Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dm
November 08, 2003 - November 24, 2003
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
Hellow out ther in cold-weather land. I won't tell you I had to keep
the door in my shop propped open all day, sun was warming things up too
much. It's colder now that it's nightfall, suck when it gets below 15
or so! My nest door neighbor, Ron MacDonald (really!!) has been working
with cedar for several decades, and when I first started building canoes
and kayaks, he mentioned that the acid in the cedars will attack most
glue. He mentioned a huge Red and Yellow Cedar conference table that a
competitor made, and one day after about 12 yrs of wonderful service,
someone threw a binder on it and the whole thing collapsed!! I only use
epoxy resin, or another great glue is a plastic resin urea formaldehyde
glue, available from home hardware. It is mixed with water to whatever
consistency is required, and dries fairly quickly. It sands well, and
test joints left outside in the rain for months are still nice and
strong. My oldest Kayak is approaching 10 yrs old, and I regularly poke
and prod looking for any signs of weakening, to no avail. When we
decided to sand off the fibreglass cloth and re-finish it this year, we
found no sign of delamination, even where gouges had cut through the
cloth and into the wood. Any bare spots had greyed slightly, but a
light sanding cured that. That is another interesting note, the entire
hull had been sanded down in stages to 220 grit, shich in theory is bad
to do, but again, the cloth was very strongly bonded to the wood. I've
gone totally Yellow cedar for the entire airframe, it is so economical,
easy to work, and readily aval here. I have the dimensions required to
go solid on the spars, but am still thinking of doing laminated spars
with carbn fibre tape top and bottom, with all the mountains around
here, I want all the spar strength I can get, downdrafts are a bitch.
Would love to see some photos, and hope to be doing a cross-country trip
for my commercial license, might have to drop by and take a look!!
Thanks for the info, Dave Rowe
Graham Hansen wrote:
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I used Yellow Cedar for the wing trailing edges of my Pietenpol because
> of its high resistance to rotting in the presence of moisture. Since
> airplanes
> in general spend a lot of time just sitting, and the wing trailing edge of a
> taildragger will be a low point for moisture collection, I figured Yellow
> Cedar would be a good choice after being told it was the wood of choice
> for pilings immersed in water.
>
> After thirty-three years, those trailing edges are still good--although
> there
> is a bit of waviness evident when looking down the T.E. At the time I built
> my Pietenpol, there was some concern about getting a good glue joint with
> Y.C. Aerolite glue was used initially and when the wings were stripped for
> recover in 1985, some joints had indeed failed. These were re-glued with
> epoxy and they still seem to be sound. I would suggest making some test
> joints with T 88 if you use Y.C.
>
> Port Orford cedar was used for the wing spars of a batch of Bellanca
> Skyrocket bushplanes, built around 1945-46 by Northwest Industries in
> Edmonton, Alberta. It was beautiful stuff and apparently was nice to work
> with. If you can find some, it would be an excellent choice for Pietenpol
> construction.
>
> I used Douglas Fir and Western Hemlock for my laminated I-beam spars
> and Yellow Cedar "swallow tail" fillers at fitting points where bolts pass
> through the wood. If Port Orford Cedar had been available, I would have
> prefered it instead of fir (or even spruce, which I couldn't find at the
> time).
>
> Next Saturday (November 15) I hope to fly CF-AUN on the 33rd anniver-
> sary of its first flight.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Graham (Camrose, Alberta, Canada)
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: nothing today? |
I was, but I went back out to the shop.
w b evans wrote:
>
>
> Not a one? Hope I'm not bumped.
> anyone out there?
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: nothing today? |
What if she is an axe murderer? A convicted felon? A terrorist? Or even
worse, she gets air sick???
Jack Phillips wrote:
>
>
> Supposed to get cold here (North Carolina) tonight. I wish this cold front
> would just move on out, but it has gone stationary over the coast. I'm
> supposed to fly to Wilmington tomorrow (in a Cherokee, not anything fun) for
> a blind date with a lady I met online. Hope the WX will be flyable then - I
> hate driving.
>
> Jack Phillips
> Raleigh, NC
>
> Putting the finishing tapes on NX899JP's fuselage tonight.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of w b evans
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 6:28 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: nothing today?
>
>
> Oh, Man. In the NE it's in the 30's today and the forecast calls for the
> 20's in the AM,,,Here we go again!
> Corky, you have any spare rooms? :
> )
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: nothing today?
>
>
> >
> > Nope. Nobody here.
> >
> > 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
> > Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 6:14 PM
> > To: piet discussion
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: nothing today?
> >
> >
> > Not a one? Hope I'm not bumped.
> > anyone out there?
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List: |
Just a thought, if you want the look of the ford, but are concerned
about reliability, perhaps one of the Geo Metro conversions might be the
ticket. The engines themselves are remarkably robust, and there are
several manufacturers offering conversions, kits, and firewall fwd. If
you're not too concerned about original look, I'd also suggest looking
into a Subaru, again, very reliable, lots of data.
Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
>
> My project is in the final phase. I've always wanted to use a Ford, and even
have one being worked on as I write.
>
> However, now that the "reality" is looking me in the face I am having second
thoughts about the reliability factor. From what I've read, it would "appear"
that a large majority of Ford flyers have experienced forced landings, which
while usually fine out here in the midwest, isn't something I'd like to have to
plan on.
>
> I'd like any feedback/opinions on this subject. And, if I did decide to go the
Continental route, where is the best place to start looking, or are there shops
out there selling yellowtagged units?
>
> Douwe
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Accident Report '66 to '03 Prelim |
Piet Group,
I've been spending alot of time researching and organizing this infomation.
Most of the info came from the NTSB web site, that I had to look through month
by month, then copy paste to my word pro program, then edit the text so that
it was legible. The NTSB has changed it's format a couple of times over the
past 37 years. It goes back to '62, but they just listed large aircraft in '62
& 63.
I'll go into more detail about my findings, in my next e-mail.
Here is my preliminary report.:
Total Pietenpol / GN1 Accidents that I found from the present back to '66
Reported Accidents - 91
Fatal Injuries - 10
Serious Injuries - 20
Minor Injuries - 12
No Injuries - 64
Engine Failures - 37
Fuel Related - 8
Stall / Spin - 27
Landing Gear Collapsed - 13
Flipped inverted / Nose Over - 12
Other - 6
So far it seems lack of time in type is a factor in the hard landings, ground
loops, and stalls. The other thing that comes to light, is that after an
engine failure, a stall / spin occurs. I think most will be interested in a
more detailed report, which I'll send out next. An informed pilot is a safer
pilot.
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Piet accident report |
Sorry. I didn't push the right button to write only to Chuck Gantzer. I
didn't mean to clutter up everybody else's mail.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Accident Report '66 to '03 Prelim |
Chuck -
Thanks for the good work on the Piet accident record. I shall be most
interested in the final report.
I am seeing Bob Mackey today. He is now the Falcon Insurance
representative here in Oshkosh. He was the EAA vp of chapters, and also
the EAA insurance guy. I want to be sure that Piets get a fair shake on
insurance, with both "standard" airplane engines (like your Continental)
and with converted automobile engines. I do not lump all converted auto
engines in one box. I think the Ford, the VW of various types, and the
Corvairs should each have their own evaluation. Same goes for Subaru and
Ford Escort, etc.
I know I am prejudging the results, but I think you will find that the Piet
may have the stall/spin leading the way in causes of accidents. Some of
these stall/spins are caused by engine failure. And in most certificated
aircraft, the engine failure is caused by fuel problems. In fact, the
Piet, being such a high drag airplane, the inattention of a surprised pilot
may well lead into an inadvertent stall/spin more than the cleaner designs
(152s, 172s, etc.) the Piet pilot trained on or has most experience in. I
have a hunch that most of the Piet stall/spins are not straight ahead
classic stalls. They result from a turn, often at low altitude, as the
airplane is being lined up for the landing and the pilot is not paying
attention to airspeed.
I have long felt that an angle of attack indicator is almost a mandatory
requirement for such high drag airplanes. These would be non-electric, of
course. I love the Piet, but you should never treat gravity with levity,
lest the earth arise and smite thee.
Again, Chuck, thanks for the good work. I have an idea of how long and
lonely the search can be.
Doc
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
Have just completed all the tail feathers, what a weekend. I know from
my R/C big scale stuff, that gapless hinges make a huge difference in
handling, especially at or near stall. Given the data coming out of the
NTSB search (great work), I definately want gapless hinges on all
surfaces. My thoughts for the ailerons and elevators was the use of
stainless steel marine piano hinges, they are strong, light, can be cut
to length, and are affordable. Please contribute your thoughts and
experiences. Thanks guys, Dave Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
Dear Listers,
Below are some of the nice things people have been saying about the Lists
in that little message box on the Contribution form! Thank you to everyone
that has made a Contribution thus far and for all the great
feedback! Please know that I really appreciate the comments and support!!
If you haven't yet shown your support for these Lists, won't you take a
moment and make your Contribution today? The Matronics Lists are always
Commercial-Free, SPAM-Free, Virus-Free, and High-performance and its your
direct support through this yearly Fund Raiser that enables all of these
valuable services you've come to expect.
Thank you for your Contribution!!
SSL Secure Web Site - http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Matt Dralle
EMail List Administrator
================================================================
=================== What Listers Are Saying ====================
================================================================
You provide a service to us kit builders that cannot be measured.
-Clifford M.
...great service to the aviation community.
-Curt R.
Thanks for being there - your List has really been of help.
-Thomas R.
Your lists have been most helpful to my RV-9A project.
-Dean V.
...has been a great help to me.
-Jim N.
..."must-have" for RV builders and pilots.
-Douglas W.
I find something every day on the List that helps me in my project.
-Ron P.
...very valuable!
-Patrick L.
Don't know that I could have persevered and succeeded without the List.
-Curt R.
...service continues to be awesome and is one of the most helpful resources
for homebuilding that I have ever found.
-Jim H.
The information and hours of entertainment many of us derive from the Lists
is priceless.
-Chris R.
I learn a lot about my [aircraft] through the Lists...
- Lee P.
Great source of education and entertainment. Love it!!!
-Lar B.
Great List & very well organized.
-Peter D.
I couldn't build my [airplane] without this List.
-William G.
The List is an important part of my daily routine.
-Roger H.
...incredible resource.
-Ron P.
Excellent facility.
-David M.
...unmatched service to all builders and flyers.
-Ralph C.
Matt G Dralle | Matronics | PO Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 V | 925-606-6281 F | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ WWW | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet Accident Report '66 to '03 Prelim |
Great report so far, I look forward to read, "the rest of the story".
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hinges
==================================
Dave,
I investigated the possibility of using piano hinges to close the control
surface gaps but came to the conclusion they might not be flexible enough
for the application without a lot of hinge drag. Also, more work to build.
I therefore decided to go with the Pietenpol plans, using the old barn door
hinges. (With the eyes welded shut of course.)
Then to close the gap, I used some of this gap sealing tape that the glider
guys use. It has worked out well, absolutely no gap, weathered well and
most importantly, stays on!
I hope this helps,
John
=====================================
>
> Have just completed all the tail feathers, what a weekend. I know from
> my R/C big scale stuff, that gapless hinges make a huge difference in
> handling, especially at or near stall. Given the data coming out of the
> NTSB search (great work), I definately want gapless hinges on all
> surfaces. My thoughts for the ailerons and elevators was the use of
> stainless steel marine piano hinges, they are strong, light, can be cut
> to length, and are affordable. Please contribute your thoughts and
> experiences. Thanks guys, Dave Rowe
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Angle of Attack indicator |
The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an angle
of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in recent
years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any or
you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of us.
Thanks,
Jon Botsford
In the sun for the first time in many days
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack indicator |
Wicks has one.... it's called a "bacon saver" mounts up to the jury struts.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Botsford
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an angle
of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in recent
years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any or
you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of us.
Thanks,
Jon Botsford
In the sun for the first time in many days
=
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: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack indicator |
Does anyone know of an inexpensive or buildable audible stall warning
device??? The bacon saver is fine but I don't really think I will be looking
out at the strut when a stall situation sneaks up on me. One day several
years ago on a quiet, easy flying day I was lulled into distraction by my
passenger's questions on base leg in a 152 when the stall horn went
off.....Well it got my attention real quick and might have saved my/ our
butts.....Since then I have learned to NEVER let my airspeed get away from
me but I still have always wanted to install one on my Piet...I would...at
least in my busy home area need to have headsets on anyway. I've seen some
in cataloges but they are outragously overpriced. Ed G.
>From: "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:18:16 -0600
>
>
>The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an angle
>of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in recent
>years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any or
>you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of us.
> Thanks,
>
>Jon Botsford
>
>In the sun for the first time in many days
>
>
Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack indicator |
a simple piezo buzzer wired to a micro switch that is activated by the bacon saver
arm might work.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Ed Grentzer
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
Does anyone know of an inexpensive or buildable audible stall warning
device??? The bacon saver is fine but I don't really think I will be looking
out at the strut when a stall situation sneaks up on me. One day several
years ago on a quiet, easy flying day I was lulled into distraction by my
passenger's questions on base leg in a 152 when the stall horn went
off.....Well it got my attention real quick and might have saved my/ our
butts.....Since then I have learned to NEVER let my airspeed get away from
me but I still have always wanted to install one on my Piet...I would...at
least in my busy home area need to have headsets on anyway. I've seen some
in cataloges but they are outragously overpriced. Ed G.
>From: "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:18:16 -0600
>
>
>The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an angle
>of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in recent
>years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any or
>you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of us.
> Thanks,
>
>Jon Botsford
>
>In the sun for the first time in many days
>
>
Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
=
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: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack indicator |
Good point DJ .... Make the microswitch adustable and play with it until
you get it where you want it.
I was thinking more along the lines of the vane type inside the leading
edge like Cessna uses but that
would be hard to make adustable.
>From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
>Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:51:50 -0700
>
>
>a simple piezo buzzer wired to a micro switch that is activated by the
>bacon saver arm might work.
>
>DJ
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Grentzer
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
>
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone know of an inexpensive or buildable audible stall warning
>device??? The bacon saver is fine but I don't really think I will be
>looking
>out at the strut when a stall situation sneaks up on me. One day several
>years ago on a quiet, easy flying day I was lulled into distraction by my
>passenger's questions on base leg in a 152 when the stall horn went
>off.....Well it got my attention real quick and might have saved my/ our
>butts.....Since then I have learned to NEVER let my airspeed get away from
>me but I still have always wanted to install one on my Piet...I would...at
>least in my busy home area need to have headsets on anyway. I've seen some
>in cataloges but they are outragously overpriced. Ed G.
>
> >From: "Jon Botsford" <botsford7(at)hot.rr.com>
> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >To:
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: Angle of Attack indicator
> >Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:18:16 -0600
> >
>
> >
> >The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an
>angle
> >of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in
>recent
> >years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any
>or
> >you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of
>us.
