put in the lathe to turn down the OD to just be able to push into the prop
hole snugly with your fingers.
Now ready to balance. You can use two parallel pieces of steel, or I just
used the vise jaws.
Make sure you check out the setup this way,,,
1 set in jaws looking at front of prop, and make note of which tip drops.
2 rotate prop so now looking at rear of prop (left and right tip still at
same ends) take note of heavy end
3 look at rear but put right tip on left and vice versa
4 lok at front with tips same as #3
note; you're just checking 4 different setups to make sure any error is not
brought on by the vise.
The cool thing is, is you can take a piece of paper about 2" x 3" folded
in a "V" and hook it on a tip and see it fall. Thats how sensitive it is.
Try all tips in all configurations. When you are sure of the setup, and
the prop is in the condition that you want, you can simply brush on another
swipe of urithane on the light blade till it balances. Have to touchup
when dry cause the solvents in the varnish weigh something and they
evaporate off.
We have talked about repairing chips and dings in a wooden prop? Using
super glue and baking soda. It's an amazing process..easy, looks great, and
doesn't let go.
If anyone wants to rehear it let me know.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood prop balancing
>
> Group--- I know there are some of you out there who have built and flown
> behind your own wood propellors on your Piets and for that, my hat is off
> to you. I was one not to go that far and opted to buy a Falcon wood prop
> for my 65 Continental. It's been fine and I've been following the
> re-torquing and tracking directions that came with the prop but I've got a
> balance problem I think right now. I touched up a few little cinder dings
> and re-varnished them a few weeks ago. I'm finding that the plane
vibrates
> more than usual now in full-power climbs and even somewhat at cruise
> settings. Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
> balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
> sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
> out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find
the
> heavy blade ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Travel Air Model A |
Dick Hartwig. In an old post (June 9) you questioned the 7 to 1
compression, hearing that 6 to 1 is about max. for the Ford A. I believe
6 to 1 is the max you should run on babbitt bearings, but this engine
has insert bearings and pressure oiling. 7 to 1 compression should be no
problem for insert bearings. Some of these racers claim to get 100 hp or
more from the A, so I'll bet the compression they run is even higher
than 7 to 1. I need to call them to see if they will rework an already
converted engine. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood prop balancing
++++++++++++++++++++++
Mike,
I made my own prop, in fact two of them. The first one expired when I
carelessly ran into a wooden survey stake that had been there for many
years. Now the fact that I had no foward visibility, my landing was
terrible and I ran off of the paved runway, I still claim, along with the
rest of our American society that it was in no way MY fault. Therefore it
must be someone elses fault, you know a good attorney? SOME ONE ELSE IS
WRONG!
More seriously, however, this is the way that I balance my props. remember
the old wheel balancers of many years ago? They had a bubble in the middle
of them and you put the wheel on the fixture horizontally and then used
weights to center the bubble. Well I had one of these balancers left over
from my sports car building/racing days and decided to try and use it.
I made a adapter that fit the center hole in the prop hub and over the
tapered mandrel of the balancer. The exact design would depend upon your
balancer, most had a tapered cone and you may be able to use just the center
hole of the prop.
Since the center hole was used to center a drill jig for the prop hub holes,
it must be the center of the prop. Then I mounted the prop horizontally on
the balancer, just the same as you would an auto wheel.
From there on, it was easy to balance the prop simultaneously on all planes.
First, get the balance of the blades from end to end right by a little
sanding. Then, in all probability you will find that the bubble is off at
some right angle to the axis of the blades. Then put a stack of washers at
various places around the hub until the bubble centers. Mark the place that
you had the stack of washers, and weigh the washers. Then take some 1/8"
solid soldering material and cut off the same weight as the washers. Drill
a hole large enough to accept the lead solder and drop it in the hole.
Check the balance again to be sure. Pour in some epoxy, put in a wooden
plug, sand flush and you are done except for a little varnish. Now you are
sure that your prop is balanced on all axis.
I have seen these wheel balancers pretty cheap at Harbor Freight or Northern
Tool,
Hope this helps.
John
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Group--- I know there are some of you out there who have built and flown
> behind your own wood propellors on your Piets and for that, my hat is off
> to you. I was one not to go that far and opted to buy a Falcon wood prop
> for my 65 Continental. It's been fine and I've been following the
> re-torquing and tracking directions that came with the prop but I've got a
> balance problem I think right now. I touched up a few little cinder dings
> and re-varnished them a few weeks ago. I'm finding that the plane
vibrates
> more than usual now in full-power climbs and even somewhat at cruise
> settings. Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
> balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
> sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
> out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find
the
> heavy blade ?
>
> Thanks !
>
> Mike C. in Ohio
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Gene,
From "Welding Guidelines with Aircraft Supplement" published 1978, William
H. Kielhorn says, on page 159: "....brazing is not used for structural
repairs on aircraft".
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
Gene,
From "Welding Guidelines with Aircraft Supplement" published 1978, William
H. Kielhorn says, on page 159: "....brazing is not used for structural
repairs on aircraft".
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | even more on brazing |
Gene,
From AC65-15A dated 1972, page 264, "because the strength of brazed joints is not
so great as welded joints, brazing is not used for structural repairs on aircraft."
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | way more on brazing |
Gene,
CAM 18 dated 12/15/59 says in 18.30-4 "Brazing may be used for repair to primary
aircraft structures only if brazing was originally approved for the particular
application....." meaning the metals would need to be compatible.....
Chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
I didn't build my own prop for my minimax, but when I repaired some
nicks I got it slightly out of balance also. I borrowed a deal from
another fellow here in Illinois which looked like an old metal band aid
box, it was about .995 od (to fit in a 1" hole) and about 2 1/2" long
with a shoulder on the bottom. It was hollow with the hole not through,
but ending near the top and coming to a point internally, as if drilled
with a drill. It was slid into the center hole of the prop and sat on
top of a vertical point, like a straight pin. A spot level rested on top
and if the prop was off, the bubble was not in the middle of the circle.
Supposedly very accurate, but you need to make the part which fits into
the hole the same size as the hole, well, a hair less.
Dennis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
Walt,
I have used your system over the years on wooden props and a tip I would
add, the back side of the blade on mine were always a dull black. I would
mist dull black paint from a spray can to help with the balance. Worked
great. Another tip, on the leading edges we have found that electrical tape
works great for protective covering. It is installed while on the parallel
steel pieces.
Going one step farther, we have machined a cone that fits into the prop hub.
Putting a large nail with the tip ground to a sharp point in a vice then
placing the cone on the nail and placing the prop on the cone. Then we used
a small circular Sears fluid filled center finder. This quickly shows if
one blade is off weight. It is placed in the center of the prop hub. Using
this along with the parallel steel pieces method, one can get a wooden prop
balanced quite easily.
I hope I have explained it with acceptable clarity. Just thought I would
add this for food for thought.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood prop balancing
>
> Mike,
> I've balanced both my U/L blades, and my Sensinich this way. Its
fairly
> easy and effective...
> For the shaft that you will pivot on I used a chainsaw file. Real cheap,
> straight, and vertually wont bend. Then I made two circles out of 1/8"
(or
> could use 1/4") aircraft ply. Drill clean hole in two pieces of ply to
> match the size of the file. Then bolt them together using that hole, and
> put in the lathe to turn down the OD to just be able to push into the prop
> hole snugly with your fingers.
> Now ready to balance. You can use two parallel pieces of steel, or I just
> used the vise jaws.
> Make sure you check out the setup this way,,,
> 1 set in jaws looking at front of prop, and make note of which tip drops.
> 2 rotate prop so now looking at rear of prop (left and right tip still at
> same ends) take note of heavy end
> 3 look at rear but put right tip on left and vice versa
> 4 lok at front with tips same as #3
> note; you're just checking 4 different setups to make sure any error is
not
> brought on by the vise.
> The cool thing is, is you can take a piece of paper about 2" x 3"
folded
> in a "V" and hook it on a tip and see it fall. Thats how sensitive it is.
> Try all tips in all configurations. When you are sure of the setup, and
> the prop is in the condition that you want, you can simply brush on
another
> swipe of urithane on the light blade till it balances. Have to touchup
> when dry cause the solvents in the varnish weigh something and they
> evaporate off.
>
> We have talked about repairing chips and dings in a wooden prop? Using
> super glue and baking soda. It's an amazing process..easy, looks great,
and
> doesn't let go.
> If anyone wants to rehear it let me know.
>
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood prop balancing
>
>
>
> >
> > Group--- I know there are some of you out there who have built and flown
> > behind your own wood propellors on your Piets and for that, my hat is
off
> > to you. I was one not to go that far and opted to buy a Falcon wood
prop
> > for my 65 Continental. It's been fine and I've been following the
> > re-torquing and tracking directions that came with the prop but I've got
a
> > balance problem I think right now. I touched up a few little cinder
dings
> > and re-varnished them a few weeks ago. I'm finding that the plane
> vibrates
> > more than usual now in full-power climbs and even somewhat at cruise
> > settings. Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
> > balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
> > sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
> > out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find
> the
> > heavy blade ?
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> > Mike C. in Ohio
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA's definition of "Electrical System" |
I spoke with a couple DAR's today.
The concensus was if I was using a wind driven generator I would in fact be
exempt from having to equip my aircraft with a xponder.
They said that if you take FAR 91.215 as it is written, you only need a
xponder if you have an "engine driven electrical system".
I have already done some initial tests on a wind generator. I have an RC
engine starter which is essentially a permanent magnet DC motor. It has
ball bearings for the commutator shaft and is designed for hi-torque
applications.
I spun the starter at 2200 RPM (hooked up to my hand drill) and recorded
voltage of 6vdc. I hooked the starter up to another small dc motor and
applied a load to this small motor. I then spun the "generator" at 2200 rpm
and recorded as much as 8 amps.
I then spun it at about 4,500 rpm (via pulley and belt of my drill press)
and got approx 13 volts.
Clearly this DC motor would work great as a DC generator driven by wind if I
mount a small propeller to it. I estimate that I would need it to turn
about 5,000 RPM under load. It would be able to provide at least 5-7 amps
continuous... This is within the duty range of the motor.
Next I'm going to mount a 12x5 RC prop on it and do some "wind tunnel" tests
as I hang it off the side of my truck at about 75mph. I'll record voltage
and amps and see what it does.
This should keep my battery topped off as I will only be drawing a couple
amps from the battery with the coil ignition and comm radio.
This is the best way to get around Mode C xponder requirements if you live
within class B!
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
>
> I live and fly within a 30nm of Phoenix class B airspace so I am required
to
> have a xponder if I also have an "engine driven electrical system"
according
> to the FAR's.
>
> I'll be running a Corvair engine so I must have a battery since the 'Vair
> uses coil/points ignition.
>
> Here's my thought..... what if I used a wind driven generator instead
of
> alternator driven by the engine. Does this exclude me from having to
> operate a xponder??
>
> I really don't want to have to buy & install a transponder/altitude
encoder.
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> Mesa, AZ
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> -
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: way more on brazing |
At the risk of getting even more snyde responses, let me point out that the
numerous statements that have been forwarded merely say that brazing is not
acceptable for structural REPAIRS. That is not the same thing as saying
that 4130 should NEVER be brazed.
You know, I am not an idiot, nor am I new to aviation maintenance and
aircraft building/rebuilding. I have stepped up on one of our member's
behalf to question what has become a commonly accepted statement without any
proof behind it.
The only alleged source for a PROHIBITION against brazing 4130 for ANY
application is the guy (whose name I have now forgotten) who contributed to
the revised 43.13. Any others????
If it is such a stupid question, why can't I see more sources?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: way more on brazing
>
> Gene,
>
> CAM 18 dated 12/15/59 says in 18.30-4 "Brazing may be used for repair to
primary aircraft structures only if brazing was originally approved for the
particular application....." meaning the metals would need to be
compatible.....
>
> Chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
In a message dated 6/25/03 7:54:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
<< Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find the
heavy blade ? >>
Mike,
In A&P school they taught us that 'Horizontal Balance' is when the tips point
up and down, and 'Vertical Balance' is when the tips are to the right and
left...go figure. The prop is balanced off the center hole, and tracked off the
flange faying surface.
The way I balance the prop is with a mandrill through the center hole,
set on parallel steel strips, which are edge mounted in a wood box that is
shaped like a 'miter box'. Level the box, check the prop this way, that way, flip
it over and check in both directions again, to make sure you locate the heavy
blade. Add varnish to the flat side (called the 'Face', because it 'faces the
pilot) of the light blade, or add varnish to a low area on the airfoil.
Problem is I can't check the horizontal balance - tips going up and down. I like
the method that John Dilatush mentioned, but I don't like the thought of
drilling hole and adding lead. It would also be necessary to check the prop using
the flange faying surface. I'm now looking for one of these old tire
balancers.
I think one of the major sources of vibrations is when the blade is out
of track. Wood props DEFINITELY contort when nicks allow moisture to enter the
wood, or the prop is not stored with the blades in the horizontal position.
When checking track, make sure the end play in the crank is pushed in the same
direction, and that you use a similar location on each tip. Shim with a
piece of paper. According to AC43-13, wood props are tracked so they are within
1/8" of each other, but I prefer making them track within 1/16".
Another quick check would be to lay the prop on the table, and check the
prop with a straight edge all the way from tip to tip, passing through the
exact center of the center hole, and see if the straight edge lies in the same
part radius of the prop tips. This check would determine if one of the blades
has moved in the plane of rotation.
When building a prop, it is very important to make the shape of the
airfoil at each blade station match exactly on both blades. Hopefully a prop that
is store bought already matches the airfoil shapes.
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craigo" <craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
I'm now looking for one of
> these old tire
> balancers.
Rick and others -
Harbor Freight has a vey good tire balancer for about
$40 +/- (bought it some months ago, but don't remember
the price). It has a truncated cone with a bubble
level in the top, very sensitive. We use it on the
race car tires, as well as our prop.
Craig
Lake Worth, FL
Bakeng Duce NX96CW
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John_Duprey(at)vmed.org |
| Subject: | Re: FAA's definition of "Electrical System" |
06/26/2003 07:46:23 AM
DJ: Sounds real good keep us posted on your progress.
John Duprey
"DJ Vegh" (at)matronics.com on 06/25/2003 08:02:03 PM
Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
I spoke with a couple DAR's today.
The concensus was if I was using a wind driven generator I would in fact be
exempt from having to equip my aircraft with a xponder.
They said that if you take FAR 91.215 as it is written, you only need a
xponder if you have an "engine driven electrical system".
I have already done some initial tests on a wind generator. I have an RC
engine starter which is essentially a permanent magnet DC motor. It has
ball bearings for the commutator shaft and is designed for hi-torque
applications.
I spun the starter at 2200 RPM (hooked up to my hand drill) and recorded
voltage of 6vdc. I hooked the starter up to another small dc motor and
applied a load to this small motor. I then spun the "generator" at 2200
rpm
and recorded as much as 8 amps.
I then spun it at about 4,500 rpm (via pulley and belt of my drill press)
and got approx 13 volts.
Clearly this DC motor would work great as a DC generator driven by wind if
I
mount a small propeller to it. I estimate that I would need it to turn
about 5,000 RPM under load. It would be able to provide at least 5-7 amps
continuous... This is within the duty range of the motor.
Next I'm going to mount a 12x5 RC prop on it and do some "wind tunnel"
tests
as I hang it off the side of my truck at about 75mph. I'll record voltage
and amps and see what it does.
This should keep my battery topped off as I will only be drawing a couple
amps from the battery with the coil ignition and comm radio.
This is the best way to get around Mode C xponder requirements if you live
within class B!
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
>
> I live and fly within a 30nm of Phoenix class B airspace so I am required
to
> have a xponder if I also have an "engine driven electrical system"
according
> to the FAR's.
>
> I'll be running a Corvair engine so I must have a battery since the 'Vair
> uses coil/points ignition.
>
> Here's my thought..... what if I used a wind driven generator instead
of
> alternator driven by the engine. Does this exclude me from having to
> operate a xponder??
>
> I really don't want to have to buy & install a transponder/altitude
encoder.
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> Mesa, AZ
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> -
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Thank you, Walt Evans--- Wood prop balancing |
Walt-- great description for what I need to do to balance my prop. If I
can get some real work out of the way I'll be using my lunch hour to widdle
out some plugs for the prop hub and find a good vice in the shop. Need to
have it back in service for Saturday's Waco Fly-In at Mt. Vernon,
Ohio. I'll be the only monoplane there:)
Mike C. (with air-conditioned cockpits)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Piet electrical system |
Several years ago here was a small write up in Sp. Av. about a small
wind driven gen, It was a bicycle generator, the kind that had a wheel
on it which you positioned against the tire, then as you petalled along
the tire spun the gen. which powered a couple of small lights. Does any
one remember this? How it worked etc? Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david kowell" <dkowell(at)cstone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Web site addendum |
here is agood one 4 u
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Rickards" <krickards(at)cvci.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Web site addendum
>
> Sorry forgot the link.
>
> http://home.cogeco.ca/~pietbuilder/index.htm
>
> Ken GN1 2992
>
> Canada
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | I just gotta share this..... |
I've got to tell you all about my recent "progress".....
Up until a couple weeks ago I had only the center section (90%) done, all
ribs, most of the wing hardware, all the tail wood/hardware done and that
was it. So basically just the center section, tail and ribs.....
Been working on wing design options (I've opted for an I-beam design) and
was about to start cutting, scarfing and assembling the spars/ribs......
I now have all the above AND the fuse (well, the fuse needs a little work,
it's probably 95% ready at this point), tailwheel, split axle gear (damaged
but maybe 50% usable), ALL required turnbuckles and nuts/bolts AND remaining
hardware (I probably won't need to weld much more except some (maybe I'll
braze instead?....sorry, just kidding) on the landing gear, A65 eye brows
and some cowling and many many misc parts. And plenty of Spruce for all the
fiddly odds and ends remaining.
Basically just need to build the wings and landing gear and start on the 95%
they say you have remaining when you get to the 95% point.
This thing is starting to be a REAL airplane........and yes, I know, my
percentages are probably WAY off but as this thing sits, it's getting a LOT
closer!
"My" fuse looks incredible even though it's just propped up on a sawhorse
gear. But my center section is on the plane and the tail is sitting on a
real tail wheel....I always have to turn up the radio so the neighbors
wouldn't hear my airplane sounds....
And what I don't need (from what Duane gave me, thank you Duane...) is (so
far) going to be used on 3 other Air Campers being built in the area. Is
that neat, or what?
You're probably the only group in existense that would understand how
exciting this is.......
And yes, Corky, I'm counting the days too..... (29 to go)
Jim in Plano
My build log: http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=52
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA's definition of "Electrical System" |
DJ,
I remember when the rule on transponders came out and the "engine driven
electrical system" was a hot item. Fortunately, you are correct that with a
wind driven generator, you DO NOT need a xpndr.
The Ward-Aero generator kit that appeared on many taylorcrafts and cubs,
etc, used a Dayton brand Permanent magnet DC motor part number 4Z145
availbale at Grainger's. It is rated 1/20 hp @ 1750 rpm at 12 vdc and 1/9
hp @ 4000 rpm at 24vdc. Full load amps is 5.1 and overall length is 6.44".
It sold a year or two ago (my catalog is old) for $80.80 list.
It is important that the unit does not over rpm as the prop will self
destruct and can kill or injury anyone in its path. Also the bearings may
not be able to take the heat of over revving. At hi rpms, the unit may have
a vibration problem as well.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
>
> I spoke with a couple DAR's today.
>
> The concensus was if I was using a wind driven generator I would in fact
be
> exempt from having to equip my aircraft with a xponder.
>
> They said that if you take FAR 91.215 as it is written, you only need a
> xponder if you have an "engine driven electrical system".
>
> I have already done some initial tests on a wind generator. I have an RC
> engine starter which is essentially a permanent magnet DC motor. It has
> ball bearings for the commutator shaft and is designed for hi-torque
> applications.
>
> I spun the starter at 2200 RPM (hooked up to my hand drill) and recorded
> voltage of 6vdc. I hooked the starter up to another small dc motor and
> applied a load to this small motor. I then spun the "generator" at 2200
rpm
> and recorded as much as 8 amps.
>
> I then spun it at about 4,500 rpm (via pulley and belt of my drill press)
> and got approx 13 volts.
>
> Clearly this DC motor would work great as a DC generator driven by wind if
I
> mount a small propeller to it. I estimate that I would need it to turn
> about 5,000 RPM under load. It would be able to provide at least 5-7 amps
> continuous... This is within the duty range of the motor.
>
> Next I'm going to mount a 12x5 RC prop on it and do some "wind tunnel"
tests
> as I hang it off the side of my truck at about 75mph. I'll record voltage
> and amps and see what it does.
>
> This should keep my battery topped off as I will only be drawing a couple
> amps from the battery with the coil ignition and comm radio.