> > Thanks,
> >
> >Jon Botsford
> >
> >In the sun for the first time in many days
> >
> >
>
>Great deals on high-speed Internet access as low as $26.95.
>https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
>
>
>>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>.
>
>
Never get a busy signal because you are always connected with high-speed
Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers.
https://broadband.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | my Corvair is alive and running |
I got my Corvair finished and running on Friday. Was a rush! After over a year
it's finally done. I'm still breaking it in but I get about 2750 rpm static
with a 66x29 Tenesee prop. This thing has some good power!
a QuickTime video of the first run is here:
www.imagedv.com/aircamper/first-run.mov
DJ
_
=
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: my Corvair is alive and running |
Way to go DJ!!!
After seeing your assembly pictures, I got my but in gear and started on
mine. Still a ways behind you, but after seeing the video of yours running
can't wait to get to the construction phase of my motor.
Ken
Gn1 2992
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Accident Report '66 to '03 Prelim |
Snip)
> So far it seems lack of time in type is a factor in the hard
> landings, ground
> loops, and stalls. The other thing that comes to light, is that
> after an
> engine failure, a stall / spin occurs. I think most will be
> interested in a
> more detailed report, which I'll send out next. An informed pilot is
> a safer
> pilot.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> Wichita KS
> NX770CG
>
IF we dont practice emergencies as a regular basis (All pilots here in
my club have to, twice a year (UL or private)), in case of an engine
off landing, the first reaccion (no pilot instictive movement) is to
slow the plane to save it (earth come close very fast to the novice
pilot) and a stall and spin is inevitable...
Saludos
Gary Gower
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Accident Report '66 to '03 Prelim (angle of |
Attack)
--- Doc Mosher wrote:
>
>
> Chuck -
>
> Thanks for the good work on the Piet accident record. I shall be
> most
> interested in the final report.
>
> I am seeing Bob Mackey today. He is now the Falcon Insurance
> representative here in Oshkosh. He was the EAA vp of chapters, and
> also
> the EAA insurance guy. I want to be sure that Piets get a fair shake
> on
> insurance, with both "standard" airplane engines (like your
> Continental)
> and with converted automobile engines. I do not lump all converted
> auto
> engines in one box. I think the Ford, the VW of various types, and
> the
> Corvairs should each have their own evaluation. Same goes for Subaru
> and
> Ford Escort, etc.
>
> I know I am prejudging the results, but I think you will find that
> the Piet
> may have the stall/spin leading the way in causes of accidents. Some
> of
> these stall/spins are caused by engine failure. And in most
> certificated
> aircraft, the engine failure is caused by fuel problems. In fact,
> the
> Piet, being such a high drag airplane, the inattention of a surprised
> pilot
> may well lead into an inadvertent stall/spin more than the cleaner
> designs
> (152s, 172s, etc.) the Piet pilot trained on or has most experience
> in. I
> have a hunch that most of the Piet stall/spins are not straight ahead
>
> classic stalls. They result from a turn, often at low altitude, as
> the
> airplane is being lined up for the landing and the pilot is not
> paying
> attention to airspeed.
>
> I have long felt that an angle of attack indicator is almost a
> mandatory
> requirement for such high drag airplanes. These would be
> non-electric, of
> course. I love the Piet, but you should never treat gravity with
> levity,
> lest the earth arise and smite thee.
>
> Again, Chuck, thanks for the good work. I have an idea of how long
> and
> lonely the search can be.
>
> Doc
>
Doc,
All of the few fatalities in our club (but hurt a lot, were close
friends) are low speed/stall related.
We have the same idea, that is why we are installing a LRI in our first
Zenith 701 STOL, a high drag airplane, we have almost finished the kit.
The LRI is non electric (air hoses) see details in their web page:
http://www.liftreserve.com/
I am sure that it will save lots of lives...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: my Corvair is alive and running |
DJ,,, congrats,,,, isn't it a rush when that corvair pops and starts up for
the first time,, you expect it to happen but it still amazes you when it
does. They run smooth don't they?
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Corvair is alive and running
>
> I got my Corvair finished and running on Friday. Was a rush! After over
a year it's finally done. I'm still breaking it in but I get about 2750 rpm
static with a 66x29 Tenesee prop. This thing has some good power!
>
> a QuickTime video of the first run is here:
>
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper/first-run.mov
>
> DJ
>
>
> _
>
> > 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: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: my Corvair is alive and running |
DJ,
Great video! I got excited just watching it. With all the pro's and con's
talked about, about Corvairs, keep us posted on the performance .
Every once in a while while flying, I think of all the pieces that I glued
and all the engine parts that I fitted and assembled, and when you are
flying in it, it is a real rush.
People that haven't done it will never know.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Corvair is alive and running
>
> I got my Corvair finished and running on Friday. Was a rush! After over
a year it's finally done. I'm still breaking it in but I get about 2750 rpm
static with a 66x29 Tenesee prop. This thing has some good power!
>
> a QuickTime video of the first run is here:
>
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper/first-run.mov
>
> DJ
>
>
> _
>
> > 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: | Carbarvo(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Accident reports |
Hi Mark.............I hope you didn't think I was being critical....just
curious. Later emails have exposed my naivete' about using the data base. It's
apparently difficult to extract the exact information one wants. My reasons for
being interested revolve around the use of motorcycle wheels on Piets. I have
written an article which I hope appears in the BPA Newsletter. I'm asking
readers to let me know of incidents involving wheel failure on Piets equipped with
Motorcycle wheels.
New subject: There's a gentleman named Lee Hodgson who markets plans for
engine models designed by his father who's name I believe was Don. The elder
Hodgson was a big-time engineer/manager at Chance Vought Aircraft and was the
Project Manager on the design from which the Zero was derived. Any connection???
Carl V.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carbarvo(at)aol.com |
I used the larger extruded aluminum piano hinges (A/C Spruce catalog). Except
for the expense, they seem fine...But I haven't launched yet. I like the idea
of being able to remove the aileron by pulling the pin (all six feet of it),
but I neglected to relieve the aileron spar ENOUGH to compensate for the
thickness of the hinge, consequently, the trailing edge of the aileron is about
a
quarter of an inch aft of the trailing edge of the wing....good luck...Carl
Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/10/03 12:46:04 AM Central Standard Time,
rowed044(at)shaw.ca writes:
<< I know from
my R/C big scale stuff, that gapless hinges make a huge difference in
handling, especially at or near stall. >>
Dave,
I used the plans hinges on the ailerons, then installed the ailerons, and
bridged the gap with 3" edge tape. Simple, light, effective. I also came up
with 'gapless hinges' for the empenage, that came directly from my R.C. days.
I
call it a 'Double Monocoat Hinge'. I have a sketch that I can e-mail you
direct that makes it self explainatory.
Chuck Gantzer
Still working on the accident report. NOT FUN at all, but it needs to be
done.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Angle of Attack indicator |
In a message dated 11/10/03 9:21:42 AM Central Standard Time,
botsford7(at)hot.rr.com writes:
<< The recent posting of accident reports has stirred my interest in an angle
of attack indicator. It seems that I have seen one in a magazine in recent
years. It was relatively simple and attached on the jury strut. Do any or
you know where plans can be found. It might be of interest to many of us. >>
Jon,
I also thought an 'Angle of Attack' indicator would be helpful. Last year, I
tried a piece of tape about half way down the jury strut, and let it trail in
the wind. It was simple, light, cheap, but wasn't very effective. The tape
waves around too much. I'm going to try something stiff and light, in leu of
the tape. When someone asked "what's this piece of tape hanging here ???" I
would reply "Careful now...that's a flight control instrument". If they
happened to be 'grounders' (folks who don't fly) they would look at me like I was
loony tunes.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
I bought my plane as a project. The builder was a skillfull woodworker who made
everything he could from wood...including the lift/cabane and jury struts.
I saw the article in the backissues he followed. He sandwhiched a quarter inch
piece of marine plywood between two pieces of spruce and bolted long strap type
fittings to the end... like a WWI plane. I'm sure they're a bit heavier.
I've seen few shots in the backissues showing guys using these, and I can't figure
out why they wouldn't be safe, but thought I'd ask everybody's opinion since...
everybody's got one!
Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions are people
using and where is the best place to get the stock?
Douwe
douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Okay, another mind bender.
What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on modern car
gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
=================================
Eric,
Welcome to the list!
Your reasoning about the area of the longerons is correct. It is true that
Douglas Fir is about 25% stronger, but then the area can only be reduced by
about 20%. Adding a strip to the existing longerons will not really add
that much strength except in tension.
It should be noted that the Pietenpol fuselage is an extremely strong unit
because the Piets have been powered with engines from 40 to 145 hp that I am
aware of. I would think your decision should be based on the engine and the
type of flying you intend to do.(no aerobatics for instance)
Hope this helps,
John
>
> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
> lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
> any comments or suggestions on.
>
> While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
> airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
> that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
> I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
> fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the
floor,
> a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
>
> The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
> that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
> to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we
were
> loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
> since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
> had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
> problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
> 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional
area
> of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
> member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
> material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
>
> I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
> usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
> sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points
and
> there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
> engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy
some
> 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said
he
> had used West System epoxy to construct it.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I have not begun building yet, so take this for what it's worth. You
did the math and it doesn't look good. I would build a new fuselage
using the existing one for 3-D reference if need be. Then I would be
inclined to either destroy the original (because of the liability if
someone should one day decide to build with it) or convert it to some
sort of plaything for the kids/grandkids. An aquaintance has an
airplane of questionable structural integrity (it had been wrecked) and
has an extremely difficult time fighting the temptation to make it
"flyable" again when it should have gone straight to the scrap yard.
His situation is in many ways a lot like yours, and it scares the heck
out of me to think someone I care about (or anybody) might one day try
to fly something which is likely to break apart (as if by design) once
it gets airborne. Maybe with a passenger too. Maybe one of the kids.
You get the picture. I can see the logic behind overbuilding something,
but to use a fuselage which is demonstrably below-spec seems like a bad
idea to me.
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> ewilliams805(at)msn.com Wednesday, November 12, 2003 12:37:15 PM >>>
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really
appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too
many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet
project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the
builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a
completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the
floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one
thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members
appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we
were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir
and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce,
he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4").
The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you
multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional
area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44%
less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I
did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points
and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy
some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder
said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
for point of reference.... my dad's Fisher Celebrity (open cockpit biplane) is
made from 5/8 sq. spruce longerons. Design/Construction methods are very similar
to a Piet. His plane has a gross wt. of about 1100lb and is stressed to
+4 -2 as I recall.
My initial thoughts are that your Piet will be strong enough, although I'd keep
the power to something like 65-85hp.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Hubbard, Eugene
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
=
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: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wooden struts |
Douwe,
In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger.
In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many G.A.
types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A
friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was
amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100)
Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and
paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3
strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a
good one.
Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the
bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be
inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and
saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00
per foot.
walt evans
NX140DL
>
> Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions
are people using and where is the best place to get the stock?
>
> Douwe
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep the fuselage
and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high stress areas.
If you do some homework you should be able to identify those areas. The landing
gear and cabane attach points, engine mount points, fuel tank anchor points,
and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball engineering can go a long way to
distributing loads away from the high stress areas into other parts of the airframe.
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: intake air filter material |
Mike
I read an SAE report once on engine contaminants. It pointed out that some airplanes
are designed to operate with alternate air OPEN (unfiltered), except during
takeoff and landing when dust and debris are most likely to be a factor.
This allowed optimum power during climb. I have certified air filters on various
airplanes. The #1 criteria is always to ensure that the filter has a high
capacity (will hold a lot of dirt and still allow the air flow you need). Take
a look at the '94 Ford Mustang filter. It is a cone shape with many many
pleats and is known to be a very high capacity filter. Its basic design philosophy
of the cone shape is about the best you can get for a small filter. The
air flow for a Model A or 65 cont. is a lot less than for a ford mustang. So
a smaller filter of the same basic design would be good. I have noticed such
filters on some of the Rotax engines.
What are you gonna put this Zenith carburetor on? Your A65?
Terry L. Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane
fuel than low octane fuel.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
>
> Okay, another mind bender.
>
> What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on
modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
But there is a lot more lead in 100 LL than there is in auto fuel.... With
low compression like the Model A has, it could lead to plug fouling and/or
sticky valves..
We used to add TCP from Alcor to eliminate these issues but we can't seem to
find it anymore.......
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
>
> I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane
> fuel than low octane fuel.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "pietenpolgroup"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List:
>
>
>
> >
> > Okay, another mind bender.
> >
> > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on
> modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wooden struts |
so on a j3 there are two big ones and 2 small ones, which ones did you use?
Del
w b evans wrote:
Douwe,
In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger.
In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many G.A.
types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A
friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was
amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100)
Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and
paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3
strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a
good one.
Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the
bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be
inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and
saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00
per foot.
walt evans
NX140DL
>
> Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions
are people using and where is the best place to get the stock?
>
> Douwe
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
>
>
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I have heard many good suggestions but how about just doing a proof load
test on it? You have nothing to loose if it breaks (you wouldn't have
wanted to fly it anyway if it fails and it will burn easier in smaller
pieces). If it passes a proof load you know it is safe and the rest of the
group has more than flapping lips to show that the original design was "over
designed" (which I personally do believe). Even with a detailed stress
analysis I wouldn't fly it without a proof load anyway.
Hank Jarrett
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>
> Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
> lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
> any comments or suggestions on.
>
> While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
> airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
> that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
> I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
> fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the
floor,
> a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
>
> The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
> that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
> to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we
were
> loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
> since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
> had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
> problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
> 3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional
area
> of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
> member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
> material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
>
> I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
> usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
> sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points
and
> there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
> engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy
some
> 1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said
he
> had used West System epoxy to construct it.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
High octane fuel actually has LESS energy than low octane fuel. It also
burns SLOWER. The whole point of increasing the octane level is to stop
detonation and control the burn in the combustion chamber. This allows
higher compression ratios which lets you pack more air and fuel in each
chamber and THAT gives you more power. There are more pounds of less
efficient fuel being burned so you get less HP per pound but get more total
power by burning more fuel. If you try and use low octane fuel in a high
compression engine it will knock itself apart. If you use fuel with high
lead in a low compression engine the lead can't blow out the exhaust and
deposits in the combustion chamber. ALWAYS use the fuel your engine is
designed for or learn to live with the problems (engines destroyed by
detonation or lead fouling).
Hank Jarrett
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
>
> I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane
> fuel than low octane fuel.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> To: "pietenpolgroup"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List:
>
>
>
> >
> > Okay, another mind bender.
> >
> > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on
> modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
It seems to me I recall Bill Rewey telling me he made his with 3/4" sq.
longerons. You can give him a call at 608-833-5839 and verify this. He has
been flying for a number of years.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>
> Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep
the fuselage and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high
stress areas. If you do some homework you should be able to identify those
areas. The landing gear and cabane attach points, engine mount points, fuel
tank anchor points, and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball engineering can
go a long way to distributing loads away from the high stress areas into
other parts of the airframe.