>
> This is the best way to get around Mode C xponder requirements if you live
> within class B!
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> Mesa, AZ
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> -
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
>
>
> >
> > I live and fly within a 30nm of Phoenix class B airspace so I am
required
> to
> > have a xponder if I also have an "engine driven electrical system"
> according
> > to the FAR's.
> >
> > I'll be running a Corvair engine so I must have a battery since the
'Vair
> > uses coil/points ignition.
> >
> > Here's my thought..... what if I used a wind driven generator instead
> of
> > alternator driven by the engine. Does this exclude me from having to
> > operate a xponder??
> >
> > I really don't want to have to buy & install a transponder/altitude
> encoder.
> >
> > DJ Vegh
> > N74DV
> > Mesa, AZ
> > www.imagedv.com/aircamper
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood prop balancing |
" Face" because it faces the relative wind. The "blade back" is the front
of the prop. Go figure.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood prop balancing
>
> In a message dated 6/25/03 7:54:05 AM Central Daylight Time,
> Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
>
> << Aside from bugging my local IA for his hanging cable prop
> balancing gizmo, HOW ARE you guys balancing your props ? I don't mean
> sanding and adding varnish to the light side---I have that figured
> out. What I specifically am after is what technique do you use to find
the
> heavy blade ? >>
>
> Mike,
> In A&P school they taught us that 'Horizontal Balance' is when the tips
point
> up and down, and 'Vertical Balance' is when the tips are to the right and
> left...go figure. The prop is balanced off the center hole, and tracked
off the
> flange faying surface.
> The way I balance the prop is with a mandrill through the center hole,
> set on parallel steel strips, which are edge mounted in a wood box that is
> shaped like a 'miter box'. Level the box, check the prop this way, that
way, flip
> it over and check in both directions again, to make sure you locate the
heavy
> blade. Add varnish to the flat side (called the 'Face', because it 'faces
the
> pilot) of the light blade, or add varnish to a low area on the airfoil.
> Problem is I can't check the horizontal balance - tips going up and down.
I like
> the method that John Dilatush mentioned, but I don't like the thought of
> drilling hole and adding lead. It would also be necessary to check the
prop using
> the flange faying surface. I'm now looking for one of these old tire
> balancers.
> I think one of the major sources of vibrations is when the blade is
out
> of track. Wood props DEFINITELY contort when nicks allow moisture to
enter the
> wood, or the prop is not stored with the blades in the horizontal
position.
> When checking track, make sure the end play in the crank is pushed in the
same
> direction, and that you use a similar location on each tip. Shim with a
> piece of paper. According to AC43-13, wood props are tracked so they are
within
> 1/8" of each other, but I prefer making them track within 1/16".
> Another quick check would be to lay the prop on the table, and check
the
> prop with a straight edge all the way from tip to tip, passing through the
> exact center of the center hole, and see if the straight edge lies in the
same
> part radius of the prop tips. This check would determine if one of the
blades
> has moved in the plane of rotation.
> When building a prop, it is very important to make the shape of the
> airfoil at each blade station match exactly on both blades. Hopefully a
prop that
> is store bought already matches the airfoil shapes.
>
> Chuck
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: way more on brazing |
Gene,
I am looking for more info on this.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo <rambog(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: way more on brazing
>
> At the risk of getting even more snyde responses, let me point out that
the
> numerous statements that have been forwarded merely say that brazing is
not
> acceptable for structural REPAIRS. That is not the same thing as saying
> that 4130 should NEVER be brazed.
>
> You know, I am not an idiot, nor am I new to aviation maintenance and
> aircraft building/rebuilding. I have stepped up on one of our member's
> behalf to question what has become a commonly accepted statement without
any
> proof behind it.
>
> The only alleged source for a PROHIBITION against brazing 4130 for ANY
> application is the guy (whose name I have now forgotten) who contributed
to
> the revised 43.13. Any others????
>
> If it is such a stupid question, why can't I see more sources?
>
> Gene
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To: "pietenpol"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: way more on brazing
>
>
>
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > CAM 18 dated 12/15/59 says in 18.30-4 "Brazing may be used for repair to
> primary aircraft structures only if brazing was originally approved for
the
> particular application....." meaning the metals would need to be
> compatible.....
> >
> > Chris bobka
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn & Doris Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair Engine Mount |
I'm building a jig to weld up a engine mount per the BHP plans except will be using
the Wynne engine mount and spools. Does anyone have any other recommendations
as to changes in the BHP engine mount plans?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | shielded ignition. |
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
I've been flying for 6 years with the unshielded mags in my A-65 powered
piet and just love flying simple, low and slow. Unfortunately we are
getting a tower at a nearby airport to handle the increased traffic. I
feel like I should start using my handheld. I've tried it though and I
get drowned out with engine noise at anything above half throttle.
Anyone have a solution? I've notice some shielding kits for some mags.
I've got Bendix SF4RN-8 mags.
Been there done that? Please share!
Steve e.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: FAA's definition of "Electrical System" |
Hi
I found with Google an air generator almost at the bottom of the list:
http://www.airportclassified.com/ad_details.asp?offset=1740&ad_id=1171
Hope is not sold, and problem solved.
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Christian Bobka wrote:
>
>
> DJ,
>
> I remember when the rule on transponders came out and the "engine
> driven
> electrical system" was a hot item. Fortunately, you are correct that
> with a
> wind driven generator, you DO NOT need a xpndr.
>
> The Ward-Aero generator kit that appeared on many taylorcrafts and
> cubs,
> etc, used a Dayton brand Permanent magnet DC motor part number 4Z145
> availbale at Grainger's. It is rated 1/20 hp @ 1750 rpm at 12 vdc
> and 1/9
> hp @ 4000 rpm at 24vdc. Full load amps is 5.1 and overall length is
> 6.44".
> It sold a year or two ago (my catalog is old) for $80.80 list.
>
> It is important that the unit does not over rpm as the prop will self
> destruct and can kill or injury anyone in its path. Also the
> bearings may
> not be able to take the heat of over revving. At hi rpms, the unit
> may have
> a vibration problem as well.
>
> chris bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: DJ Vegh <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
>
>
>
> >
> > I spoke with a couple DAR's today.
> >
> > The concensus was if I was using a wind driven generator I would in
> fact
> be
> > exempt from having to equip my aircraft with a xponder.
> >
> > They said that if you take FAR 91.215 as it is written, you only
> need a
> > xponder if you have an "engine driven electrical system".
> >
> > I have already done some initial tests on a wind generator. I
> have an RC
> > engine starter which is essentially a permanent magnet DC motor.
> It has
> > ball bearings for the commutator shaft and is designed for
> hi-torque
> > applications.
> >
> > I spun the starter at 2200 RPM (hooked up to my hand drill) and
> recorded
> > voltage of 6vdc. I hooked the starter up to another small dc motor
> and
> > applied a load to this small motor. I then spun the "generator" at
> 2200
> rpm
> > and recorded as much as 8 amps.
> >
> > I then spun it at about 4,500 rpm (via pulley and belt of my drill
> press)
> > and got approx 13 volts.
> >
> > Clearly this DC motor would work great as a DC generator driven by
> wind if
> I
> > mount a small propeller to it. I estimate that I would need it to
> turn
> > about 5,000 RPM under load. It would be able to provide at least
> 5-7 amps
> > continuous... This is within the duty range of the motor.
> >
> > Next I'm going to mount a 12x5 RC prop on it and do some "wind
> tunnel"
> tests
> > as I hang it off the side of my truck at about 75mph. I'll record
> voltage
> > and amps and see what it does.
> >
> > This should keep my battery topped off as I will only be drawing a
> couple
> > amps from the battery with the coil ignition and comm radio.
> >
> > This is the best way to get around Mode C xponder requirements if
> you live
> > within class B!
> >
> > DJ Vegh
> > N74DV
> > Mesa, AZ
> > www.imagedv.com/aircamper
> >
> >
> > -
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: FAA's definition of "Electrical System"
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > I live and fly within a 30nm of Phoenix class B airspace so I am
> required
> > to
> > > have a xponder if I also have an "engine driven electrical
> system"
> > according
> > > to the FAR's.
> > >
> > > I'll be running a Corvair engine so I must have a battery since
> the
> 'Vair
> > > uses coil/points ignition.
> > >
> > > Here's my thought..... what if I used a wind driven generator
> instead
> > of
> > > alternator driven by the engine. Does this exclude me from
> having to
> > > operate a xponder??
> > >
> > > I really don't want to have to buy & install a
> transponder/altitude
> > encoder.
> > >
> > > DJ Vegh
> > > N74DV
> > > Mesa, AZ
> > > www.imagedv.com/aircamper
> > >
> > >
> > > -
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
I just joined the Pietenpolt list.
I currently have a J-3 (on loan to a friend out of state), and I'm
interested in the Piet Aircamper. I've volunteered and Sun 'n Fun for a
number of years now, and I've seen Piets up close, but never sat in or flew
one.
At one of the Piet forums in April, there was some discussion about tall
and large people fitting in them. I'm 6'2'' and 200lb, so I'm not
particularly wide, but I sometimes have knee andor head clearance problems
in tight vehicles such as some of the gliders. My biggest impediments to
building a Piet are the fit, total useful load (I'd like to take my wife
once in a while) and getting in and out of the front hole, with or without
the door option.
I've also fooled with Corvairs for a bunch of years; I was the president of
Central Florida Corvairs for a couple years in the 90's. I've currently got
a '61 Lakewood and a '66 Ultravan, along with the commensurate spare
engines and transaxles. William Wynne and I have known each other
personally, and I bought his book way back when, although I'm personally
more inclined to the A-65 in an airplane than a Corvair.
Jim Ash
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
Hi Jim
I guess I fit really close to your description, so
I'll give my 2 cents. I'm 6ft and 200 lbs ready to
fly, my piet is 75 percent finished and height and
knee room are not a problem, width is not a problem
for me, but is for wider people. I cut the leg cutouts
larger than plans.
I have a sonex which I installed a vair engine in. it
has flown 4 times. pros and cons are this;
1. corvair is much smoother and has more power.
2. corvair is less money to zero time.
3. corvair sounds as good or better than a continental
4. most continentals have to be propped.
5. can't think of any cons.
they both fly the airplane and create "fun" equally,
so start building and decide on the engine when a deal
comes that you can't pass up. that will give you a
couple of years to think about engines.
It is more fun to watch your wife climb in, than for
her to crawl in. (per watching Mike Cuys girlfriend on
his video). Oh yeah, get his video, that might give
you an idea if the piets for you.
Del
--- Jim Ash wrote:
>
>
> I just joined the Pietenpolt list.
>
> I currently have a J-3 (on loan to a friend out of
> state), and I'm
> interested in the Piet Aircamper. I've volunteered
> and Sun 'n Fun for a
> number of years now, and I've seen Piets up close,
> but never sat in or flew
> one.
>
> At one of the Piet forums in April, there was some
> discussion about tall
> and large people fitting in them. I'm 6'2'' and
> 200lb, so I'm not
> particularly wide, but I sometimes have knee andor
> head clearance problems
> in tight vehicles such as some of the gliders. My
> biggest impediments to
> building a Piet are the fit, total useful load (I'd
> like to take my wife
> once in a while) and getting in and out of the front
> hole, with or without
> the door option.
>
> I've also fooled with Corvairs for a bunch of years;
> I was the president of
> Central Florida Corvairs for a couple years in the
> 90's. I've currently got
> a '61 Lakewood and a '66 Ultravan, along with the
> commensurate spare
> engines and transaxles. William Wynne and I have
> known each other
> personally, and I bought his book way back when,
> although I'm personally
> more inclined to the A-65 in an airplane than a
> Corvair.
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
>
> 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: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
The great thing about a Piet or any homebuilt is that youcan modify it to your
liking.
I'm 6'4" 195lb and I needed to stretch mine about 3" and make it wider by about
1.5 for a good fit.
I have a 1965 110 Corvair that is going in mine and I would have probably gone
with a C90 but aero engines are spendy!
DJ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ash
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 9:05 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Intro
I just joined the Pietenpolt list.
I currently have a J-3 (on loan to a friend out of state), and I'm
interested in the Piet Aircamper. I've volunteered and Sun 'n Fun for a
number of years now, and I've seen Piets up close, but never sat in or flew
one.
At one of the Piet forums in April, there was some discussion about tall
and large people fitting in them. I'm 6'2'' and 200lb, so I'm not
particularly wide, but I sometimes have knee andor head clearance problems
in tight vehicles such as some of the gliders. My biggest impediments to
building a Piet are the fit, total useful load (I'd like to take my wife
once in a while) and getting in and out of the front hole, with or without
the door option.
I've also fooled with Corvairs for a bunch of years; I was the president of
Central Florida Corvairs for a couple years in the 90's. I've currently got
a '61 Lakewood and a '66 Ultravan, along with the commensurate spare
engines and transaxles. William Wynne and I have known each other
personally, and I bought his book way back when, although I'm personally
more inclined to the A-65 in an airplane than a Corvair.
Jim Ash
=
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: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 Intake manifold |
Chris,
It could be sentry. With my lack of hearing I could have made that mistake. I
talked with a Mr. Dave Stovall. They are at 2731 Ludelle St F W, Tex 76105. I
haven't talked with them since I shipped the cyls.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Thanks Pieters,
For your help and advice on finding a Cont manifold.
While scratching through some old parts boxes this afternoon at Lucein Field
a manifold dropped right in my hand. $25 and Mr Harvey and I are both happy.
Corky in La where I just finished my rudder pedal and brake system for Repiet
NX311CC
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 Intake manifold |
Chris,
You are correct. It is Sentry
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: shielded ignition. |
Steve,
I had the same problem in my Taylorcraft when I used the rubber duck
antenna. I now use an antenna in the tail and have no real noise
problems. I have a JHP 500 radio and the A65 has Case mags. You could try
it on the ground by just hooking an antenna to the radio and moving the
antenna back near the tail.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
>
>I've been flying for 6 years with the unshielded mags in my A-65 powered
>piet and just love flying simple, low and slow. Unfortunately we are
>getting a tower at a nearby airport to handle the increased traffic. I
>feel like I should start using my handheld. I've tried it though and I
>get drowned out with engine noise at anything above half throttle.
>
>Anyone have a solution? I've notice some shielding kits for some mags.
>I've got Bendix SF4RN-8 mags.
>
>Been there done that? Please share!
>
>Steve e.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair thoughts |
This is a response I wrote for another forum talking about Corvairs (in
Cubs). And I didn't get into my ignition reservations.
>>>
I'm a long-time Corvair guy. I have two as of this writing, and enough
engines and transaxles in my basement to be embarrassing.
William Wynn is the guy pushing Corvair engines in airplanes. I've known
him now for 6 or 8 years, and I bought his conversion book a long time
back. William had a Corvair in a Pietenpol until he crashed in it, rumored
due to carburetor ice, a few years ago. But he's still pushing Corvairs in
airplanes; he and Grace were manning the engines workshop at the Sun 'n Fun
this year. In addition, Bernie Pietenpol put them in his planes, too.
I'm not saying I wouldn't fly one, but I would have to resolve my
reservations about it first. William's (and Bernie's) installations are
just like airplane motors; The block is bolted to the firewall and the
propeller tries to yank the crankshaft out of the engine along the thrust
line. Mounted in a car, the engine is not subject to any serious thrust
loads, only torque. The Corvair has 4 main bearings, but the thrust bearing
is #1, on the far side of the engine from the prop. Normal airplane engines
have the thrust bearing as the first one next to the prop; from that point,
the crank only has to worry about torque. William claims the engine can
take it. The crank is also subjected to propeller-induced vibrations, but
for some reason that doesn't bother me as much. The flange the propeller is
bolted to is a tapered fit, and pressed on. William has a neat little
'safety flange' to prevent the factory flange from coming off, which, last
I heard, none have, with or without William's add-on. I guess Pietenpol
just bolted up the prop and went flying. I would feel much better all
around if I could run the engine with a 1:1 PSRU (?), just for the thrust
bearing.
All this said, bolting on a Corvair is not like bolting on an A-65. If
you're going to do this, learn about the engine inside and out.
Jim Ash
>
>Hi Jim
>I guess I fit really close to your description, so
>I'll give my 2 cents. I'm 6ft and 200 lbs ready to
>fly, my piet is 75 percent finished and height and
>knee room are not a problem, width is not a problem
>for me, but is for wider people. I cut the leg cutouts
>larger than plans.
>I have a sonex which I installed a vair engine in. it
>has flown 4 times. pros and cons are this;
>1. corvair is much smoother and has more power.
>2. corvair is less money to zero time.
>3. corvair sounds as good or better than a continental
>4. most continentals have to be propped.
>5. can't think of any cons.
>they both fly the airplane and create "fun" equally,
>so start building and decide on the engine when a deal
>comes that you can't pass up. that will give you a
>couple of years to think about engines.
>It is more fun to watch your wife climb in, than for
>her to crawl in. (per watching Mike Cuys girlfriend on
>his video). Oh yeah, get his video, that might give
>you an idea if the piets for you.
>Del
>--- Jim Ash wrote:
> >
> >
> > I just joined the Pietenpolt list.
> >
> > I currently have a J-3 (on loan to a friend out of
> > state), and I'm
> > interested in the Piet Aircamper. I've volunteered
> > and Sun 'n Fun for a
> > number of years now, and I've seen Piets up close,
> > but never sat in or flew
> > one.
> >
> > At one of the Piet forums in April, there was some
> > discussion about tall
> > and large people fitting in them. I'm 6'2'' and
> > 200lb, so I'm not
> > particularly wide, but I sometimes have knee andor
> > head clearance problems
> > in tight vehicles such as some of the gliders. My
> > biggest impediments to
> > building a Piet are the fit, total useful load (I'd
> > like to take my wife
> > once in a while) and getting in and out of the front
> > hole, with or without
> > the door option.
> >
> > I've also fooled with Corvairs for a bunch of years;
> > I was the president of
> > Central Florida Corvairs for a couple years in the
> > 90's. I've currently got
> > a '61 Lakewood and a '66 Ultravan, along with the
> > commensurate spare
> > engines and transaxles. William Wynne and I have
> > known each other
> > personally, and I bought his book way back when,
> > although I'm personally
> > more inclined to the A-65 in an airplane than a
> > Corvair.
> >
> > Jim Ash
> >
> >
> >
> > 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: | "Larry Neal" <lneal(at)ev1.net> |
| Subject: | Matronix list okay? |
Is there a Piet-list problem?
...Or more likely I've been dumped for non-contribution ;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Anderson" <piet4ken(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different application. I
decided to pass.
I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the far
end .
Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
each rod throw too
I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can take
the load.
Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing? Subaru
direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has an
answer.
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair thoughts
>
> This is a response I wrote for another forum talking about Corvairs (in
> Cubs). And I didn't get into my ignition reservations.
>
> >>>
>
> I'm a long-time Corvair guy. I have two as of this writing, and enough
> engines and transaxles in my basement to be embarrassing.
>
> William Wynn is the guy pushing Corvair engines in airplanes. I've known
> him now for 6 or 8 years, and I bought his conversion book a long time
> back. William had a Corvair in a Pietenpol until he crashed in it, rumored
> due to carburetor ice, a few years ago. But he's still pushing Corvairs in
> airplanes; he and Grace were manning the engines workshop at the Sun 'n
Fun
> this year. In addition, Bernie Pietenpol put them in his planes, too.
>
> I'm not saying I wouldn't fly one, but I would have to resolve my
> reservations about it first. William's (and Bernie's) installations are
> just like airplane motors; The block is bolted to the firewall and the
> propeller tries to yank the crankshaft out of the engine along the thrust
> line. Mounted in a car, the engine is not subject to any serious thrust
> loads, only torque. The Corvair has 4 main bearings, but the thrust
bearing
> is #1, on the far side of the engine from the prop. Normal airplane
engines
> have the thrust bearing as the first one next to the prop; from that
point,
> the crank only has to worry about torque. William claims the engine can
> take it. The crank is also subjected to propeller-induced vibrations, but
> for some reason that doesn't bother me as much. The flange the propeller
is
> bolted to is a tapered fit, and pressed on. William has a neat little
> 'safety flange' to prevent the factory flange from coming off, which, last
> I heard, none have, with or without William's add-on. I guess Pietenpol
> just bolted up the prop and went flying. I would feel much better all
> around if I could run the engine with a 1:1 PSRU (?), just for the thrust
> bearing.
>
> All this said, bolting on a Corvair is not like bolting on an A-65. If
> you're going to do this, learn about the engine inside and out.
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> >
> >Hi Jim
> >I guess I fit really close to your description, so
> >I'll give my 2 cents. I'm 6ft and 200 lbs ready to
> >fly, my piet is 75 percent finished and height and
> >knee room are not a problem, width is not a problem
> >for me, but is for wider people. I cut the leg cutouts
> >larger than plans.