> Terry L. Bowden
> ph 254-715-4773
> fax 254-853-3805
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wooden struts |
Like I mentioned in the mail,,The rear J3 strut. The forward one is really
big.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wooden struts
>
> so on a j3 there are two big ones and 2 small ones, which ones did you
use?
> Del
>
> w b evans wrote:
>
> Douwe,
> In the rafters of the nearest old airport hanger.
> In the past the various AD's make it manditory to change struts on many
G.A.
> types. And it seems that anyone that took them off never threw them out. A
> friend at a nearby airport told me about the ones there. It was
> amazing,,,Zillions of them! (Well , maybe 100)
> Being a guy who is honest to a fault, I talked to the airport owner, and
> paid , I think, $10.00 apiece. Picked four that matched. The rear J3
> strut. The man said that if I found any unusable, to come back and get a
> good one.
> Problem with the strut on the GA aircraft, was moisture would rot the
> bottom. So when you cut off the top and bottom, the inside can be
> inspected. All of mine still had the oil inside. My AP gave me the OK, and
> saved a bundle. I think the new streamlined tubing goes for about $15.00
> per foot.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> >
> > Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions
> are people using and where is the best place to get the stock?
> >
> > Douwe
> > douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
> >
> >
>
>
> Del-New Richmond, Wi
> "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
>
> ---------------------------------
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com |
| Subject: | Helmets - open cockpit equipment |
Hello!, I suggest you try this site http://www.flightsuits.com/open.html it shows "open cockpit equipment",
good luck!
Carlos Manuel Gonzalez
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
High octane fuel has a higher ignition point temperature, which is how it
reduces detonation in high compression engines.
I've heard some voodoo engineering that the absence of the lead in 100LL
will cause exhaust valves to run hotter and burn up older engines
prematurely. I run a quarter cup of marvel per 12 gallons of fuel to soften
the blow.
Jim Ash
>
>High octane fuel actually has LESS energy than low octane fuel. It also
>burns SLOWER. The whole point of increasing the octane level is to stop
>detonation and control the burn in the combustion chamber. This allows
>higher compression ratios which lets you pack more air and fuel in each
>chamber and THAT gives you more power. There are more pounds of less
>efficient fuel being burned so you get less HP per pound but get more total
>power by burning more fuel. If you try and use low octane fuel in a high
>compression engine it will knock itself apart. If you use fuel with high
>lead in a low compression engine the lead can't blow out the exhaust and
>deposits in the combustion chamber. ALWAYS use the fuel your engine is
>designed for or learn to live with the problems (engines destroyed by
>detonation or lead fouling).
>Hank Jarrett
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
>
>
> >
> > I don't think it would run hotter. There is no more power in high octane
> > fuel than low octane fuel.
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> > To: "pietenpolgroup"
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Okay, another mind bender.
> > >
> > > What would happen if one used 100LL avgas in a model A built to run on
> > modern car gas? I know the temps will be higher, but what else?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
This issue comes up when scaling 'live' engineering to different
dimensions. Scaling itself is a collection of compromises. Scaling
dimensions changes any area-based engineering by a squared relationship,
and volume-based calculations change by a cubed relationship. Obviously the
original builder didn't know this, so I would question what else he didn't
know.
Personally, this is not the kind of project where you can beef-up the parts
that don't 'look' up to snuff, for two reasons. The first is that this is a
truss-based system and you'd be surprised which members are under how much
tension or compression, depending on the load applied at the time. Some of
it is admittedly obvious, but some isn't. It's been 25 years since I've
studied (or used) statics, and I wouldn't attempt this type of analysis
without running back to my old text books first.
The second reason is that an airplane is a collection of structural
systems, each with its limits. When you beef-up one of them, you may be
moving the natural weak points to other systems that shouldn't be subjected
to them. In this case the argument goes the other way. We're talking
failure analysis here.
I don't have any idea how much failure analysis, if any, BHP did, but even
if the Piet is over-built by design, you're cutting into safety margins and
playing with the unknown with these structural members being under-sized.
It's really swell to say you're only going to fly straight and level on
still days, but I want my plane to be able to withstand the stresses when
I've got a double-wide passenger in the front seat and the weather gets
rough or I hit clear-air turbulence.
Jim Ash
>
>Using the logic that the structure is over-built to begin with, I'd keep
>the fuselage and add some plywood gussets (or doublers) in selected high
>stress areas. If you do some homework you should be able to identify
>those areas. The landing gear and cabane attach points, engine mount
>points, fuel tank anchor points, and tailpost come to mind. Some eyeball
>engineering can go a long way to distributing loads away from the high
>stress areas into other parts of the airframe.
>Terry L. Bowden
>ph 254-715-4773
>fax 254-853-3805
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com> |
Starting with the list posted here a few days ago, I did some additional research
in the NTSB & FAA databases. I've found 39 Pietenpol Aircamper & Scout, or
Grega accidents listed since 1966.
The 39 can be divided into these categories:
Loss of control/impact: 25, 64%
Failure Engine: 7, 18%
Failure Airframe: 5
Fuel: 2
Loss of control/impact: 25, 64%
Stall/Spin: 13, 33%
Maneuvering: 6, 15%
Takeoff: 4, 10%
Landing: 3, 8%
Impact: 8, 20%
Maneuvering: 3, 8%
Landing 4, 10%
Takeoff: 1, 3%
Loss of control: 5, 13%
Takeoff: 2, 5%
Landing: 2, 5%
Other: 1, 3% Pilot & Copilot each
thought the other had the controls.
Failure Engine: 7, 18%
Corvair: 4, 10% Carb ice, Oil thermostat valve
stuck, cylinder failure, (forgot the last one).
Ford: 2, 5%
Model "A": 1, 3% Sheared prop bolts
and lost prop.
Model "B": 1, 3% Mag failure on single
mag engine.
Continental: 1, 3% Stuck carb needle.
Airframe Failure: 4, 10% Elevator control rod failed, elevator
bellcrank support tube failed, improper turnbuckle barrel, bad landing gear
weld.
Fuel: 2, 5%
Exhaustion: 1, 3%
Water: 1, 3%
Not all the reports listed the type of engine. From the 23 that were listed:
Continental: 11, 48%
A/C-65: 6, 26%
-75: 1, 4%
-80: 1, 4%
-85: 1, 4%
Other: 1, 4%
GM: 6, 26%
Corvair: 4, 17%
Other: 2, 9%
Ford: 4, 17%
Model "A": 2, 8%
Model "B": 1, 4%
Other: 1, 4%
Franklin: 1, 4%
Lycoming: 1, 4%
Please not that in some cases I had to do some interpretation and make a judgment
call it there were more than a single causation listed.
The percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100%
Since the engine was not listed in all cases and wasn't necessarily a factor in
the accidents when listed, I'm not sure that the inclusion of their numbers adds
anything to the accident analysis, but is an interesting point of trivia.
Keep the speed up, keep it in fuel, be proficient. That would have eliminated
3/4 of the accidents.
Andrew
Woodinville, Wa.
Piet wannabe
Andrew Sanders
Boeing 7E7
LSSPD Project Manager
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I want to say that I really appreciate all the opinions and suggestions you
guys have given on this topic. Honestly there have been some really good,
thoughtful ideas here. I think I'm going to print them all out and make
them a permanent part of my official builders log. After considering what
you all have said, and listening to my own gut feelings, I think I will
probably end up building a new fuselage. I think laminating strips to the
longerons to bring up the dimension would work if it could be done in one
long continuous piece. The problem there is that many of the gussets and
cross braces would be in the way and would have to be removed to allow for
one nice long strip to be added. At that point we're into disassembling
this fuse and I see that getting messy.
Also, this one is the short version and was built following the original
Flying and Glider manual plans which gives it some different dimensions and
curvatures. I would prefer to build the long version and for it to follow
exactly the more up to date plans so I'm not trying to mix two sets of
dimensions together at some point.
Lastly, this is one of those big "lifetime" projects that I really want to
feel good about and have confidence in. I would hate to go through the
whole building process and be afraid to fly it. As soon as I started
describing to my wife how I might be able to salvage it with all these extra
pieces glued in here and there, she reminded me that I've been down this
road before with other projects and I always end up saying "I wish I had
just done it the right way from the beginning".
But still, even with all that said... there's a completed fuselage in my
garage... and man it bugs me not to use it. I guess I'd better get busy and
build the next one so I can quit whining about it.
Again, thanks for the help guys.
Eric
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
http://shopping.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
Welcome to the list Eric.
Good decision. Anything else gets realy messy and the
basic fuselage structure is quite simple and easy except
maybe for the effort in ensuring the thing is straight and
square. Also my understanding was that Rewey used
1" X 3/4", not 3/4" square. Is that right?
Clif
> Lastly, this is one of those big "lifetime" projects that I really want to
> feel good about and have confidence in. I would hate to go through the
> whole building process and be afraid to fly it. As soon as I started
> describing to my wife how I might be able to salvage it with all these
extra
> pieces glued in here and there, she reminded me that I've been down this
> road before with other projects and I always end up saying "I wish I had
> just done it the right way from the beginning".
>
> But still, even with all that said... there's a completed fuselage in my
> garage... and man it bugs me not to use it. I guess I'd better get busy
and
> build the next one so I can quit whining about it.
>
> Again, thanks for the help guys.
>
> Eric
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Eric I agree with Gene Hubbard and Jim Ash on this fuselage. A couple of
points that haven't been made (or I missed reading them) is that unlike most
truss fuselages, the Piet has no interbay diagonal bracing - there are no
diagonals running in the plane parallel to the firewall, which resist
torsion in the fuselage. On mine I added small corner blocks at all the
vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness ,
but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the
torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves. Using such thin longerons
make make the fuselage very springy in torsion, which might produce some
unpleasant effects rolling into and out of turns, or in turbulance.
One other point that I don't think has been mentioned is that building the
fuselage is one of the more rewarding parts of building a Pietenpol, and is
not difficult.
Good luck with your decision.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP - getting the last finishing tapes on the fuselage this weekend,
then heading for the paint booth.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Eric
Williams
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
I want to say that I really appreciate all the opinions and suggestions you
guys have given on this topic. Honestly there have been some really good,
thoughtful ideas here. I think I'm going to print them all out and make
them a permanent part of my official builders log. After considering what
you all have said, and listening to my own gut feelings, I think I will
probably end up building a new fuselage. I think laminating strips to the
longerons to bring up the dimension would work if it could be done in one
long continuous piece. The problem there is that many of the gussets and
cross braces would be in the way and would have to be removed to allow for
one nice long strip to be added. At that point we're into disassembling
this fuse and I see that getting messy.
Also, this one is the short version and was built following the original
Flying and Glider manual plans which gives it some different dimensions and
curvatures. I would prefer to build the long version and for it to follow
exactly the more up to date plans so I'm not trying to mix two sets of
dimensions together at some point.
Lastly, this is one of those big "lifetime" projects that I really want to
feel good about and have confidence in. I would hate to go through the
whole building process and be afraid to fly it. As soon as I started
describing to my wife how I might be able to salvage it with all these extra
pieces glued in here and there, she reminded me that I've been down this
road before with other projects and I always end up saying "I wish I had
just done it the right way from the beginning".
But still, even with all that said... there's a completed fuselage in my
garage... and man it bugs me not to use it. I guess I'd better get busy and
build the next one so I can quit whining about it.
Again, thanks for the help guys.
Eric
MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
http://shopping.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
Eric Williams wrote;
"and man it bugs me not to use it."
Keep in mind that many items may be salvageable like seats, turtle-deck, panels
and others. Also, if it is to be destroyed, some members could be cut out, reshaped
if necessary and added to your ship, saving you the price of new pieces
(keeping in mind the material differences).
Although I personally feel 3/4 square would have worked, I admire you and your
wife's decision.
"I wish I had just done it the right way from the beginning". So True!
With an attitude like that, I think you are well prepared to create, fly and most
of all -enjoy- one of the truly great experiences in life. I look forward
to hearing your comments and following your progress but remember, it's just my
opinion and worth just what you paid for it. Hmmm. Maybe less.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Sun'n'Fun Forums |
I have received a request letter for time slots for Pietenpol Forums from
Bob Curtis, the Sun'n'Fun Forums coordinator. The 2004 Sun'n'Fun will run
from Tuesday April 13 thru Monday April 19.
At Sun'n'Fun in Florida in April and at AirVenture in Oshkosh in July, the
Piet people always seem to pretty much find each other by checking in at
the Woodworking area - thanks, guys! Probably our Matronics exchange has a
lot to do with this. Thanks, Matt!
We also seem to meet each other at one or both of the Piet
Forums. Experience shows that having two Piet Forums during the week seems
to work very well. In the past we have often had one person present the
Forum. When we had a problem to have a person present it, several times we
simply announced the Forum time and place, and had four or five people each
present 10 or 15 minutes. This seemed to work very well, and met with good
audience reaction. I have talked with Bill Rewey in the last week or
so. He suggested that the multi-presenter style seems to be good, and that
he would be happy to be one of the presenters.
In order to get two good times for Piet Forums, I have told the Sun'n'Fun
coordinator, Bob Curtis, that we request Wednesday April 14th at 10:00 am
and Saturday April 17th, also at 10:00 am. I realize that these are both
prime time slots, but if we get our requests in early, we may get what we
ask for. I figured that Tuesday and Saturday would allow the folks that
come early to participate and also serve the weekenders. Let me know if
you want to change - or want to have only one Forum.
The reason for quickly replying to SNF is to get two good time slots for
Forums. We can always change. I will be happy to be a central point to
clear information in the early stages.
Right now we need an individual to be the Cordinator for Tuesday and
another Cordinator for Saturday. The SnF people need to have a name to
print on the programs.
Now let's get some commitments from you presenters. No big burden for any
one person. Just 10 or 15 minutes of sharing some info with each
other. Bring touchable items, bring clear photos, bring paper
handouts. Bill Rewey, for example, usually has a couple of sheets of
Frequently Asked Questions, complete with answers, which people can take home.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Eric-- there were so many little things that I had to re-do or re-make
during the construction of my Piet because of what you too feel as tho you
need to do it right instead of like 'other projects'. I made up my mind
that if I didn't like the way a part turned out or I had a bad gut feeling
about it's integrity, I'd re-do it til I got it right. You'll feel better
about everything when flying your plane if you build with that kind of
attitude. Not like the dreaded Fisherman who was on this list for a while
who thought you could build a safe Piet w/ everything from Home
Depot. Well, you could I guess but then who would want to go with you
for a ride ? My approach applied toward cosmetic things too because I
didn't want to look at those bumps under the fabric (ie--bolt heads, wood
that should have been sanded smooth......) or sloppy glue joints later
and say "ugh, I hate when I look at that". On the other hand, part of me
loves the look of those hard-flown, greasy & rough-around-the-edges planes
that they fly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York. Go figure.
You can always use your old fuselage as a test bed for instrument layouts,
seat height/slant choices, cable routing, etc. The longer fuselage will
give you 2" more leg room in both the front and rear cockpits should you
build the 1966 version. At 44 my near vision wishes my instrument panel
was a bit further from my face than it is now in the short or 1933 version
fuselage. (but drug store reading glasses are still pretty
reasonable:) Glad you are on the list. Stay with it and don't give
up. There is nothing sweeter than to see guys like Corky, Walt E. , Chuck
Gantzer, and soon Jack Phillips showing up at pancake breakfast fly-in's
and shows with their Piets. "yep....I built it..." Cool !
Mike C. with winds out of the south gusting to 45-55 mph. Let's fly !!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
Jack, the fuselage plans call for spruce wedges at the corners of the
fuselage vertical and diagonal struts. You did more than this?
Rick Holland
On mine I added small corner blocks at all the
vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness ,
but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the
torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Sun'n'Fun Forums |
Doc,
I have an FAQ. When are you people at EAA planning to cease being the nice
guys, afraid to hurt FAA's feelings, and begin kicking some beaurocratic ___es
and get this Sport Pilot issue completed. Who was the genius who decided to
hold up on the Pilot issue until the problems of the Sport Plane were resolved.
TMALSS, I'm ready, I think, to fill the tank of 41CC, lay it on 110 degrees,
and head for the citrus land in April. Hell, I might even get there.
Soooooooooooooo please get some action on FAA so old Corky can have a little
fun before it's too late.
Thanks
Corky in La looking for a little fun
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Jack,
If what you are talking about is the same as what I call "match boxing"? I
think the pilots seat back and the firewall help stop this action.
Skip,
In Atlanta where Harry Hooper and I just trued my spoke wheels and mounted
the tires.
The spokes were a lot easier than I thought, the tires a lot harder.
> the Piet has no interbay diagonal bracing - there are no diagonals running
in the plane
>parallel to the firewall, which resist
>torsion in the fuselage.
>Jack Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I always thought that the tortional stiffness of the Piet fuselage came
from the diagonal struts that run between the longerons and the vertical
struts on all four sides of the fuselage and from the plywood "box". In
order for the fuselage to twist the diagonals would have to stretch or
compress which just is not going to happen. All components should be in
tension or compression. I also thought the spruce wedges were used at the
struts and diagonals only at the ash crossmembers. But there I go thinking
again. I'd say 3/4" fir would probably be ok but I don't think Id bet my
Butt on it. Jack's right....building the fuselage is a awesome experience.
Good luck with your Piet and welcome. Ed G.
>From: At7000ft(at)aol.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
>Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 09:59:30 EST
>
>
>Jack, the fuselage plans call for spruce wedges at the corners of the
>fuselage vertical and diagonal struts. You did more than this?
>
>Rick Holland
>On mine I added small corner blocks at all the
>vertical and horizontal members to add a little bit of torsional stiffness
>,
>but most of the torsional rigidity of the fuselage actually comes from the
>torsional stiffness of the longerons themselves.
>
>
Frustrated with dial-up? Get high-speed for as low as $26.95.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Sun'n'Fun Forums |
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Sun'n'Fun Forums
===================================
Go for it Corky! To heck with the bureaucrats, by the way, what is TMALSS?
John
===================================
>
> Doc,
>
> I have an FAQ. When are you people at EAA planning to cease being the nice
> guys, afraid to hurt FAA's feelings, and begin kicking some beaurocratic
___es
> and get this Sport Pilot issue completed. Who was the genius who decided
to
> hold up on the Pilot issue until the problems of the Sport Plane were
resolved.
> TMALSS, I'm ready, I think, to fill the tank of 41CC, lay it on 110
degrees,
> and head for the citrus land in April. Hell, I might even get there.
> Soooooooooooooo please get some action on FAA so old Corky can have a
little
> fun before it's too late.
> Thanks
>
> Corky in La looking for a little fun
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol item eBay Item #2203296111 |
Interesting item on eBay.......
> To view the item, go to:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2203296111
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wooden struts |
Douwe,
I am going all wood. I will let you know if it doesn't work. Still a
couple of months away from getting off the ground.
Ted Brousseau
----- Original Message -----
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wooden struts
>
> I bought my plane as a project. The builder was a skillfull woodworker
who made everything he could from wood...including the lift/cabane and jury
struts. I saw the article in the backissues he followed. He sandwhiched a
quarter inch piece of marine plywood between two pieces of spruce and bolted
long strap type fittings to the end... like a WWI plane. I'm sure they're a
bit heavier. I've seen few shots in the backissues showing guys using these,
and I can't figure out why they wouldn't be safe, but thought I'd ask
everybody's opinion since... everybody's got one!
>
> Second question. If I do decide to go with metal struts, what dimensions
are people using and where is the best place to get the stock?
>
> Douwe
> douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: one car garage |
Come on Mike, tell him the rest of the story. About how you weren't married
and the fuselage was in the dining room and the tail feathers stuck through
into the living room.
I am married and so far everything is in a one car garage. I hang the wings
from the rafters to work on the fuselage. That will all come to an end when
the wings go on permanently.
Ted
In Naples, FL with the AC still on.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: one car garage
>
> Mike Whaley--- welcome to the list ! Both Steve Eldrege and myself
built
> our planes and only had one car garages at the time. My entire Piet
> stored nicely in that one car garage with the wings and tail sections
> off. (oh...that would be a three pce wing not the 29 foot long one piece
> wing)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: EAA's "Experimenter" magazine |
Doc,
Any chance of getting a picture of that main wheel dolly? Sounds
interesting.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Mosher" <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: EAA's "Experimenter" magazine
> > By the way, the tailwheel dolly (works great on a tailskid, too) shown
by
> Bob Whittier's photo does happen to be a wood disk. What we use here is
> more mundane. We use a 2x6 plank maybe 8 inches long with three casters
> under it, and build a little receptacle box on top to accept the tailwheel
> or skid. We also have such dollys for the main wheels, so we can move the
> airplanes sideways.
> >
> Doc Mosher
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: doing it right |
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Mike.... You crack me up! Love the line about the winds.....
Weav
On Thursday, November 13, 2003, at 06:36 AM, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Eric-- there were so many little things that I had to re-do or re-make
> during the construction of my Piet because of what you too feel as tho
> you
> need to do it right instead of like 'other projects'. I made up my
> mind
> that if I didn't like the way a part turned out or I had a bad gut
> feeling
> about it's integrity, I'd re-do it til I got it right. You'll feel
> better
> about everything when flying your plane if you build with that kind of
> attitude. Not like the dreaded Fisherman who was on this list for a
> while
> who thought you could build a safe Piet w/ everything from Home
> Depot. Well, you could I guess but then who would want to go with
> you
> for a ride ? My approach applied toward cosmetic things too because I
> didn't want to look at those bumps under the fabric (ie--bolt heads,
> wood
> that should have been sanded smooth......) or sloppy glue joints
> later
> and say "ugh, I hate when I look at that". On the other hand, part
> of me
> loves the look of those hard-flown, greasy & rough-around-the-edges
> planes
> that they fly at the Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome in New York. Go figure.
>
> You can always use your old fuselage as a test bed for instrument
> layouts,
> seat height/slant choices, cable routing, etc. The longer fuselage
> will
> give you 2" more leg room in both the front and rear cockpits should
> you
> build the 1966 version. At 44 my near vision wishes my instrument
> panel
> was a bit further from my face than it is now in the short or 1933
> version
> fuselage. (but drug store reading glasses are still pretty
> reasonable:) Glad you are on the list. Stay with it and don't give
> up. There is nothing sweeter than to see guys like Corky, Walt E. ,
> Chuck
> Gantzer, and soon Jack Phillips showing up at pancake breakfast
> fly-in's
> and shows with their Piets. "yep....I built it..." Cool !
>
> Mike C. with winds out of the south gusting to 45-55 mph. Let's fly
> !!!!!
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piet accidents |
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks for the effort to present the info....
Some of us appreciate the time it takes....
Weav
On Wednesday, November 12, 2003, at 08:52 PM, Sanders, Andrew P wrote:
>
>
> Starting with the list posted here a few days ago, I did some
> additional research in the NTSB & FAA databases. I've found 39
> Pietenpol Aircamper & Scout, or Grega accidents listed since 1966.
>
> The 39 can be divided into these categories:
>
> Loss of control/impact: 25, 64%
> Failure Engine: 7, 18%
> Failure Airframe: 5
> Fuel: 2
>
> Loss of control/impact: 25, 64%
> Stall/Spin: 13, 33%
> Maneuvering: 6, 15%
> Takeoff: 4, 10%
> Landing: 3, 8%
>
> Impact: 8, 20%
> Maneuvering: 3, 8%
> Landing 4, 10%
> Takeoff: 1, 3%
>
> Loss of control: 5, 13%
> Takeoff: 2, 5%
> Landing: 2, 5%
> Other: 1, 3% Pilot &
> Copilot each thought the other had the controls.
>
> Failure Engine: 7, 18%
> Corvair: 4, 10% Carb ice, Oil
> thermostat valve stuck, cylinder failure, (forgot the last one).
> Ford: 2, 5%
> Model "A": 1, 3% Sheared
> prop bolts and lost prop.
> Model "B": 1, 3% Mag
> failure on single mag engine.
>
> Continental: 1, 3% Stuck carb
> needle.
>
> Airframe Failure: 4, 10% Elevator control rod
> failed, elevator bellcrank support tube failed, improper turnbuckle
> barrel, bad landing gear weld.
>
> Fuel: 2, 5%
> Exhaustion: 1, 3%
> Water: 1, 3%
>
>
> Not all the reports listed the type of engine. From the 23 that were
> listed:
>
> Continental: 11, 48%
> A/C-65: 6, 26%
> -75: 1, 4%
> -80: 1, 4%
> -85: 1, 4%
> Other: 1, 4%
>
> GM: 6, 26%
> Corvair: 4, 17%
> Other: 2, 9%
>
> Ford: 4, 17%
> Model "A": 2, 8%
> Model "B": 1, 4%
> Other: 1, 4%
>
> Franklin: 1, 4%
>
> Lycoming: 1, 4%
>
> Please not that in some cases I had to do some interpretation and make
> a judgment call it there were more than a single causation listed.
>
> The percentages are rounded and may not add up to 100%
>
> Since the engine was not listed in all cases and wasn't necessarily a
> factor in the accidents when listed, I'm not sure that the inclusion
> of their numbers adds anything to the accident analysis, but is an
> interesting point of trivia.
>
> Keep the speed up, keep it in fuel, be proficient. That would have
> eliminated 3/4 of the accidents.
>
> Andrew
> Woodinville, Wa.
> Piet wannabe
>
> Andrew Sanders
> Boeing 7E7
> LSSPD Project Manager
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: one car garage |
Yeah, Mike. Remember, it's on video!
Keep smilin! Clif
>
> Come on Mike, tell him the rest of the story. About how you weren't
married
> and the fuselage was in the dining room and the tail feathers stuck
through
> into the living room.
>
> I am married and so far everything is in a one car garage. I hang the
wings
> from the rafters to work on the fuselage. That will all come to an end
when
> the wings go on permanently.
>
> Ted
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | I'll tell the truth, Ted..... |
>Come on Mike, tell him the rest of the story. About how you weren't married
>and the fuselage was in the dining room and the tail feathers stuck through
>into the living room.
>I am married and so far everything is in a one car garage. I hang the wings
>from the rafters to work on the fuselage. That will all come to an end when
>the wings go on permanently. Ted
Ted--- You are correct that I built the airplane while I took a NICE long
hiatus from being married. I was single when I built and flew the
Pietenpol but only did have a one car garage the whole time. During the
winter I did move the plane into the dining room and living room of the old
farmhouse I was in (ala Carl Loar near Toledo) and enjoyed it
immensely. Nothing like watching Jay Leno or the 11 pm news from the
cockpit of a Pietenpol while nibbling on pizza, wings, or such. Those
were some of the best years !!!
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Does anybody have weights for one metal lift strut? I'd like to know how much
of a weight penalty I am paying by using wooden lift struts.
douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
Eric,
My first project, I had completed, I'll say that again, completed a set of
wings for a SuperAce, very similar to a Piet wing; built up ribs, wooden
spars. The ribs were the first thing that I had ever built and it dawned on
me that I did not FEEL comfortable about their construction. My skills were
moderate at the time and although they may have been OK, the finish was
rough, some pieces were slightly undersized, etc. Not too many months ago,
and some may remember me mentioning this, I spent about 30 minutes tearing
the wings apart. I kept the spars and plan on using them as stock for the
next project.
The conclusion that I came to was that I could not enjoy flying the plane if
I had a constant concern for the integrity of the aircraft. Immediately
after ripping the wings apart and as I stood there looking at the pile, I
knew I had done the right thing.
My 2-cents.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
The GN-1 web site is up and running.
www.gregagn-1.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Textor" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com> |
| Subject: | Rib profile question |
I have built two jigs and two test ribs trying to come out with an airfoil
which is perfect. I have measured, re-measured, lofted and compared to full
size till I'm blue in the face. Maybe I'm anal, but I really want it to be
right-on. I still think it's off a little. Would there be a volunteer out
there that is sure their rib is perfect who could help. I traced my last
rib onto some paper and would like to send it to someone who would have a
rib to compare the tracing with. Any takers? Thanks in advance!
Jack Textor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 web site |
Excellent!!! I love it! is there a links section? I didn't see one.....
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Vydra
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 web site
The GN-1 web site is up and running.
www.gregagn-1.com
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Joe Krzes" <jkrzes(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Jack,
I might get blasted but... relax. Remember that the rib design was hand
drawn to begin with. Don't make it harder than it needs to be. Make sure
the distance between spar CENTERS is correct and try to follow the
dimensions or pattern in the plans. if the wood is 1/32 or even 1/16 over
the line here or there, it's probably not a big deal. Just make sure they
are all consistent. When I built the jig, I didn't try to make un-natural
dips and bumps in the airfoil just so it would be on the line. Think about
the air moving over this form and keep things smooth. The exception being
the undercamber on the bottom. Just think, one of your jigs might have
performed better than the original drawing. I'd be surprised if anybodies
ribs would exactly fit another's jig. Get the relaxation method down pat
before attempting that those tail corners :)
Joe
>From: "Jack Textor" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Pietenpol List (E-mail)"
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib profile question
>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:13:51 -0600
>
>
>
>I have built two jigs and two test ribs trying to come out with an airfoil
>which is perfect. I have measured, re-measured, lofted and compared to
>full
>size till I'm blue in the face. Maybe I'm anal, but I really want it to be
>right-on. I still think it's off a little. Would there be a volunteer out
>there that is sure their rib is perfect who could help. I traced my last
>rib onto some paper and would like to send it to someone who would have a
>rib to compare the tracing with. Any takers? Thanks in advance!
>Jack Textor
>
>
Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always
playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 web site |
No links section that I know of.......some links just get you in trouble anyway.
Vegh"
Excellent!!! I love it! is there a links section? I didn't see one.....