> >I have a sonex which I installed a vair engine in. it
> >has flown 4 times. pros and cons are this;
> >1. corvair is much smoother and has more power.
> >2. corvair is less money to zero time.
> >3. corvair sounds as good or better than a continental
> >4. most continentals have to be propped.
> >5. can't think of any cons.
> >they both fly the airplane and create "fun" equally,
> >so start building and decide on the engine when a deal
> >comes that you can't pass up. that will give you a
> >couple of years to think about engines.
> >It is more fun to watch your wife climb in, than for
> >her to crawl in. (per watching Mike Cuys girlfriend on
> >his video). Oh yeah, get his video, that might give
> >you an idea if the piets for you.
> >Del
> >--- Jim Ash wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I just joined the Pietenpolt list.
> > >
> > > I currently have a J-3 (on loan to a friend out of
> > > state), and I'm
> > > interested in the Piet Aircamper. I've volunteered
> > > and Sun 'n Fun for a
> > > number of years now, and I've seen Piets up close,
> > > but never sat in or flew
> > > one.
> > >
> > > At one of the Piet forums in April, there was some
> > > discussion about tall
> > > and large people fitting in them. I'm 6'2'' and
> > > 200lb, so I'm not
> > > particularly wide, but I sometimes have knee andor
> > > head clearance problems
> > > in tight vehicles such as some of the gliders. My
> > > biggest impediments to
> > > building a Piet are the fit, total useful load (I'd
> > > like to take my wife
> > > once in a while) and getting in and out of the front
> > > hole, with or without
> > > the door option.
> > >
> > > I've also fooled with Corvairs for a bunch of years;
> > > I was the president of
> > > Central Florida Corvairs for a couple years in the
> > > 90's. I've currently got
> > > a '61 Lakewood and a '66 Ultravan, along with the
> > > commensurate spare
> > > engines and transaxles. William Wynne and I have
> > > known each other
> > > personally, and I bought his book way back when,
> > > although I'm personally
> > > more inclined to the A-65 in an airplane than a
> > > Corvair.
> > >
> > > Jim Ash
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
Ken -
If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I probably wouldn't care
where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line through 24(?) 90
degree bends is specifically the scariest part of the thrust-line thing for me.
I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars maybe 8 years ago (on the
way home from the airport after playing with the Cub, no less). It can be
done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the 'experts' tell you how
strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is forging factory new Corvair
cranks, and you probably don't know the history of the one you have, to
know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux it or do some other
kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they could have predicted that
crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old crank as proof. It
cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right next to the #4
bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the crank from the #1 cylinder
to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to the crank, so that
last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6 cylinders, while the first lobe
only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the fuel pump eccentric; big
whoop.
To its credit, the engine was still running with the broken crank when I
shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I knew something was wrong
deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I pulled into a gas
station and called for a tow. The first three mains held the bulk of the
crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last chunk and the torque
converter, which I found more surprising, given there weren't at least two
bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I suspect the drive shaft
and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The crack remained aligned
well enough to continue to 'push' the output section of crank around. I was
amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around the bearings wasn't
even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of my cars today, although
I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
I think William experimented with driving a prop from the pulley side of
the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't know the mechanics of
how he set it up.
Jim Ash
>
>Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different application. I
>decided to pass.
>I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the far
>end .
>Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
>each rod throw too
>I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
>aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can take
>the load.
>Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
>attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
>Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing? Subaru
>direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has an
>answer.
>
>Ken
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
Thanks for sharing your Broken Crank experience, I'm
open to what everybody's experience has been, this is
the second broken crank I've heard of, thats not very
many in 43 yrs of flying and driving with a corvair.
My neighbor used to race corvairs in the 60s. He said
that he's broken everypart of the engine, but never a
crankshaft. And since I am derating my vair to about
1/2 of the horses he pushed out, and never abusing it
to the point that the racers do, I feel assured that
the crank is not a weak point. and has been well
tested.
Del
--- Jim Ash wrote:
>
>
> Ken -
>
> If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I
> probably wouldn't care
> where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line
> through 24(?) 90
> degree bends is specifically the scariest part of
> the thrust-line thing for me.
>
> I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars
> maybe 8 years ago (on the
> way home from the airport after playing with the
> Cub, no less). It can be
> done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the
> 'experts' tell you how
> strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is
> forging factory new Corvair
> cranks, and you probably don't know the history of
> the one you have, to
> know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux
> it or do some other
> kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they
> could have predicted that
> crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old
> crank as proof. It
> cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right
> next to the #4
> bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the
> crank from the #1 cylinder
> to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to
> the crank, so that
> last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6
> cylinders, while the first lobe
> only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the
> fuel pump eccentric; big
> whoop.
>
> To its credit, the engine was still running with the
> broken crank when I
> shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I
> knew something was wrong
> deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I
> pulled into a gas
> station and called for a tow. The first three mains
> held the bulk of the
> crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last
> chunk and the torque
> converter, which I found more surprising, given
> there weren't at least two
> bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I
> suspect the drive shaft
> and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The
> crack remained aligned
> well enough to continue to 'push' the output section
> of crank around. I was
> amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around
> the bearings wasn't
> even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of
> my cars today, although
> I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
>
> I think William experimented with driving a prop
> from the pulley side of
> the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't
> know the mechanics of
> how he set it up.
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> Anderson"
> >
> >Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a
> different application. I
> >decided to pass.
> >I too had concerns with the thrust going through
> the crankshaft to the far
> >end .
> >Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90
> degree turns thtough
> >each rod throw too
> >I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell
> converted VW engines for
> >aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The
> crank is forged and can take
> >the load.
> >Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop
> extension (1:1 ) that
> >attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take
> the thrust loads.
> >Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is
> the thrust bearing? Subaru
> >direct drive applications where is the thrust
> bearing? Maybe someone has an
> >answer.
> >
> >Ken
> ...
>
>
>
> 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 McNarry" <jmcnarry(at)escape.ca> |
| Subject: | Corvair thoughts |
Very interesting observations Ken
The Ford A or B engines as used in Pietenpols have the output from the
flywheel end and to boot the thrust flange is at the prop end. The output
bearing is considerably longer than the rest as well. ( Should be able to
handle P factor loads from me doing severe aerobatics. Big Grin ) My engine
is a B with the crank drilled for oiling. The bearing sizes work out very
close to those in an o-200 Continental. Perhaps the Ford engines aren't so
foolish after all?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Jim Ash
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair thoughts
Ken -
If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I probably wouldn't care
where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line through 24(?) 90
degree bends is specifically the scariest part of the thrust-line thing for
me.
I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars maybe 8 years ago (on the
way home from the airport after playing with the Cub, no less). It can be
done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the 'experts' tell you how
strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is forging factory new Corvair
cranks, and you probably don't know the history of the one you have, to
know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux it or do some other
kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they could have predicted that
crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old crank as proof. It
cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right next to the #4
bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the crank from the #1 cylinder
to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to the crank, so that
last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6 cylinders, while the first lobe
only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the fuel pump eccentric; big
whoop.
To its credit, the engine was still running with the broken crank when I
shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I knew something was wrong
deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I pulled into a gas
station and called for a tow. The first three mains held the bulk of the
crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last chunk and the torque
converter, which I found more surprising, given there weren't at least two
bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I suspect the drive shaft
and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The crack remained aligned
well enough to continue to 'push' the output section of crank around. I was
amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around the bearings wasn't
even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of my cars today, although
I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
I think William experimented with driving a prop from the pulley side of
the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't know the mechanics of
how he set it up.
Jim Ash
>
>Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different application.
I
>decided to pass.
>I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the far
>end .
>Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
>each rod throw too
>I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
>aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can
take
>the load.
>Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
>attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
>Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing?
Subaru
>direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has an
>answer.
>
>Ken
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com> |
| Subject: | Cover for Wood Prop |
Since my newly completed GN-1 may have to live in the Fla. sun and rain for awhile,
I would like to protect this nice new wooden prop as best I can. What would
be the best material to make a cover out of without cooking it (the prop)?
DickG. in Ft.Myers
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I just gotta share this..... |
Congratulations to Jim in Plano,
I have been there twice and I fully know the feelings.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I just gotta share this.....
>
> I've got to tell you all about my recent "progress".....
>
> Up until a couple weeks ago I had only the center section (90%) done, all
> ribs, most of the wing hardware, all the tail wood/hardware done and that
> was it. So basically just the center section, tail and ribs.....
>
> Been working on wing design options (I've opted for an I-beam design) and
> was about to start cutting, scarfing and assembling the spars/ribs......
>
> I now have all the above AND the fuse (well, the fuse needs a little work,
> it's probably 95% ready at this point), tailwheel, split axle gear
(damaged
> but maybe 50% usable), ALL required turnbuckles and nuts/bolts AND
remaining
> hardware (I probably won't need to weld much more except some (maybe I'll
> braze instead?....sorry, just kidding) on the landing gear, A65 eye brows
> and some cowling and many many misc parts. And plenty of Spruce for all
the
> fiddly odds and ends remaining.
>
> Basically just need to build the wings and landing gear and start on the
95%
> they say you have remaining when you get to the 95% point.
>
> This thing is starting to be a REAL airplane........and yes, I know, my
> percentages are probably WAY off but as this thing sits, it's getting a
LOT
> closer!
>
> "My" fuse looks incredible even though it's just propped up on a sawhorse
> gear. But my center section is on the plane and the tail is sitting on a
> real tail wheel....I always have to turn up the radio so the neighbors
> wouldn't hear my airplane sounds....
>
> And what I don't need (from what Duane gave me, thank you Duane...) is (so
> far) going to be used on 3 other Air Campers being built in the area. Is
> that neat, or what?
>
> You're probably the only group in existense that would understand how
> exciting this is.......
>
> And yes, Corky, I'm counting the days too..... (29 to go)
>
> Jim in Plano
> My build log:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReport.cfm?PlaneID=52
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | driving Miss Daisy |
To Jim (and the others with reservations about the Corvair)- just use
something else if you aren't comfortable with the thrust bearing or anything
else about it. Lots of hours have been flown behind Corvairs in Pietenpols,
but if it's not for you- there are plenty of other options! This is about
fun flying, and it ain't fun if you're sweating bullets every time you shout
'clear'. But if you want to seriously investigate the option, why not join
the CorvAIRCRAFT list and get your questions answered or discussed? Go to
http://www.krnet.org/corvaircraft_inst.html for info on joining or listening
in.