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Vydra
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 web site
The GN-1 web site is up and running.
www.gregagn-1.com
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | [PLEASE READ] - Why Do I Have A Fund Raiser Each Year? |
Dear Listers,
I was thinking that perhaps I should explain why I have a Fund Raiser and
also take the opportunity to express why I think the List Services here
provide a far better experience than the commercial equivalents.
I use the List Fund Raiser each year to offset the costs involved with
running a high performance email list site such as this one. With the
annual support from the List members through the PBS-like Fund Raiser, I
have found I can run the entire site without having to inflect any of the
members with those annoying banner ads flashing up all the time trying to
sell Toner Cartridge Refills or other garbage nobody wants or needs. From
the comments I've received over the years regarding the Lists, the great
majority of the members really appreciate the non-commercialism of my List
systems and don't mind my 'go-team-go' banter once a year to encourage
members to support the Lists.
I believe that the Lists services that I provide here offer a great many
benefits over the commercial equivalents in a number of ways. The first
feature I believe to be particularly significant is that you *cannot*
receive a computer v*rus from any of my Lists directly. I've been on a few
other List servers and have been unfortunate enough to download infected
files people have innocently or not-so-innocently included with their
posts. This just can't happen with my Lists; each incoming message is
filtered and attachments stripped off prior to posting. I provide a Photo
and File Share feature that allows members to share files and bitmaps with
other members and everyone can be assured that these files will be
prescanned for any sort of v*rus before they are posted. Safe and
simple. Also, with this photo and file sharing technique, the Archives
don't get loaded up with a huge amounts of bitmap "data" that slows the
Archive Search times.
Another feature of this system is the extensive List Archives that are
available for download, browsing, and searching. The Archives go all the
way back to the very beginning of each List and with the super fast Search
Engine, the huge size of the Archives is a non-issue in quickly finding the
data you're looking for. Another feature of the Archives, in my opinion,
is that they have been primarily stripped of all the useless email header
data and all the other header garbage that seems to build up in a typical
email thread.
I have received an extremely positive response from Listers regarding the
List Browse feature and the consensus is that the format and ease of use is
outstanding. Members report that having the previous 7 days worth of
messages on line for easy browsing and sorting is hugely beneficial. And
again, as with the real time distribution of List email, the messages are
stripped of all the unnecessary email headers and potentially dangerous
v*ruses.
I've been running email Lists and services under the matronics.com domain
since about 1989 starting with RV-List and 30 guys who I knew and who where
also building RVs. It has grown into over 40 different aviation-related
Email Lists and an associated web site that receives over 10,000,000 hits
each year!! Additionally, the List email system forwards well over
90,000,000 (yes, that 90 MILLION) email messages to subscribers each
year! With all the dot.bombs these days, I think there's a lot of value in
supporting a service that has gone the long haul and is still providing and
improving a high quality service at a price that's nearly free.
I have to admit running these Lists is a labor of love and I hope it shows
in the quality of the experience that you receive when you get a List Email
Message, Search the Archives, or use the List Browser. The Lists will be
here for a long time to come. If you just want to lurk a while for free,
that's great and I encourage you to do so. If you use, appreciate, and
receive value from these Lists, then please support them during the Annual
List Fund Raiser!
-----------------------------------------------
The SSL Secure Web Site:
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
-----------------------------------------------
Thank you,
Matt Dralle
Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Hi Jack
When i made my rib jig i had the same problem, on this
list some one help me with a cad drawing of the rib,
when i plotted this it have a little differences with
the original drawing, the hard part for draw is the
leading edge, but with the cad program smooth that
curves...
I made a cad drawing from the plans so i can check
both drawings and they where almost identical..
if you want the cad drawings i can e-mail you..
Javier Cruz
checking all parts assembly before varnish..and wings
at about 40%
Corvair engine running well
2650 rpm's static (7340 feets elevacion)
prop 64x32
about 320 lbs of trust
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Hi Jack ( don't say that at the airport LOL) If you did a good job of
lofting the rib jig from the plans, the curves are fair ( I drove nails into
each of the lofting points and bent a wooded batten around them and found
one or two of the top dimensions to be off slightly) and The spar socket
dimensions are correct then you've reached your perfection point. If there
are two Piet ribs out there that came out of two different builders jigs
that are "exactly" the same I would be surprized (I'll probably catch he--
for that statement). If you would like to send me your print to compare to
my ribs I would be glad to do that as I haven't started assembling my wings
yet. Ed G.
>From: "Jack Textor" <jack(at)personnelincorporated.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Pietenpol List (E-mail)"
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rib profile question
>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:13:51 -0600
>
>
>
>I have built two jigs and two test ribs trying to come out with an airfoil
>which is perfect. I have measured, re-measured, lofted and compared to
>full
>size till I'm blue in the face. Maybe I'm anal, but I really want it to be
>right-on. I still think it's off a little. Would there be a volunteer out
>there that is sure their rib is perfect who could help. I traced my last
>rib onto some paper and would like to send it to someone who would have a
>rib to compare the tracing with. Any takers? Thanks in advance!
>Jack Textor
>
>
Compare high-speed Internet plans, starting at $26.95.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
Hey Piet gang,
I found this page with pics from the Low-n-slow fly-in/fish fry on EAA Chap. 59
website. Three Piets in attendance back in Sept.
http://www.waco-tx-eaa.org/events/Low-N-Slow-2003.htm
Terry L. Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I felt the same way after finishing my first half wings worth of ribs. So the little
woman and I decided that a completed half wing would look great hanging
from own living room vaulted ceiling. So I bought some poplar spars and boards
at Home Depot for ripping the rest of the wood I needed and built a prototype
wing. I learned a bunch building this wing, feel more confident about building
the "real" wings now, and the prototype looks great hanging in the living room.
Rick Holland
> My first project, I had completed, I'll say that again, completed a set of
> wings for a SuperAce, very similar to a Piet wing; built up ribs, wooden
> spars. The ribs were the first thing that I had ever built and it dawned on
> me that I did not FEEL comfortable about their construction. My skills were
> moderate at the time and although they may have been OK, the finish was
> rough, some pieces were slightly undersized, etc. Not too many months ago,
> and some may remember me mentioning this, I spent about 30 minutes tearing
> the wings apart. I kept the spars and plan on using them
> as stock for the
> next project.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
I would like a copy of the rib cad drawing if you don't mind. Where do you live?
I am also a high altitude Pietenpol builder at around 6400 ft in Colorado.
Rick Holland
at7000ft(at)aol.com
> Hi Jack
> When i made my rib jig i had the same problem, on this
> list some one help me with a cad drawing of the rib,
> when i plotted this it have a little differences with
> the original drawing, the hard part for draw is the
> leading edge, but with the cad program smooth that
> curves...
> I made a cad drawing from the plans so i can check
> both drawings and they where almost identical..
>
> if you want the cad drawings i can e-mail you..
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
Rick,
I've got a tall ceiling in the living room as well (23 feet to the
peak). What an incredibly excellent idea! I will feel much better
doing a practice wing before starting on one I have to trust my life to.
And I won't have to be wasting good wood learning to build one. My
living room will be exactly like the Smithsonian, but different! ;-).
Great idea...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> At7000ft(at)aol.com Friday, November 14, 2003 3:12:56 PM >>>
I felt the same way after finishing my first half wings worth of ribs.
So the little woman and I decided that a completed half wing would look
great hanging from own living room vaulted ceiling. So I bought some
poplar spars and boards at Home Depot for ripping the rest of the wood I
needed and built a prototype wing. I learned a bunch building this wing,
feel more confident about building the "real" wings now, and the
prototype looks great hanging in the living room.
Rick Holland
> My first project, I had completed, I'll say that again, completed a
set of
> wings for a SuperAce, very similar to a Piet wing; built up ribs,
wooden
> spars. The ribs were the first thing that I had ever built and it
dawned on
> me that I did not FEEL comfortable about their construction. My
skills were
> moderate at the time and although they may have been OK, the finish
was
> rough, some pieces were slightly undersized, etc. Not too many
months ago,
> and some may remember me mentioning this, I spent about 30 minutes
tearing
> the wings apart. I kept the spars and plan on using them
> as stock for the
> next project.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: kindey stones & contact lenses |
>
>Check that. I meant Kip, not Mike in my last posting. I guess I was
>picturing a swashbuckling Kip with a patch over one eye. Maybe if he'd
>only switched to glasses, aaaarrrrrgh, sooner...
>
>john
Thanks John!
This is a belated thanks to all of you 'stoners' who passed on information
about kidney stones. I spent all day yesterday back at the hospital
getting 'finished up' with the current one. I'm now de-stoned & feel better
than I have in weeks.
Hopefully this will cease to be an issue for me for the forseeable future.
BTW, on the completely different subject of AOA indicators, one of the
local guys has a KitFox he recently finished & he has a homemade AOA on the
jury strut. It's an aluminum arrow that pivots on it's CG & has an angle
placard behind it. Sort of looks like an old Johnson Airspeed Indicator,
but measuring AOA instead.
Cheers!
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
"pietenpol" , "Gene Rambo" ,
"Gary Steadman" <gary.steadman@flitzer-aero.com>,
"Eric Minnis" , "Doug Bryant" ,
"Doc Mosher" , "Corvair" ,
"AirVW"
| Subject: | need a NACA report |
Gentlemen,
I am trying to locate on the WWW a copy of the following NACA report:
Improved Baffle Designs for Air-Cooled Engine Cylinders
by Silverstein and Kinghorn
NACA WR-L-767 from August 1943
Any help would be appreciatied.
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: need a NACA report |
Here's the NACA web site if you don't have it;
http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/
I took a quick look and didn't see it here though.
Clif
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am trying to locate on the WWW a copy of the following NACA report:
>
> Improved Baffle Designs for Air-Cooled Engine Cylinders
>
> by Silverstein and Kinghorn
>
> NACA WR-L-767 from August 1943
>
> Any help would be appreciatied.
>
> Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Javier,
I'd like a copy of that email for the ribs. Can I be put on your list.
Thanks
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | javier cruz <javcr(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Hi Greg
here go the drawings..
Just check that this ribs will be correct for your
project, they use 1 inch spar, i use 3/4 so i
corrected them.. i send the draws for plot so i can
check the original, just a little difference..
Advice me if you have any problems for open the
draws..
good luck
Javier Cruz
__________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pietenpol / GN1 Accident Report '66 to '03 |
As Doc Mosher noted, this task has been much more time consuming than I ever
anticipated. Come to think of it, most of the stuff I do, take alot more time
than I thought it would. It hasn't been much fun going through all these
unfortunate accidents (43 pages in 'Word Pro'), but I think it has been worth it,
because I'm sure it will make everyone think more about their pre-flight
inspection, fly / no fly decision, as well as what happens during flight.
We all know the dangers involved in our beloved hobby, but I hope this report
will help keep everyone on their toes, and at the top of your game. The fun,
comrodary, pride, satisfaction, and challenges obviously offsets the dangers
involved. Just keep safety at the top of the list, get flight training in
something like a J3 Cub, and always have someone else double check your work.
Total Pietenpol / GN1 Accidents that I found from the present back to '66,
using the NTSB website, as well as info from a few other sources. Keep in
mind that there are many incidents that are not reported.
Reported Accidents - 91
Years the accidents were reported: 66 - 2 67 - 1 68 - 0 69 - 0 70 - 1
71 - 1 72 - 1 73 - 1 74 -0 75 - 0 76 - 1 77 - 4 78 - 3 79 - 3 80 -
2 81 - 3 82 - 2 83 - 4 84 - 2 85 - 6 86 - 4 87 - 3 88 - 0 89 - 7
90 - 3 91 - 9 92 - 4 93 - 3 94 - 2 95 - 3 96 - 1 97 - 2 98 - 1 99 -
1 00 - 3 01 - 4 02 - 1 03 - 2
Fatal Injuries - 10
Serious Injuries - 20
Minor Injuries - 12
No Injuries - 64
I'm pretty sure some of these folks recieved minor injuries.
Engine Failures - 37
The Oct. '03 issue of Sport Av. article: Engine failures in general aviation
are rere, but in homebuilt aircraft they account for about on quarter of all
accidents, with the majority of them occuring during a new hombuilt's first few
hours of flight.
However, keep in mind that an engine failure is just one link in a three link
chain, that leads to an accident.
Note that some of the reports did not list the type of engine.
Ford Model A -
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot with 961 total hours, 7 hrs time in type, Model A
engine failure, precautionary landing on hard surface runway, no brakes or
tailwheel, lost control on roll out and ground looped, and collapsed the gear.
-
substantial damage 1 minor injury
*Pietenpol with Model B engine, Pilot with 686 total hrs., 67 hrs time in
type, had complete engine failure during normal cruise flight, previous mag
problems, forced landing, colided with fence, fenceposts. substantial damage
1 minor injury
*Pietenpol (aircraft with 6 hrs), Pilot with 110 total hrs, 1 hr time in
type, last 90 days - 1 hr, engine sputtered an quit after pilot smelled steam,
landed in a field, defective cooling system and sprayed ignition. minor
damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (Ford Model A ?) (aircraft with 3 hrs), Pilot with 200 total
time, 100 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 3 hrs, forced landing after prop
failure. Studs sheared at all four locations. The propeller separated during
a
pass over the field. Found bolts had sheared at the flange. minor damage
0 injuries
*Pietenpol with Ford Model A engine, The pilot was on downwind at his
destination airport when he experienced a "loss of power." He attempted to "glide"
around to the runway, but a "significant south wind complicated the attempt."
The airplane cleared trees "by inches and mushed into the ground", about 100-200
feet short of the runway. The pilot stated that he suspected carburetor ice
to have caused the loss of power. According to information on a Carburetor
Icing Probability Chart, and the temperature/dew point in which the airplane was
operating, "serious" carburetor ice could have been present. substantial damage
1 uninjuried
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Model A engine, Pilot felt the engine start to
viberate, and loose power, causing a forced landing in a field. Post exam revealed
a broken piston. no damage 0 injuries
Corvair -
*Aircamper with a Corvair engine, Pilot with 500 total hrs, 171 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 0. During the initial climb the engine quit. Forced
landing. Pieces of rubber hose were found in the carburetor. 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Corvair engine (aircraft with 4 hrs), Pilot with 13 hrs total
time, 4 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 4 hrs, had a forced landing from
cruise flight after engine malfunction, nosed down on landing in beanfield after
engine failed. Ignintion coil was weak and lost power when engine warmed up.
*Aircamper with Corvair engine (aircraft with 65 hrs), Pilot with 180 total
hrs, 30 hrs time in type, last 90 days 15 hrs, engine malfunction lead to a
forced landing on a road after knocking sound from the engine. Cause
undertermined.
minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Corvair engine, engine failed in flight, and landed in a
pasture. Engine crankshaft was broken. no damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Corvair engine, Pilot with 99 hrs total time, 29
hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0, engine lost power on takeoff, forced
landing, circled to land but stalled short of the runway. Inspection revealed
erroded and burned exhaust valve. substantial damage 1 serious 1 minor
injury
*Aircamper with Corvair engine, Pilot with 213 hrs total time, 61 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, loss of power on newly
overhauled engine, forced landing in a field. minor damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Corvair engine, During cruise flight in the
homebuilt airplane, the pilot observed a rise in engine oil temperature. He elected
to make a precautionary landing at a nearby airport; however, engine rpm
decreased to where altitude could not be maintained. The pilot initiated a forced
landing to a bean field about one mile northeast of the airport. During the
landing, the airplane touched down hard, nosed over, and came to rest inverted.
An
examination of the Corvair automotive engine, by the owner, revealed a stuck
oil cooler thermostat valve. The stuck valve was preventing oil from flowing
through the oil cooler. substantial damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Corvair engine, According to the airplane's owner,
at 800 feet cruise altitude, and within 5 miles of the destination airport, at
a speed of 80 mph, and shortly after the pilot reduced power the engine
stopped. The pilot attempted a re-start, without using carburetor heat, and was
not
successful. He attempted a forced landing in a field, but about 80 feet AGL
and at 50 mph, he attempted a sharp bank, which resulted in a stall and spin
into ground. The airplane ignited 60 seconds after impact. The engine was placed
on test stand and ran without any discrepancies. In addition, the engine was
torn down and inspected by an A&P mechanic. No damage of any type was found.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
The loss of engine power for undetermined reasons and the pilot's failure to
maintain adequate airspeed which resulted in a stall. destroyed
2 serious injuries
Continental A 65 -
*Aircamper with Continental A 65 - 8 engine (aircraft 98 hrs), Pilot with
1450 total hrs, 10 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 3, struck a tree, then ground
on an emergency landing after engine power loss. Post flight examination
shows three cylinders with very low compression. demolished 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Continental A 65 engine (aircraft with 334 hrs), Pilot with
1800 total time, 7 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 2 hrs, engine rough on
takeoff, forced landing straight ahead in a field. Cause of rough landing
undetermined.
minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Continental A 65 engine, Pilot with 4500 total time, 6 hrs
time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, engine failed en route, damaged homebuilt on
forced landing, conditions good for carburetor icing. substantl damage
2 injuries
Continental C 75 / 85 -
*Aircamper with Continental C 75, Pilot with 4800 total hrs, 30 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 10, During cruise flight the engine lost power, propeller
fell off causing a forced landing. Found tappered pin retainer to hold prop
had come off. Deficiency in Maintenance / Pre-flight minor
damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (with Continental C 75 engine ?), Pilot with 2400 hrs total time,
6 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 1 hr, engine lost power on climbout, forced
landing in a field. Had oil starvation due to long storage before flight.
minor damage 0 injuries
Other -
*Pietenpol Aircamper with GM 2.5 Liter engine, Witnesses reported hearing the
engine sputter and then saw the airplane nose into the ground. The airplane
impacted in a heavily wooded and swampy area, less than 1/2 mile from the
takeoff point.The airplane was destroyed. The none-rated pilot reported serious
injuries. One passenger was fatally injured.
*Pietenpol with engine unknown (aircraft with 80 hrs), Pilot with 1700 total
hrs, 50 hrs time in type, last 90 days 10 hrs, on final approach the engine
failed and landed short. The throtttle idle adjustment was improperly set.
minor damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol (engine unknown), Pilot with 2700 hrs total time, 11 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, engine lost power after liftoff, settled back to
the ground beside the runway, causing the landing gear to collapse. minor
damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Sky Scout (engine unknown) aircraft with 90 hrs, during takeoff
phase loss of power, and crashed in a plowed field. substantial damage 1
minor injury
*Aircamper (engine unknown) Pilot with 1200 hrs total time, 150 time in type,
forced landing from cruise flight when engine lost power due to carb ice. No
carb heat. no damg 0 injy
*Aircamper (engine unknown)Pilot with 650 hrs total time, 6 hrs time in type,
last 90 days - 6 hrs, forced landing from cruise flight after engine
overheated. Forced landing in a hayfield. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (engine unknown) the airplane was destroyed durinng a forced
landing in a weed field, after a loss of engine power while in cruise flight.
Pilot reported a single jolt, then the cylinder head temperature had climbed to
400 degrees and the engine began to run rough. Post inspection revealed #4
cylinder and piston skirt was broken. destroyed 1 minor injury
Fuel Related - 8
Contamination -
*Pietenpol aircamper with Ford engine, Pilot with 839 total time, 32 hrs time
in type, last 90 days - 7 hrs, flight was limited to pattern work the
aircraft bounced the second landing and go around the engine began to lose power
on
downwind, pilot elected ot land in an open field, but saw a large ditch,
stalled, and collided with the ditch. Fuel vent was clogged with wasp nest.
substantial damage 1 minor injury
*Scout with a corvair engine- Pilot with 360 time in type, inadequate
preflight preparation and / or planning, partial power loss, water in fuel, forced
landing off airport on land. - 1 minor injury
*Aircamper with a Corvair engine, Pilot with 500 total hrs, 171 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 0. During the initial climb the engine quit. Forced
landing. Pieces of rubber hose were found in the carburetor. 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Franklin engine (aircraft with 96 hrs), Pilot with 378 total
time, 96 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 3, executed anemergency landing in a
field with engine problem. Fuel strainer had rust sediment in it. Old GI
can used to transfer auto gas. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper, during takeoff engine lost power. Inspection revealed fuel
contamination due to old fuel, and iimproper handling of fuel.
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Ford Model A engine, during cruise flight a loss of
power, caused a forced landing in a field. Post exam revealed possible dirt
in the carb. no damage 0 injuries
Fuel Exhaustion -
*GN-1 with Continental C-85 engine, Pilot with 110 hrs time in type,
miscalculated fuel consumption, complete engine failure on base leg and undershot
runway, struck trees. Damage - substantial Injuries - 1 minor
*Aircamper with Continental A65 engine, pilot used the common practice of
leaving the fuel valve 'Off' during the hand starting sequence. After the
engine started he climbed into the back cockpit, but forgot to reposition the fuel
valve to the 'On' position, which was in the front cockpit. During climb out
after takeoff, the engine quit, but the pilot was unable to reach the fuel
valve. He then turned back to the airport, but allowed the airspeed to drop and
the aircraft stalled / mushed into the runway. substantial damage 1
serious injurypiloted by a recreational pilot, sustained substantial damage on
impact with trees and terrain during a landing
Stall / Spin - 27
Minor Damage -
*Aircamper with Lycoming O145 B2 (318 Aircraft hrs), Pilot with 98 total hrs,
2 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 2, early liftoff during initial climb,
the aircraft settled back in hitting the left gear and propeller. minor
damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Continental A 65 engine (aircraft with 296 hrs), Pilot with
460 total time, 5 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 1 hr, pilot lifted off
runway before he had flying speed. Stalled and settled back in causing gear to
collapse on impact.
minor damage 0 injuries
Substantial Damage -
*Pietenpol Aircamper, Pilot with 126 total hours, 18 hrs time in type, failed
to obtain / maintain flying speed, aircraft entered a flat spin while the
pilot was practicing oscillating stalls. - 1 minor injury.
*GN-1, Pilot with270 total hours, 19 hrs time in type, during take off,
lifted off prematurly, failed to obtain / maintain flying speed, and stalled the
wing. - 1 minor injury
*Pietenpol Pilot with 296 total hours, 9 hrs time in type was carrying a
copilot for a demonstration flight. Copilot lack of familiarity with aircraft
and
failed to obtain / maintain airspeed. The pilot waited too long before
attempting to recover from a stall. - 2 minor injuries
*GN-1 Pilot with 21 hrs time in type, and only 1 hr in the last six years,
lack of familairity with aircraft, inadequate preflight preparation and / or
planning, attempted operation with known deficiencies in equipment (engine tach
and airspeed indicator were malfunctiong) failed to obtain / maintain flying
speed and stalled the wing. - 1 serious injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental C80 engine, originally had a Ford Mod
A, (aircraft hours - 330), Pilot with 1118 total time, 700 time in type last 90
days - 17 hrs, lost control and entered a spin when ailerons jammed in a
banked attitude. Gas can in front seat possible blockage. substantial damage
1 serious injury
*GN2 with Franklin engine (aircraft with 250 hrs) Pilot with 2511 total hrs,
250 time in type, last 90 days - 21 hrs, aircraft was making steep turns
around airport at about 500 ft AGL, stalled the wing and began spinning. The pilot
stopped the spin & was recovering in a wings level attitude when the plane
collided with trees. The engine was at full power whtn the aircraft contacted
the trees. substantial damage 1 serious injury
*Pietenpol (Ford Model A ?) (aircraft with 1 hr), Pilot with 122 total hrs, 1
hr time in type, last 90 days - 1, the aircraft stalled and entered a spin to
ground impact during the initial takeoff climb. Pilot reported low airspeed
- less than 40 mph, initiated rudder turn back to the airport. Post accident
inspection disclosed the two front exh stacks and pluss were covered with
black soot and #3 cyl plug and gasket soot covered, pitot tube was not extended
far enough forward of the leading edge (1 1/2 to 2 inches) gave low airspeed
reading. substanl damage 1 serious injury
*GN1 with Continental C90-12F engine, aircraft with 10 hrs, Pilot with 82 hrs
total time, 5 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, bounced the landing in
gusty winds, weather vaned, lost control after bounce, landed on hanger roof.
substantial damage 1 injury
*GN1 with Continental A 65 8 engine, aircraft with 70 hrs, Pilot with 10,000
hrs total time, 1 hr time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, stalled and spun into
a church roof during practice slow flight, then homebuilt fell to the ground.
substnl damg 1 injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper - witnesses reported that the aircraft lost power while
near the private airstrip. Landing gear and wings indicated a nose over.
Engine quit while circling strip, stalled in. substantial damage 2
uninjuried
*GN1 with Continental A 65 engine, forced landing when unable to climb on
takeoff. substantial damage 2 minor injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper, During the initial climb after takeoff the airplane
began to sink rapidly and the pilot lowered the nose of the airplane in order
gain some additional airspeed. The pilot reported that he cleared two groupings
of trees and, "...knew enough to keep the plane from banking or yawing to
eliminate the chance of a stall, however at this point I think my passenger in
the
front seat decided to turn around & see what I was doing. I think his [right]
leg pushed the stick over & the plane went into a left bank. All my efforts to
right the stick would not do it [and] being too close to the ground I could
not recover control before we struck the ground... ." The pilot stated that
witnesses to the accident saw the airplane clear the second row of trees, yaw to
the left, and then bank to the left. The pilot reported that when the airplane
banked to the left, "... caused us to lose what lift we had." A written
request for a passenger statement was made, and as of the date of this report no
response was received.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:
Aircraft control not possible due to the inadvertent control interference by
the front seat passenger. Factors to the accident were the restricted control
stick movement and the encountered stall.
Destroyed -
*Pietenpol Scout Pilot had 0 time in type, lack of familiarity with aircraft,
with known deficiencies in equipment, and the aircraft was not certificated
or airworthy, had a stall spin accident on final approach. - aircraft was
destroyed - 1 serious injury.
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot with 5 hrs time in type, lack of familiarity with
aircraft, carrying a passenger, during takeoff / initial climb, failed to
obtain / maintain flying speed, stalled the wing and entered a spin. Fire after
impact. - 2 fatal
*Pietenpol Aircamper, Pilot with 1272 total hours, 1 hr time in type, lack of
familiarity with aircraft, engine malfunction, ignition system: loose spark
plug, inadequate maintenance and inspection, partial power loss during initial
climb, stall / spin. - 2 serious injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with engine - O 145, Pilot with 112 total hours, 53 hrs
time in type, during a low pass the pilot diverted his attention from
operation of the aircraft, and failed to obtain / maintain flying speed and stalled
the wing. - 1 minor injury
*Aircamper with Cont. A 65 engine, Pilot with 3460 total hrs, 1 hr time in
type, unskilled in aircraft, bounced landing and made a go around, stalled the
aircraft in climbing downwind turn. Pilot induced. demolished 0
injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with a Ford Model A engine, Pilot with 789 total hours,
0 time in type. Lack of familiarity with aircraft the pilot failed to obtain
/ maintain flying speed, and either stolen or unauthorized use of aircraft,
in the traffic pattern during the landing phase, stalled the wing and went into
a spin without enough altitude to recover. demolished 1 serious injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Corvair engine (aircraft hrs - 147), Pilot with
1000 total time, 14 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0, Pilot induced stall
shortly after takeoff during initial climb. destroyed 1 fatal injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper (aircraft with 180 hrs), Pilot with 1272 total hrs, 110
time in type, last 90 days - 21hrs, at an antique fly-in, after a downwind
takeoff downwind (only open runway) pilot claims he was caught in downdraft which
caused the inadvertant stall and crashed in a steep descent into trees.
Examination of the engine revealed the spark plugs were carbon fouled with black,
sooty deposits. demolished 1 fatal 1 serious
*Aircamper with Corvair engine, Pilot with 450 hrs total time, 0 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, made steep climbing turn on climbout, stalled and
spun into the ground. Report of faulty airspeed indicator and engine mixture.
demolished 1 fatal injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper, Pilot took off and reportedly turned downwind at about
400 ft AGL and appeared to be in a steep bank and fall off on the left wing
and spin into the ground. Post accident inspection found no discrepancies. The
pilot's aeronautical experience could not be determined and his medical
certifacate was expired. destroyed 1 fatal injury
Landing Gear Collapsed - 13
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot with 363 hrs total time, 5 hrs time in type,
during landing / roll out, the left landing gear wheel & axle separated from
aircraft, and veered off the runway. Defect in welding. substantial damage
1 minor injury
*Aircamper Pilot with 1100 hrs total time, 0 hrs time in type, last 90 days -
0 hrs, while on fast ground testing, test pilot took off to avoid fence,
aircraft settled back in damaging gear and propeller. minor damage 0
injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental C85-12 engine, Pilot with 130 total
time, 38 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, swerved after 3 point landing,
corrected with opposite rudder, right main gear collapsed. History of damage
due to hard landing. substantial damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol (Ford Escort engine ?) aircraft with 182 hrs, Pilot with 817 total
time, 177 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 6 hrs, aircraft tookoff and landed
several times, then on the third landing the gear collapsed. minor damage
0 injuries
*Pietenpol the landing gear folded during taxi test. minor damage 0
injuries
Flipped inverted / Nose Over - 12
*Pietenpol Aircamper, engine - O 145, Pilot with 4500 total hours, 200 hrs
time in type, last 90 days - 0. Improper operation of brakes, pilot induced,
when the brakes appeared ineffective and additional pressure was applied, the
aircraft went up on it's nose. - minor damage no injuries
*GN1 (aircraft with 65 hrs), Pilot with 192 total time, 1 hr time in type,
last 90 days - 0 hrs, during a landing roll out, the pilot lost directional
control, and the aircraft ran off the side of the runway, hit a small ditch and
nosed over.
substantial damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental A 65-8 engine (aircraft with 54 hrs),
Pilot with 400 total hrs, 3 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 3 hrs, on landing
roll out the pilot applied excessively hard braking and the aircraft nosed
over. No pre-accident part failure or malfunction was evident. substantial
damage 2 uninjuried
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Ford Model A (aircraft with 30 hrs), Pilot with 59
hrs total time, 0 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, during takeoff roll
the aircraft veered off runway and overturned. Found loose front cockpit seat
had fallen to the floor and jammed the left brake. substantial damage 0
injuries
*Aircamper Pilot with 4000 total time, 15 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 15
hrs, engine quit, landed in turf at end of runway, left gear folded and
aircraft rolled over. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (aircraft with 30 hrs) with Ford Model A engine, Pilot with 60 hrs
total time, 5 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 0 hrs, Pilot practicing
taxiing in withd. Wind kept increasing, till gust flipped aircraft in it's back.
minor damage 0 injury
*Aircamper, Pilot with 170 hrs total time, 60 hrs time in type, last 90 days
- 25 hrs, experienced early liftoff, pilot pushed the nose down, the aircraft
bounced until the pilot aborted, hit the brakes and flipped over. minor
damage 0 injuries
Ground Loop -
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot with 961 total hours, 7 hrs time in type, Model A
engine failure, precautionary landing on hard surface runway, no brakes or
tailwheel, lost control on roll out and ground looped, and collapsed the gear.