And to Del's response to your concern about your wife's ability to get into
the front cockpit (he wrote-
>It is more fun to watch your wife climb in, than for
>her to crawl in. (per watching Mike Cuys girlfriend on
>his video)
Think of it this way- with the Pietenpol you get the chance to check out
plenty of female -er- 'seat cushions' if you give rides ;o)
Adding a door to the front cockpit makes it much more graceful. Take a look
at John Dilatush's setup at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/P6210011.JPG to
give you an idea of how much easier it is without the cabane X-bracing and
with an added door.
And welcome to the lowest, slowest, oldest bunch of homebuilders on the Net.
Anybody who likes a Piet has to be OK...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Cover for Wood Prop |
My Seadoo cover is made from a very heavy canvas type of material. It
takes the Arizona sun just fine....... but we hardly get rain here.
Maybe try a neoprene material... like they use for wetsuits. Get white if
you can to help reflect the sun's heat.... neoprene will keep the moisture
out... It can be found at marine upholstery stores....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cover for Wood Prop
>
> Since my newly completed GN-1 may have to live in the Fla. sun and rain
for awhile, I would like to protect this nice new wooden prop as best I
can. What would be the best material to make a cover out of without cooking
it (the prop)?
>
> DickG. in Ft.Myers
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
Jim,
Keep in mind that the crank on an aircraft never has an instantaneous torsional
load of the magnitude it would get from a popped clutch or even mildly aggressive
driving (such as pulling out on the highway with traffic). The load is relatively
constant and smoothly applied, even with a decent sized prop. I am
of the opinion also that the thrust bearing would be much more of an issue in
a heavier and higher performance aircraft than pulling what isn't much more than
a big kite! Of course, I may be completely wrong for the first time ever in
my life... ;-)
John
John Ford
jford(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> ashcan(at)earthlink.net Friday, June 27, 2003 11:45:36 PM >>>
Ken -
If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I probably wouldn't care
where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line through 24(?) 90
degree bends is specifically the scariest part of the thrust-line thing for me.
I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars maybe 8 years ago (on the
way home from the airport after playing with the Cub, no less). It can be
done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the 'experts' tell you how
strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is forging factory new Corvair
cranks, and you probably don't know the history of the one you have, to
know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux it or do some other
kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they could have predicted that
crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old crank as proof. It
cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right next to the #4
bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the crank from the #1 cylinder
to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to the crank, so that
last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6 cylinders, while the first lobe
only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the fuel pump eccentric; big
whoop.
To its credit, the engine was still running with the broken crank when I
shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I knew something was wrong
deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I pulled into a gas
station and called for a tow. The first three mains held the bulk of the
crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last chunk and the torque
converter, which I found more surprising, given there weren't at least two
bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I suspect the drive shaft
and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The crack remained aligned
well enough to continue to 'push' the output section of crank around. I was
amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around the bearings wasn't
even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of my cars today, although
I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
I think William experimented with driving a prop from the pulley side of
the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't know the mechanics of
how he set it up.
Jim Ash
>
>Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different application. I
>decided to pass.
>I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the far
>end .
>Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
>each rod throw too
>I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
>aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can take
>the load.
>Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
>attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
>Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing? Subaru
>direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has an
>answer.
>
>Ken
...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Cover for Wood Prop |
I would imagine you also need to consider something loose fitting that will allow
some airflow to deal with any condensation issues. Florida air seems to be
mostly water...
John
John Ford
jford(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> aircamper(at)imagedv.com Saturday, June 28, 2003 10:12:59 AM >>>
My Seadoo cover is made from a very heavy canvas type of material. It
takes the Arizona sun just fine....... but we hardly get rain here.
Maybe try a neoprene material... like they use for wetsuits. Get white if
you can to help reflect the sun's heat.... neoprene will keep the moisture
out... It can be found at marine upholstery stores....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cover for Wood Prop
>
> Since my newly completed GN-1 may have to live in the Fla. sun and rain
for awhile, I would like to protect this nice new wooden prop as best I
can. What would be the best material to make a cover out of without cooking
it (the prop)?
>
> DickG. in Ft.Myers
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
I concur.... a car pulling hard through the gears up to redline creates
alot more torsional stress/variances than a 68" prop running smoothly at
about 3300 rpm..... plus alot of manual tranny drivers like to
downshift/engine brake when slowing.... putting negative torque on that
crank... this is stuff you just don't get in the air.
I really feel a 'Vair in a plane like the Piet is the way to go.... but
you gotta build the engine yourself and get intimate with it.... know it's
every bolt & piece.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair thoughts
>
> Jim,
>
> Keep in mind that the crank on an aircraft never has an instantaneous
torsional load of the magnitude it would get from a popped clutch or even
mildly aggressive driving (such as pulling out on the highway with traffic).
The load is relatively constant and smoothly applied, even with a decent
sized prop. I am of the opinion also that the thrust bearing would be much
more of an issue in a heavier and higher performance aircraft than pulling
what isn't much more than a big kite! Of course, I may be completely wrong
for the first time ever in my life... ;-)
>
> John
>
> John Ford
> jford(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> ashcan(at)earthlink.net Friday, June 27, 2003 11:45:36 PM >>>
>
> Ken -
>
> If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I probably wouldn't care
> where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line through 24(?) 90
> degree bends is specifically the scariest part of the thrust-line thing
for me.
>
> I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars maybe 8 years ago (on the
> way home from the airport after playing with the Cub, no less). It can be
> done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the 'experts' tell you how
> strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is forging factory new
Corvair
> cranks, and you probably don't know the history of the one you have, to
> know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux it or do some other
> kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they could have predicted
that
> crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old crank as proof. It
> cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right next to the #4
> bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the crank from the #1
cylinder
> to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to the crank, so that
> last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6 cylinders, while the first
lobe
> only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the fuel pump eccentric; big
> whoop.
>
> To its credit, the engine was still running with the broken crank when I
> shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I knew something was
wrong
> deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I pulled into a gas
> station and called for a tow. The first three mains held the bulk of the
> crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last chunk and the torque
> converter, which I found more surprising, given there weren't at least two
> bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I suspect the drive
shaft
> and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The crack remained
aligned
> well enough to continue to 'push' the output section of crank around. I
was
> amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around the bearings wasn't
> even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of my cars today, although
> I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
>
> I think William experimented with driving a prop from the pulley side of
> the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't know the mechanics of
> how he set it up.
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
> >
> >Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different
application. I
> >decided to pass.
> >I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the
far
> >end .
> >Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
> >each rod throw too
> >I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
> >aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can
take
> >the load.
> >Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
> >attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
> >Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing?
Subaru
> >direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has
an
> >answer.
> >
> >Ken
> ...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair thoughts |
I agree with the difference in forces between automotive use and aircraft use.
I've blown a head gasket on a 4-cylinder engine at 2000' ATL (Above Tree
Level), and had to nurse the plane down. This kind of thing is just one of
the risks, but it makes me more sensitive to the possibilites.
I haven't ruled out flying behind a Corvair, but I would only do it behind
a late model 110 (maybe a 95). And it would be derated somehow. I knew a
guy that put a V-8 with a reduction gear in place of an OX-5. The FAA
wouldn't sign off on it unless he severely restricted the V-8, so I've seen
the drill before.
Jim Ash
>
>Jim,
>
>Keep in mind that the crank on an aircraft never has an instantaneous
>torsional load of the magnitude it would get from a popped clutch or even
>mildly aggressive driving (such as pulling out on the highway with
>traffic). The load is relatively constant and smoothly applied, even with
>a decent sized prop. I am of the opinion also that the thrust bearing
>would be much more of an issue in a heavier and higher performance
>aircraft than pulling what isn't much more than a big kite! Of course, I
>may be completely wrong for the first time ever in my life... ;-)
>
>John
>
>John Ford
>jford(at)indstate.edu
>812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> ashcan(at)earthlink.net Friday, June 27, 2003 11:45:36 PM >>>
>
>Ken -
>
>If the crank were just a chunk of straight steel, I probably wouldn't care
>where the thrust bearing is. Pushing the thrust line through 24(?) 90
>degree bends is specifically the scariest part of the thrust-line thing
>for me.
>
>I broke a Corvair crank in two in one of my cars maybe 8 years ago (on the
>way home from the airport after playing with the Cub, no less). It can be
>done, so don't try to lie to yourself when the 'experts' tell you how
>strong it is and it can never happen. Nobody is forging factory new Corvair
>cranks, and you probably don't know the history of the one you have, to
>know if it was abused somehow. You could magnaflux it or do some other
>kinds of tests, but I honestly don't know if they could have predicted that
>crank failure. Unfortunately, I didn't save the old crank as proof. It
>cracked across one of the crank lobes, the one right next to the #4
>bearing. If you think about it, as you go up the crank from the #1 cylinder
>to the #6, each one adds successively more torque to the crank, so that
>last lobe is getting pushed around by all 6 cylinders, while the first lobe
>only has to turn the distributor/oil pump and the fuel pump eccentric; big
>whoop.
>
>To its credit, the engine was still running with the broken crank when I
>shut it down. I had a sudden nasty vibration and I knew something was wrong
>deep inside, but I made it maybe 2-3 miles before I pulled into a gas
>station and called for a tow. The first three mains held the bulk of the
>crank in place and aligned, and #4 held the last chunk and the torque
>converter, which I found more surprising, given there weren't at least two
>bearings to support it, and the #4 isn't flanged. I suspect the drive shaft
>and gyroscopic effect helped with the alighment. The crack remained aligned
>well enough to continue to 'push' the output section of crank around. I was
>amazed when I popped the top cover. The case around the bearings wasn't
>even destroyed, more remarkably. It runs in one of my cars today, although
>I wouldn't have it in an airplane.
>
>I think William experimented with driving a prop from the pulley side of
>the crank instead of the flywheel side, but I don't know the mechanics of
>how he set it up.
>
>Jim Ash
>
>
>
> >
> >Years ago I was looking into using a VW engine in a different application. I
> >decided to pass.
> >I too had concerns with the thrust going through the crankshaft to the far
> >end .
> >Not just that but the thrust forces have to make 90 degree turns thtough
> >each rod throw too
> >I talked to the Great Planes folks that sell converted VW engines for
> >aircraft and said that it was not an issue. The crank is forged and can take
> >the load.
> >Great Planes is now selling a thrust unit / prop extension (1:1 ) that
> >attaches to the flywheel end of a VW engine to take the thrust loads.
> >Limbach engines are loosely based on VW. Where is the thrust bearing? Subaru
> >direct drive applications where is the thrust bearing? Maybe someone has an
> >answer.
> >
> >Ken
>...