-
substantial damage 1 minor injury
*Aircamper with O-290 engine, Pilot lost directional control of aircraft
after touchdown / roll out and ground looped. Improper operation of brake /
flight controls. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (aircraft with 600 hrs), Pilot whth 60 hrs total time, 1 hr time
in type, last 90 days - 1 hr, after a crosswind landing, over corrected and
ground looped. No checkout in this type aircraft. minor damage 0
injuries
*Aircamper with Continental C 75 - 12, Pilot with 365 total hrs, 7 hrs time
in type, last 90 days 7 hrs, on landing roll out the pilot lost directional
control, dragged a wing and nosed up. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper (with C85 engine ?), Pilot with 500 hrs total time, 2 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 2 hrs, during landing rollout pilot lost directional
control and ground looped. Broke an axle, nosed up and touched the propeller.
minor damage 0 injuries
*GN1 with Continental A65 engine (aircraft with 450 hrs), Pilot with 600 hrs
total time, 300 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 150 hrs, precautionary
landing due to turbulence. Strong crosswind forced aircraft into ditch causing
right gear damage. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper aircraft with 142 hrs, Pilot with 5000 total time, 100 hrs time in
type, last 90 days - 3 hrs, after landing lost directional control on
rollout, veered off runway into taxiway light. Tail wheel spring came loose.
minor
damage 0 injury
*Aircamper with Continental C85 engine (aircraft with 300 hrs), Pilot with
140 hrs total time, 85 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 8 hrs, after landing
pilot lost directional control. minor damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper impact with terrain during takeoff. substantial
damage 2 uninjuried
Other - 6
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot with 32 hrs total, 2 hrs time in type, the cause
was an improper turnbuckle barrel installed, causing the Left wing brace wires
to fail, and wing rigging and balance shifted. Initial climb, separation in
flight, directional control problem, uncontrolled decent- substantial damage
1 minor injury.
*Aircamper Pilot with 465 total hrs, 125 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 30.
During in traffic pattern - circling, the elevator push pull rod failed due
to metal fatigue. Inadequate maintenance. Uncontrolled collision with
ground.
Demolished 1 fatal injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental A65, Pilot with 336 hrs total, 8 hrs
time in type, last 90 days 8 hrs, a misunderstanding arose as to who had control
of the airplane from separate cockpits, flew into the ground at cruise power.
Unauthorized low level ops, pilot induced. substantial damage 0
injuries
*GN2 Pilot with 21070 total hours, 4 hrs time in type, sunglare distraction,
the aircraft struck wires durng final approach for landing. substantial
damage 1 minor injury
*Aircamper (aircraft with 600 hrs), Pilot with 900 total hrs, 190 time in
type, last 90 days - 27 hrs, poor pre-flight planning - weather related, from
cruise flight - precautionary landing in a field due to low ceilings and rain.
Did not check weather with FSS. minor damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Ford Fiesta engine, Pilot with 500 hrs total time, 0 time in
type, last 90 days - 0, during high speed taxi, pilot lost directional
control, and ran into a parked aircraft - no flight was intended. substantial
damage 0 injuries
*GN1 with Continental C 75 engine, Pilot with 26 hrs total time, 8 hrs time
in type, last 90 days - 7 hrs, Pilot tried to fly under powerlines after being
unable to climb during takeoff. Impact with the ground damaged the aircraft.
substantial damage 0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper Pilot flew past a road grading crew level about 30 feet
AGL. The road crew waved and remarked the pilot continued to look at them
until just prior to colliding with a utility pole. demolished 1 fatal
injury
*Aircamper with Continental C75-8 engine, Pilot with 2355 total time, 64 hrs
time in type, last 90 days - 0, encountered lowering clouds and severe
turbulence for an ultralite, lost control and collided with trees. substantial
damage 1 injury
*Aircamper during cruise flight, when the propeller separated. Pilot made a
forced landing in soft field with high grass, during rollout the airplane
nosed over. Post exam revealed 4 of the 6 prop bolts were cracked and rusted
across 30% to 100% of their diameter. substantial damage 1 injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental C75 8F engine (aircraft with 136 hrs),
Pilot with 1325 hrs total time, 136 hrs time in type, last 90 days - 96 hrs,
Pilot was assisting in a search for a missing person whil flying in mountainous
terrain at a low altitude when he encountered a downdraft and collided with
the terrain. He reported no mechanical problems with the aircraft. demolished
2 serious injuries
*GN1 Pilot with 412 hrs total time, had forced landing. Made his own prop
to his specs. On test flight, poor acceleration and poor climb, tried to turn,
mushed into trees. substantial damage 0 injuries
*Aircamper with Continental C85 engine, was observed manuvering at low
altitude in the vicinity of the accident, and collided with power lines. Post
accident inspection revealed the fuselage and both wings sustained structural
damage, and noted continuity to all flight controls and engine controls.
substantial damage 1 serious injury
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental A65 engine, pilot reported he extended
the approach to land on runway 18 taxiway where he had been cleared to land.
"At the same time as my approach and flare to land a DC-3 was upwind and in
front me. On my flare out, I encountered wint turbulence from the DC-3 that
caused my upwind wing to pitch up while my left wing touched the runway,
resulting in a ground loop off the left side of the taxiway." minor damage
0 injuries
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Ford Model A engine, during cruise flight the
propeller seperated, and made a forced landing in a soybean field. Duringthe
landing, the left main landing gear folded under the airplane, and the right wing
spar fractured. The pilot last secured the propeller to the airplane
approximately 1 year before the accident. Since then, he estimated that the airplane
flew approximately 40 hours. substantial damage 2 uninjured
*Pietenpol Aircamper with Continental C85 engine, piloted by a recreational
pilot, sustained substantial damage on impact with trees and terrain during a
landing. substantial damage 1 fatal injury
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | flew up to "strutland" |
Had a good flying day today,,,flew up to Sussex airport where I had gotten my struts,
which were discarded struts from old GA planes. Met up with John Vogler
(from this group) and checked in with the office. Paul the boss/owner wasn't
there but talked to Bill, who is quite a guy. He's 90 years old and still does
signoffs on everything from AT-6's to full aerobatic planes.
Even tho he said that there was no one around to let us in, we took a peek anyway.
Guess we saw at least 100 old struts in the rafters, all just waiting to go for
another ride.
Guess John can get hooked up at a later date.
It was a chilly but dead smooth flight back.
walt evans
NX140DL
PS Thanks for the prop, John.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flew up to "strutland" |
In a message dated 11/16/03 4:16:58 PM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes:
<< Had a good flying day today,,, >>
Hey Walt,
I had a great flight today, too !! The plane is working good. Fires right
up on the first or second blade. Logged 1.8 hrs., buzzed, er...overflew a
coupld of friends houses, three sail boats on El Dorado lake, chased a train, took
some pictures. Forgot the T.P. I need to put that on my pre flight
checklist !! It was a little bit bumpy at first, but half hour before dusk was
smooth. I was bundled up pretty good, but still had the shivers on the way back.
Felt sooooo good !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
92.5 hrs logged
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: need a NACA report |
Chris-- give this web site a try: http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
I just changed my email address and am testing.... sorry for any multiple posts
that may have come through
DJ
=
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: | Carbarvo(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
I say forget the structural analysis and concentrate on the guy who will
eventually buy your airplane (maybe from your widow). He needs to be convinced
that the plane is built to known practices. If deviations are taken, a convincing
arguement will have to be given to justify the variance from well established
practice. The easiest thing to do is build it per the drawings......Carl
Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Corvair engine site |
For those of you new to the group or those who hadn't seen this yet and are
interested in using Corvair power for your Pietenpol, this is a very good
web site: http://flycorvair.com/
Mike C. enjoying 54 F on Nov. 17 th !
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine site |
and don't forget
www.corvaircraft.com
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engine site
For those of you new to the group or those who hadn't seen this yet and are
interested in using Corvair power for your Pietenpol, this is a very good
web site: http://flycorvair.com/
Mike C. enjoying 54 F on Nov. 17 th !
=
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: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | 1st passenger,2nd time, lots of ice |
Took my first time passenger up again this afternoon. Although very hazey and
about 41f, had a nice ride. Seemed to have the carb heat on more than off, oh
well, it was fun.
Also second time using the intercom. Seemed once the mic was opened, her mic sent
the open exhaust noises straight to my ears. I know this has been a problem
discussed many times before, so I'll have to go to the archives to see the
input.
As much as I was disappointed with the Piet in bumpy air, which was discussed on
this group earlier, I was surprised at how a second person in the front seems
to settle it right down.
Ain't life grand!! Yes it is.
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: need a NACA report |
Mike Cuy:
It is not there. It is not report 767 nor TN 767 but it appears that the WR
means Wartime Report and I have no idea about the L. This report is
referenced by the famous articles done in 1963 by John Thorp in Sport
Aviaiton on minimizing cooling drag.
Any chance you can see if they have it where you work?
Chirs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: need a NACA report
>
> Chris-- give this web site a try: http://naca.larc.nasa.gov/
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: need a NACA report |
What's the report # and/or the title? I will search thru our files at work for
you tomorrow.
Terry B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: need a NACA report |
Terry B.
It is titled "Improved Baffle Designs for Air-Cooled Engine Cylinders" and
is by Silverstein and Kinghorn NACA WR-L-767 from August 1943.
I have not been lucky looking in the usual places.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: need a NACA report
>
>
> What's the report # and/or the title? I will search thru our files at
work for you tomorrow.
> Terry B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 1st passenger,2nd time, lots of ice |
Walt,
You have just discovered the second thrill of the Piet. After glowing with
pride of workmanship it gives you a life time of rewards from smiling
passengers. I spend Saturday from 10 AM to 4 PM giving Young Eagle rides
non-stop. Took 5 minutes to choke down a sausage under the wing for lunch
and it was back in the air.
Reminded me of giving rides at Brodhead. I went home and put in an extra
hour on my new Piet.
Cheers,
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 1st passenger,2nd time, lots of ice
>
> Took my first time passenger up again this afternoon. Although very hazey
and about 41f, had a nice ride. Seemed to have the carb heat on more than
off, oh well, it was fun.
> Also second time using the intercom. Seemed once the mic was opened, her
mic sent the open exhaust noises straight to my ears. I know this has been
a problem discussed many times before, so I'll have to go to the archives to
see the input.
> As much as I was disappointed with the Piet in bumpy air, which was
discussed on this group earlier, I was surprised at how a second person in
the front seems to settle it right down.
> Ain't life grand!! Yes it is.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I would like to challange the collective knowledge and limits of the group. My
appologies in advance.
After a great week of deer hunting I have 2 nice large buck hides. They will make
nice trim and seats if I tan them properly.
Does anyone have any experience with leather? I know some of the basics. So far
I have covered them in salt and stretched them on a rack and started scraping
them. Iknow the old indian method would be to pee on it for the salt, scrape
and work in beef or pork fat.
I've tried the sporting good and western stores but havent found any info on this.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
There is a place in Roberts Wi (near hudson) that does that. they will trade your
fresh hides for cured deer hides. I could hunt up their name if that interests
you.
Del
Richard Navratil wrote:
I would like to challange the collective knowledge and limits of the group. My
appologies in advance.
After a great week of deer hunting I have 2 nice large buck hides. They will make
nice trim and seats if I tan them properly.
Does anyone have any experience with leather? I know some of the basics. So far
I have covered them in salt and stretched them on a rack and started scraping
them. Iknow the old indian method would be to pee on it for the salt, scrape
and work in beef or pork fat.
I've tried the sporting good and western stores but havent found any info on this.
Dick N.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
>
>
>I would like to challange the collective knowledge and limits of the
>group. My appologies in advance.
>After a great week of deer hunting I have 2 nice large buck hides. They
>will make nice trim and seats if I tan them properly.
>Does anyone have any experience with leather? I know some of the basics.
>So far I have covered them in salt and stretched them on a rack and
>started scraping them. Iknow the old indian method would be to pee on it
>for the salt, scrape and work in beef or pork fat.
>I've tried the sporting good and western stores but havent found any info
>on this.
>Dick N.
Dick,
It is hard, but not impossible, to tan your deer hides at home. I've tried
it twice & once I wound up with rawhide (suitable only for making a drum
head) & the other time a servicable, but not very pretty leather. It takes
a lot of time & attention. After salting & scraping (& you have to get ALL
the meat & fat off - I used an old hacksaw blade expoxied lenghthwise into
a slotted piece of wood), you have to soak it in a tanning solution for a
couple of weeks (shredded oak bark mulch 'tea' is a good 'traditional'
choice). Then you have to 'work' the leather a LOT over a wooden thing that
looks sort of like the narrow end of an ironing board & you have to do this
for quite a while every day as the hide dries.
Or you could do it the way the Sioux Indian women tanned buffalo hides for
their teepees & CHEW on the hide until it's tanned :). I'd say the
professionals do it.
There is a leather shop very near here that tans lots of hides for hunters
every Fall. I don't remeber the price, but the last time I had it done
(about 4 years ago) I think it ran about $35 per hide. You get your hides
tanned & returned, it's not a swap.
They will also do them in one of 3 colors: natural tan, brown or black. The
leather looks very nice - I plann on using some of my hides for the cockpit
coamings
My suggestion is take them off the stretchers, cover the flesh side with a
50-50 mix of salt & borax, roll them up, bag them & stick them in a
refrigerator until you can ship them off to be professionally tanned. I'll
find the address of the local shop if you want it. I used to use a shop in
FL, but the local folks turn out a nicer product & were cheaper.