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cover for Wood Prop |
This guy makes custom covers and shows up at Sun 'n Fun every year:
http://www.aircraftcovers.com/
If I ever put my Cub on floats and have to leave it outside, I'll get a
complete set from him. His stuff is all custom, so if you want to pay the
price, I'm sure he could get you a prop cover. It couldn't hurt to call him
and ask. I had a Vinyl cover with a lining for the wood prop on the Cub,
especially when I lived in Florida. You need something that breaths so the
moisture won't stay. You'll also want to keep your prop in a horizontal
position when the plane isn't in use, with or without a cover, so the water
doesn't run down to the lower blade, soak in, and make that side heavier.
Jim Ash
>
>My Seadoo cover is made from a very heavy canvas type of material. It
>takes the Arizona sun just fine....... but we hardly get rain here.
>
>Maybe try a neoprene material... like they use for wetsuits. Get white if
>you can to help reflect the sun's heat.... neoprene will keep the moisture
>out... It can be found at marine upholstery stores....
>
>
>DJ Vegh
>N74DV
>Mesa, AZ
>www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
>-
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com>
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cover for Wood Prop
>
>
>
> >
> > Since my newly completed GN-1 may have to live in the Fla. sun and rain
>for awhile, I would like to protect this nice new wooden prop as best I
>can. What would be the best material to make a cover out of without cooking
>it (the prop)?
> >
> > DickG. in Ft.Myers
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Pedals vs Rudder Bar |
Pieters,
I hope I'm not about to stir up a big pot of Piet soup, BUT, will someone
with much more knowledge and experience than I please try to convince me that the
rudder bar as in the plans, 3 inches high, is as good or better than a rudder
pedal 5 or 6 inches high.
Corky in La wanting to be convinced
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pedals vs Rudder Bar |
In a message dated 6/28/03 6:42:38 PM Central Daylight Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< will someone
with much more knowledge and experience than I please try to convince me
that the
rudder bar as in the plans, 3 inches high, is as good or better than a
rudder
pedal 5 or 6 inches high. >>
Because it's the way Bernard Pietenpol designed it. If you use pedals, they
MUST be connected to a front rudder bar with rods, to keep from tearing the
rudder horn loose...in flight this could ruin your whole day. Personally, I
have no problem with the rudder bar.
Chuck Gantzer
with 8.3 hours of trouble free flying behind the ol' Continental !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "LAWRENCE WILLIAMS" <lnawms(at)msn.com> |
Corky-
I can only relate to my own experience but, you asked........
The rudder-bar, like so many things on the plans, becomes "invisible" when the
time comes to fly. There is so much fretting and worrying on the list about why
things should be changed to make them "better" when the time could be better
spent in building. We'd probably have a lot more airplanes in the air if we spent
our keyboard time out in the shop.
I don't know what your shoe size is, what your experience has been, nor anything
about your anatomy but the rudder bar works to perfection for me.
There was a quote by Jim Vandervoort that Grant used to put in the newsletters
that said, "You can change the plans and make a good airplane but if you don't,
you'll have a better one". Seems to be valid from my observations even though
the innovations are fun to see.
Larry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: pedals vs bars |
Larry,
Thanks to you and all who have commented on my plight. The rudder bar is ok
as BHP designed it in 1929. Henry Ford created quite a sensation with the
advent of the Model A in 1928. I am flying with the bar in 41CC but I am not
comfortable with it on T/O or landing. It being so low I have to place my heels
and/or insteps on the bar and create the movement from my hip joints which is
awkard. It also contributes to pilot fatigue. That means I get tired and can
hardly walk after a flight. That's not BHP's fault.
Maybe I learned to fly, if I ever did, on the wrong type of aircraft, or
don't have enough experience. I just don't feel comfortable with that rudder bar.
Maybe I'll just go back to flight school, Sport Pilot School.
I have front and rear pedals fabbed for Repiet but after so much objection
from the list I might give a skosh and install a bar forward to control the load
on the rudder horns but will keep the Cessna pedals and brake cyls for the
rear pilot.(That's me, I hope).
Thanks again for your pros and cons. It helps
Corky in La, tack welding control horns today AFTER Isabelle's honeydoes are
completed
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | e-mail addresses |
Does anyone have the e-mail address of Tom Brown, of Unity, Wisc or Bill
Knight, of Brodhead, Wisc?
Both have corvair powered Piets and both were at the SAA fly-in at
Champaign/Urbana this month. Would like to ask questions of them.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D. Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pedals vs bars |
From what I have seen, Mr. Pietenpol himself was constantly
experimenting and trying new approaches to doing things. Details of his
earlier planes and his later planes differ from the plans.
LAWRENCE WILLIAMS wrote:
>
>Corky-
>
>I can only relate to my own experience but, you asked........
>
>The rudder-bar, like so many things on the plans, becomes "invisible" when the
time comes to fly. There is so much fretting and worrying on the list about why
things should be changed to make them "better" when the time could be better
spent in building. We'd probably have a lot more airplanes in the air if we
spent our keyboard time out in the shop.
>
>I don't know what your shoe size is, what your experience has been, nor anything
about your anatomy but the rudder bar works to perfection for me.
>
>There was a quote by Jim Vandervoort that Grant used to put in the newsletters
that said, "You can change the plans and make a good airplane but if you don't,
you'll have a better one". Seems to be valid from my observations even though
the innovations are fun to see.
>
>Larry
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: e-mail addresses |
The easiest way that I have found to find pilots is to go to
http://www.Landings.com and click on databases (at the bottom of the
screen). You can look up certificate holders and aircraft
registration. The certificate holder info includes the address that the
FAA has on file.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
>Does anyone have the e-mail address of Tom Brown, of Unity, Wisc or Bill
>Knight, of Brodhead, Wisc?
>
> Both have corvair powered Piets and both were at the SAA fly-in at
>Champaign/Urbana this month. Would like to ask questions of them.
>
>Dennis Engelkenjohn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pedals vs bars |
Corky,
I'm with you on the rudder bar thing. Gave it a fair shot but as per my
postings before, didn't feel comfortable either.
Now that I have about 10 hours on the modified bar, very happy with it and
wouldn't go back. And because the bar is still there, got the best of both
worlds.
I had posted pics but if you or anyone wants to see them, let me know.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: pedals vs bars
>
> Larry,
> Thanks to you and all who have commented on my plight. The rudder bar is
ok
> as BHP designed it in 1929. Henry Ford created quite a sensation with the
> advent of the Model A in 1928. I am flying with the bar in 41CC but I am
not
> comfortable with it on T/O or landing. It being so low I have to place my
heels
> and/or insteps on the bar and create the movement from my hip joints which
is
> awkard. It also contributes to pilot fatigue. That means I get tired and
can
> hardly walk after a flight. That's not BHP's fault.
> Maybe I learned to fly, if I ever did, on the wrong type of aircraft, or
> don't have enough experience. I just don't feel comfortable with that
rudder bar.
> Maybe I'll just go back to flight school, Sport Pilot School.
> I have front and rear pedals fabbed for Repiet but after so much objection
> from the list I might give a skosh and install a bar forward to control
the load
> on the rudder horns but will keep the Cessna pedals and brake cyls for the
> rear pilot.(That's me, I hope).
> Thanks again for your pros and cons. It helps
>
> Corky in La, tack welding control horns today AFTER Isabelle's honeydoes
are
> completed
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: pedals vs bars |
Walt,
Send me direct an attachment so I might get a look at that bar modification.
Thanks
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: e-mail addresses |
I've used this, but I don't recall seeing email address included in the
data. Are you sure?
Jim Ash
>
>
>The easiest way that I have found to find pilots is to go to
>http://www.Landings.com and click on databases (at the bottom of the
>screen). You can look up certificate holders and aircraft
>registration. The certificate holder info includes the address that the
>FAA has on file.
>
>Dave
>N36078 '41 BC-12-65
>
>
> >
> >Does anyone have the e-mail address of Tom Brown, of Unity, Wisc or Bill
> >Knight, of Brodhead, Wisc?
> >
> > Both have corvair powered Piets and both were at the SAA fly-in at
> >Champaign/Urbana this month. Would like to ask questions of them.
> >
> >Dennis Engelkenjohn
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratril" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cover for Wood Prop |
Sunbrella cloth is used for sun covers on boats. It is very UV resistant.
Available at most fabric stores and you can sew it on a regular sewing
machine. Also is good material for making cockpit covers.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick and Marge Gillespie" <margdick(at)peganet.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cover for Wood Prop
>
> Since my newly completed GN-1 may have to live in the Fla. sun and rain
for awhile, I would like to protect this nice new wooden prop as best I
can. What would be the best material to make a cover out of without cooking
it (the prop)?
>
> DickG. in Ft.Myers
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 Intake manifold |
Corky,
You should be satisfied with Sentry. I did business with them about ten
years ago and they did a good job at a good price.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: A-65 Intake manifold
>
> Chris,
> It could be sentry. With my lack of hearing I could have made that
mistake. I
> talked with a Mr. Dave Stovall. They are at 2731 Ludelle St F W, Tex
76105. I
> haven't talked with them since I shipped the cyls.
> Corky
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Taylorcraft Fly-in this weekend (July 4) |
Hey Everyone,
Just a reminder that the national fly-in for the OTHER great taildragger is
this weekend (July 4,5,6) at Barber Airport (2D1), Alliance, Ohio.
Usually a number of the old Alliance T-craft factory crew around to tell
stories.
There's also usually a few Piets and some Piet folks as well (Are you
coming down, Mike C.?) and the best pancake breakfast in NE Ohio, served up
with eggs & sausage by EAA Chapter 82.
Camping on the field - limited bathroom & shower facilities for campers.
Ya'll Come!
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 Intake manifold |
Chris,
They were recommended by Glen Ramsay of El Reno Avn who are not boring cyls
now because their man is ill and they don't want to do any inferior work. Glen
Ramsay was given me by Ken Blaylock of Conway, Ark
Sentry said they will call tomorrow after carefully inspecting the cyl.
I found a manifold at Lucein on a shelf behind a bunch of cyls.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Taylorcraft Fly-in this weekend (July 4) |
Kip & Beth Gardner wrote:
>Hey Everyone,
>Just a reminder that the national fly-in for the OTHER great taildragger is
>this weekend (July 4,5,6) at Barber Airport (2D1), Alliance, Ohio.
Ben (14) and I are planning on being there. Look for the ratty white and dark
green Taylorcraft. It is registered as a 41 but it is sort of like Johnny
Cash's
Caddy. Parts out of a lot of years and a lot of planes :-). Flys well and
is a
lot of fun for a little money.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC-12-65
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: pedals vs bars |
Hi Group
Well, after work for to many long months i am back on
the shop for finish the Piet, and of course on this
list too...
I am working the baffles on the Corvair engine, after
months on the shop, just i have to charge the battery,
turn the key, 2 or 3 turns and it fire very good.
About the pedals, first i installed the rudder bar by
plans, but checking it i not fill god (maybe because
almost all planes that i fly have pedals and brakes..
i change for pedals and it fill better, again, just on
the shop.. i will expect that they fill good on take
off and landings too.. i upload some pictures of this
on Kitplane, any comments about this or other things
are welcomed...
The links is
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=128
Saludos desde Mexico
Javier Cruz
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Dennis,
Tom Brown William Knight
B716 Highway P 16602 Townline Rd.
Unity, WII 54488 Brodhead, WI 53520
This is from Doc Mosher's Peit Owner Directory. Hope it's correct.
Garth Dawson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Builder in VA, Gene R. |
Group-- had the pleasure to meet one of the builders on the list over the
weekend and his wife. Gene and Karen Rambo landed their nice Travel Air
biplane at the Waco Reunion in Mt. Vernon, Ohio on Saturday and visited
with Frank Pavliga and myself and looked over our Piets which were parked
side by side. Gene had some of his 4130 straight axle landing gear
fittings with him and if they are indicative of the rest of his project,
he'll have a fine quality Pietenpol on the flight line in the future. He
and Jack Phillips can have an East Coast Piet Fly-In when they show up at
the same fly-in someday. Keep plugging, Gene !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | 1.5 degrees incidence |
I'm building my wing center section in the next week or so.
My cabanes are on and according to my measurements I currently have 1.5 degrees
of incidence.
Does this sound good? The GN-1 if built to plans is about 0 degrees.... which
doesn;t sound right to me.
DJ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
=
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: Corvair Engine Mount |
In a message dated 6/27/03 6:54:18 AM Central Daylight Time, dknoll(at)cox.net
writes:
<< I'm building a jig to weld up a engine mount per the BHP plans except will
be using the Wynne engine mount and spools. Does anyone have any other
recommendations as to changes in the BHP engine mount plans? >>
Lynn,
One important consideration to have, is to determine where your Center of
Gravity will be. Bernard Harold Pietenpol was about 150 or 160 lbs (maybe
less), and his weight is how he determined the length of the engine mounts that
he built. Lots of people these days weigh much more than that. I think this
may be the reason that Pietenpols have the reputation of being tail heavy.
The plans by A.C. Hanfet 3-15-67 are the ones I used to Oxy Acy weld my mount
to. The changes that were required to give me an acceptable C.G. range was to
lengthen it by 8 inches. That's right, EIGHT inches longer than those plans
call for. Those plans call for 3/4 X .049 tubing, and 5/8 X .035 tubing. I
used 3/4 X .060 tubing, and 5/8 X .060 tubing, to accept the loads of the extra
length. (I got the 5/8 from 'The Yard', here in Wichita). I kept the same
nose down thrust line called out in the plans - 11 3/16 on the top, and 10 5/8
on the bottom. I maintained the same thrust line called out, but I added
about 1/8" right thrust to the mount. An engineer friend of mine did a stress
analysis on my design, and he said my mount was over 3 times stronger than
required. (attn. - Doc Mosher) I also built four new fittings (eight pieces in
all) for the engine mount to the longerons. I used .090, 4130 steel, with
four #10 bolts in each one.
I have the Short Fuselage, Improved Aircamper. With the Model A Engine
ballast I cast from lead shot, and bolted to the transmission flange of the
Model A, to keep me in a safe C.G. range. It's a really nice casting, that I no
longer need. I still have it, if you know anyone with a Model A that needs
it. In that configuration my planes empty weight was 680lbs. Now, with the
Continental and extended mount she weights a mere 621 empty !!! She lost almost
60 lbs !! She's a slim and trim lady, now !! Very well behaved, too.
The way I estimated the engine mount, was all done on paper. I use the
firewall as the Datum, so there were negative numbers involved, which can be a
little confusing when the multiplication portion is done. I determined the
C.G. of the engine itself, and removed the weight of the Model A at that arm.
I then added the weight of the Continental at the arm called out in those
plans, but determined that even with my struts slanted back 3 1/2", and me
onboard, the C.G. was well aft of the aft limit. That aft limit scares the hell
out
of me !! 20" aft of the leading edge is 33 1/3% of the chord, aft of the
leading edge. That's more than any other plane I've ever seen. On paper, I
began adding an inch at a time to the arm of the Continental's weight, until I
got
to 8 additional inches, then I was ahead of the aft limit with me onboard,
and zero fuel. That's what I built my engine mount to. I didn't know for sure
that I did all this stuff right, until I weighed the completed plane, and did
my weight and balance...I nailed it RIGHT ON !!! I couldn't believe it !!
Now, with zero fuel, and me onboard, it is 1/2" ahead of the aft limit...almost
exactly where I estimated it !! No matter what loading configuration, I'm
still within the C.G. limits. It appears to have a long nose, compared to the
Model A configuration, and I was a little concerned about coming out of a slip,
but this isn't the case at all. I've been turning base to final at 300 feet
or more, and putting 'er into a slip and a steep decent (60 mph indicated,
1400 rpm), and she comes right out of the slip...no problem. Ya just can't
believe how well behaved this plane is!! It is pure Stick & Rudder, and it's rare
that I can fly hands off with the thermals, and winds of Kansas. I LOVE IT !
I now have 11.2 hrs flight time on the new engine. The next time you stop
out at Benton, I'll be happy to go over the details of how I determined the
length of my engine mount.
Hope this helps.
Chuck
NX770CG
Trees & Rags to Stick & Rudder :
Pietenpols are Forever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Engine Mount |
Chuck -
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm just getting into this game. What is your
range for CG? Being within 1/2" of the rear CG might make me a little
cautious, unless the range is really narrow to begin with. Does the
presence or absence of fuel move it around much?
I'd be curious to hear your opinions of aircraft handling with assorted
ballasts to pull the CG forward some. One of the reasons I ask is that I
had a larger and heavier engine put in my Cub, which came with a metal prop
instead of a wood prop (11 lb difference , if I recall), so now I'm nudging
the forward limit. I notice the difference in the flair; my first few
landings were splat landings until I adjusted my habits.
Jim Ash
P.S. I like your tag line.
....
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | piet powerplant question |
| From: | brad.outlaw(at)faa.gov |
07/01/2003 06:58:28 AM
hello all,
this is my first message after being subscribed to the list. i just
recently got BHP plans and have been avidly reading the piet list. i have
made contact with corky in la and have purchased mike cuy's tape. the list
provides lots of great discussion on interesting subjects. i would like to
throw a question out there and get your thoughts on my delimma. I already
have a Lyc 0-290 D2 engine with only 715 hours. I would like to use this
engine on my piet but am concerned about the weight. I could certainly sell
it and get a TCM flat motor if necessary . does anyone know if this engine
has been used on a piet previously? checking the TCDS indicated the engine
weighs approximately 236 pounds. corky, i'll see you on the 19th camera and
questions in hand. Mike, i really enjoyed the tape. i am sure i will go
back to it for the many questions that will certainly arise. I am going to
griffin, Ga this weekend to pick up the engine, some spruce and plywood.
anyone on the list in that area?
and yes, my last name IS outlaw!
Mississippi Outlaw
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: piet powerplant question |
>
>hello all,
>this is my first message after being subscribed to the list. i just
>recently got BHP plans and have been avidly reading the piet list. i have
>made contact with corky in la and have purchased mike cuy's tape. the list
>provides lots of great discussion on interesting subjects. i would like to
>throw a question out there and get your thoughts on my delimma. I already
>have a Lyc 0-290 D2 engine with only 715 hours. I would like to use this
>engine on my piet but am concerned about the weight. I could certainly sell
>it and get a TCM flat motor if necessary . does anyone know if this engine
>has been used on a piet previously? checking the TCDS indicated the engine
>weighs approximately 236 pounds. corky, i'll see you on the 19th camera and
>questions in hand. Mike, i really enjoyed the tape. i am sure i will go
>back to it for the many questions that will certainly arise. I am going to
>griffin, Ga this weekend to pick up the engine, some spruce and plywood.
>anyone on the list in that area?
>and yes, my last name IS outlaw!
>
>Mississippi Outlaw
Hi Brad,
236 lbs. is about what a Corvair weighs with an electric starter installed,
so I don't think your weight is a problem, but I think an O-290 would be a
lot more power than you'd need. I'll leave to others with more experience
to discuss the ramifications of that issue.
Welcome to the list - are your ancestors from North Carolina by any chance?
there are a lot of Outlaws living in NE NC and SE Va.
Cheers,
Kip Gardner (exiled in Yankee-land) :).
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | piet powerplant question |
Brad,
Welcome to the list.
The Piet is one of the few planes where a heavy engine could be considered
an advantage, as it helps with the tail heavy situation. The original plans
were drawn using a 250lb plus Model A engine. Lowel Frank usually brings a
Piet to Brodhead with a 145 HP Warner radial, which has more horse power and
must weigh more than your engine. I think 135 HP is overkill for the Piet
but the weight is ok and the based on the above example the aircraft should
be able to handle the power, I have been told that Lowel's plane climbs REAL
good.
I am on the NE side of Atlanta, not exactly on your way to Griffin, but you
are welcome to stop by.
Skip
> does anyone know if this engine has been used on a piet previously?
checking the TCDS
> indicated the engine weighs approximately 236 pounds. and questions in
hand.
>Mississippi Outlaw
_
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | piet powerplant question |
Brad and Skip,
I am told that the Warner has a stop on the throttle to prevent full power. I'm
not sure if it's true or not, but it sounds reasonable. No doubt it gives a
better TBO as well...
John
John Ford
jford(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov Tuesday, July 01, 2003 8:01:07 AM >>>
Brad,
Welcome to the list.
The Piet is one of the few planes where a heavy engine could be considered
an advantage, as it helps with the tail heavy situation. The original plans
were drawn using a 250lb plus Model A engine. Lowel Frank usually brings a
Piet to Brodhead with a 145 HP Warner radial, which has more horse power and
must weigh more than your engine. I think 135 HP is overkill for the Piet
but the weight is ok and the based on the above example the aircraft should
be able to handle the power, I have been told that Lowel's plane climbs REAL
good.
I am on the NE side of Atlanta, not exactly on your way to Griffin, but you
are welcome to stop by.
Skip
> does anyone know if this engine has been used on a piet previously?
checking the TCDS
June 07, 2003 - July 01, 2003
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-df