Kip Gardner (OH deer season coming up - maybe I'll get lucky again this year)
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 web site |
In a message dated 11/14/03 10:12:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net writes:
> www.gregagn-1.com
Great site for GN 1 builders. Looks fantastic
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Rib profile question |
Thanks Javier for the drawings
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flew up to "strutland" |
Let us know how we can get a hold of a couple
Thanks
Greg
302 462 5251
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flew up to "strutland" |
By the way, is that Sussex airport in Delaware?
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | standby one....... |
>Mike Cuy:
>It is not there. It is not report 767 nor TN 767 but it appears that the WR
>means Wartime Report and I have no idea about the L.
>Any chance you can see if they have it where you work?
>Chirs
Chris-- you are correct. Upon further research here with my morning
coffee, I have learned that the WR does signify, like you say, a Wartime
Report.....and the L stands for Lewis Research Center (which is right
here--now called Glenn Research Center) and the 767 has been
cross-referenced to a new numbering system which is being looked up as I
type by one of our librarians. This report may very well be in the
basement of our library. I will report back to you when I find out more.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/17/03 |
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
Walt,
The noise problem with your mic's can be solved with a 35m film
container. Drill a small hole in the side and cut the top so it will
just slide over the mic. Leave the foam on inside the container when
you put it on.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/17/03 |
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
Walt,
The noise problem with your mic's can be solved with a 35m film
container. Drill a small hole in the side and cut the top so it will
just slide over the mic. Leave the foam on inside the container when
you put it on.
Craig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: standby one....... |
Mike, thanks a lot. I got it ok and am printing it out now. A cylinder is
a cylinder...
Chris
do not arcive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: standby one.......
>
>
> >Mike Cuy:
> >It is not there. It is not report 767 nor TN 767 but it appears that the
WR
> >means Wartime Report and I have no idea about the L.
> >Any chance you can see if they have it where you work?
> >Chirs
>
>
> Chris-- you are correct. Upon further research here with my morning
> coffee, I have learned that the WR does signify, like you say, a Wartime
> Report.....and the L stands for Lewis Research Center (which is right
> here--now called Glenn Research Center) and the 767 has been
> cross-referenced to a new numbering system which is being looked up as I
> type by one of our librarians. This report may very well be in the
> basement of our library. I will report back to you when I find out
more.
>
> Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: an answer for Chris Bobka |
Mike...
I couldn't get to the webpage you posted. could you please email me the report
directly? Sounds like an interesting study.
Thanks,
Terry B
In a message dated 11/18/2003 11:31:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov
writes:
> http://techlib.grc.nasa.gov/
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | New owner ZS-VJA |
Hi Everyone
Just became a proud owner of a pietenpol aircamper TTSN 114hrs model
1989 Lycoming 0-235 eng SMOH 10.25hrs Airframe SMOH 0.25 hrs
Regards
Norman Stapelberg
South Africa
ZS-VJA (114.25hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
I'm just checking to see if I got a complete set of plans with the project I
acquired a couple weeks ago. I know I need to order the supplemental plans
for the long fuselage but I didn't want to also order the original plans
unless I need to. This is the list of sheets I have along with the date on
the title block:
#1 - Fuselage details, 1-19-33
#2 - Stabilizer and rudder details, 3-23-33
#3 - Split axle landing gear, 1-25-34
#4 - Dual control assembly, 2-26-34
#5 - Wing details, 3-3-34
#6 - Struts, tailskid, motor mount, 3-?-34
#7 - Cowling and 3-view of plane, 3-20-34
#8 - Model A conversion, (no date)
There is also an additional, undated sheet showing the steel tube fuselage.
Is this a complete set of the original plans? Also, in addition to the long
fuse plans I would assume I should order the Builder's Manual and the
3-piece wing plans that the Piet family website sells. Is the Manual
helpful and accurate?
Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flew up to "strutland" |
Greg,
No , it's in northern NJ
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <Gnwac(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: flew up to "strutland"
>
> By the way, is that Sussex airport in Delaware?
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/17/03 |
Craig,
Great!!! I love it. In the past I've covered the mic with sponge, then the
clear "egg" that kids get prizes out a gum machine in, then cut the bulb
from a turky baster, and glued that to form a cup over your mouth. It
seemed to work pretty good. ( but got alot of wierd looks at fly-ins)
But I like this better. I'll try it.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Lawler" <clawler(at)ptd.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/17/03
>
> Walt,
>
> The noise problem with your mic's can be solved with a 35m film
> container. Drill a small hole in the side and cut the top so it will
> just slide over the mic. Leave the foam on inside the container when
> you put it on.
>
> Craig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Fw: New System Three Website |
Just in case anybody wants to access the engineering specs on T-88.
Or a dealer near at hand.
Clif
Subject: New System Three Website
Our new website is now live! In it you'll find many new features including a dealer
locator, members section, discount coupons, MSDS, product data sheets as
well as all our other published literature including catalog and price list.
Just click on the link below.
http://www.systemthree.com
You have received this email because you downloaded literature from the old SystemThree.com
website. This database will be destroyed after this transmission.
If you wish to receive further communication from System Three Resins, please
register as a member on the new site.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: New owner ZS-VJA |
So, do we get pictures???
Welcome to the list.
Clif
>
> Hi Everyone
>
> Just became a proud owner of a pietenpol aircamper TTSN 114hrs model
> 1989 Lycoming 0-235 eng SMOH 10.25hrs Airframe SMOH 0.25 hrs
>
> Regards
>
>
> Norman Stapelberg
> South Africa
> ZS-VJA (114.25hrs)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Thanks Kip and Del
I found a good book today at a local Indian trading post that goes through
all of the methods.
I'm going to ask my wife about that chewing thing, we'll see. They are
soaking in water with bleach for now.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip & Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: leather
>
> >
> >
> >I would like to challange the collective knowledge and limits of the
> >group. My appologies in advance.
> >After a great week of deer hunting I have 2 nice large buck hides. They
> >will make nice trim and seats if I tan them properly.
> >Does anyone have any experience with leather? I know some of the basics.
> >So far I have covered them in salt and stretched them on a rack and
> >started scraping them. Iknow the old indian method would be to pee on it
> >for the salt, scrape and work in beef or pork fat.
> >I've tried the sporting good and western stores but havent found any info
> >on this.
> >Dick N.
>
> Dick,
>
> It is hard, but not impossible, to tan your deer hides at home. I've tried
> it twice & once I wound up with rawhide (suitable only for making a drum
> head) & the other time a servicable, but not very pretty leather. It takes
> a lot of time & attention. After salting & scraping (& you have to get ALL
> the meat & fat off - I used an old hacksaw blade expoxied lenghthwise into
> a slotted piece of wood), you have to soak it in a tanning solution for a
> couple of weeks (shredded oak bark mulch 'tea' is a good 'traditional'
> choice). Then you have to 'work' the leather a LOT over a wooden thing
that
> looks sort of like the narrow end of an ironing board & you have to do
this
> for quite a while every day as the hide dries.
>
> Or you could do it the way the Sioux Indian women tanned buffalo hides for
> their teepees & CHEW on the hide until it's tanned :). I'd say the
> professionals do it.
>
> There is a leather shop very near here that tans lots of hides for hunters
> every Fall. I don't remeber the price, but the last time I had it done
> (about 4 years ago) I think it ran about $35 per hide. You get your hides
> tanned & returned, it's not a swap.
>
> They will also do them in one of 3 colors: natural tan, brown or black.
The
> leather looks very nice - I plann on using some of my hides for the
cockpit
> coamings
>
> My suggestion is take them off the stretchers, cover the flesh side with a
> 50-50 mix of salt & borax, roll them up, bag them & stick them in a
> refrigerator until you can ship them off to be professionally tanned. I'll
> find the address of the local shop if you want it. I used to use a shop in
> FL, but the local folks turn out a nicer product & were cheaper.
>
> Kip Gardner (OH deer season coming up - maybe I'll get lucky again this
year)
>
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Guys,
What guage aluninum are you using for the front mounted fuse fuel tank. I am
about ready to make mine up.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://cpc-world.cable.nu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: standby one....... |
Are we to argue over how to say Whithead?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: standby one.......
>
>
> >Mike Cuy:
> >It is not there. It is not report 767 nor TN 767 but it appears that the
WR
> >means Wartime Report and I have no idea about the L.
> >Any chance you can see if they have it where you work?
> >Chirs
>
>
> Chris-- you are correct. Upon further research here with my morning
> coffee, I have learned that the WR does signify, like you say, a Wartime
> Report.....and the L stands for Lewis Research Center (which is right
> here--now called Glenn Research Center) and the 767 has been
> cross-referenced to a new numbering system which is being looked up as I
> type by one of our librarians. This report may very well be in the
> basement of our library. I will report back to you when I find out
more.
>
> Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: correct plans? |
>
>I'm just checking to see if I got a complete set of plans with the project I
>acquired a couple weeks ago. I know I need to order the supplemental plans
>for the long fuselage but I didn't want to also order the original plans
>unless I need to. This is the list of sheets I have along with the date on
>the title block:
>
>#1 - Fuselage details, 1-19-33
>#2 - Stabilizer and rudder details, 3-23-33
>#3 - Split axle landing gear, 1-25-34
>#4 - Dual control assembly, 2-26-34
>#5 - Wing details, 3-3-34
>#6 - Struts, tailskid, motor mount, 3-?-34
>#7 - Cowling and 3-view of plane, 3-20-34
>#8 - Model A conversion, (no date)
>
>There is also an additional, undated sheet showing the steel tube fuselage.
>
>Is this a complete set of the original plans? Also, in addition to the long
>fuse plans I would assume I should order the Builder's Manual and the
>3-piece wing plans that the Piet family website sells. Is the Manual
>helpful and accurate?
>
>Thanks.
Eric,
I bought the complete set of plans plus manual during a visit to Andrew
Pietenpol & what you have sounds correct minus the long fuse plans, but
I'll check when I have time to go to the shop & look.
I have their 3-pc. wing plan as well (Vi Kaplar's drawings), but have
decided to use the one available from K.A. Price (available via her wab
site) since it only has a 1/8" gap between the wing & center section that
won't need to be covered over with aluminum. It is also supposed to be much
easier to take the wings off for storage. On the down side, I've been told
it is more complcated to build than the original 3-pc. design.
The Pietenpol's manual is basically a compilation of the original Flying &
Glider Manual articles plus some extra stuff about doing a Corvair
conversion and some additional comments on the plane by BHP's son. It's not
that expensive, but I found it mostly interesting reading rather than
instructive as a construction manual.
Hope this helps,
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: correct plans? |
Looks correct to me.The three piece wing plans come in a single sheet
with a sheet of photographs. Haven't purchased the builder's manual, I
have found that all of the info and pictures aval here, and at
mykitplanes.com have been more than enough, but if you have any doubts
certainly get the notes, it's a small investment.
Kip & Beth Gardner wrote:
>
>
> >
> >I'm just checking to see if I got a complete set of plans with the project I
> >acquired a couple weeks ago. I know I need to order the supplemental plans
> >for the long fuselage but I didn't want to also order the original plans
> >unless I need to. This is the list of sheets I have along with the date on
> >the title block:
> >
> >#1 - Fuselage details, 1-19-33
> >#2 - Stabilizer and rudder details, 3-23-33
> >#3 - Split axle landing gear, 1-25-34
> >#4 - Dual control assembly, 2-26-34
> >#5 - Wing details, 3-3-34
> >#6 - Struts, tailskid, motor mount, 3-?-34
> >#7 - Cowling and 3-view of plane, 3-20-34
> >#8 - Model A conversion, (no date)
> >
> >There is also an additional, undated sheet showing the steel tube fuselage.
> >
> >Is this a complete set of the original plans? Also, in addition to the long
> >fuse plans I would assume I should order the Builder's Manual and the
> >3-piece wing plans that the Piet family website sells. Is the Manual
> >helpful and accurate?
> >
> >Thanks.
>
> Eric,
>
> I bought the complete set of plans plus manual during a visit to Andrew
> Pietenpol & what you have sounds correct minus the long fuse plans, but
> I'll check when I have time to go to the shop & look.
>
> I have their 3-pc. wing plan as well (Vi Kaplar's drawings), but have
> decided to use the one available from K.A. Price (available via her wab
> site) since it only has a 1/8" gap between the wing & center section that
> won't need to be covered over with aluminum. It is also supposed to be much
> easier to take the wings off for storage. On the down side, I've been told
> it is more complcated to build than the original 3-pc. design.
>
> The Pietenpol's manual is basically a compilation of the original Flying &
> Glider Manual articles plus some extra stuff about doing a Corvair
> conversion and some additional comments on the plane by BHP's son. It's not
> that expensive, but I found it mostly interesting reading rather than
> instructive as a construction manual.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Kip Gardner
>
> North Canton, OH
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Good Fuselage?? |
In a week of evenings and a couple of weekends, I had a completed
fuselage frame in my shop. For the peace of mind it's definately worth
it to start fresh. The old one can certainly be used as a reference,
and as a mock-up for seating, control placement, running wiring, you
name it. Check out Cliff Dawson's mock-up at mykitplanes.com. A great
way to make sure everything fits!!
Eric Williams wrote:
>
>
> I want to say that I really appreciate all the opinions and suggestions you
> guys have given on this topic. Honestly there have been some really good,
> thoughtful ideas here. I think I'm going to print them all out and make
> them a permanent part of my official builders log. After considering what
> you all have said, and listening to my own gut feelings, I think I will
> probably end up building a new fuselage. I think laminating strips to the
> longerons to bring up the dimension would work if it could be done in one
> long continuous piece. The problem there is that many of the gussets and
> cross braces would be in the way and would have to be removed to allow for
> one nice long strip to be added. At that point we're into disassembling
> this fuse and I see that getting messy.
>
> Also, this one is the short version and was built following the original
> Flying and Glider manual plans which gives it some different dimensions and
> curvatures. I would prefer to build the long version and for it to follow
> exactly the more up to date plans so I'm not trying to mix two sets of
> dimensions together at some point.
>
> Lastly, this is one of those big "lifetime" projects that I really want to
> feel good about and have confidence in. I would hate to go through the
> whole building process and be afraid to fly it. As soon as I started
> describing to my wife how I might be able to salvage it with all these extra
> pieces glued in here and there, she reminded me that I've been down this
> road before with other projects and I always end up saying "I wish I had
> just done it the right way from the beginning".
>
> But still, even with all that said... there's a completed fuselage in my
> garage... and man it bugs me not to use it. I guess I'd better get busy and
> build the next one so I can quit whining about it.
>
> Again, thanks for the help guys.
>
> Eric
>
> MSN Shopping upgraded for the holidays! Snappier product search...
> http://shopping.msn.com
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Eric kicking some spruce !!! |
>Eric Williams wrote.........In a week of evenings and a couple of
>weekends, I had a completed
>fuselage frame in my shop. For the peace of mind it's definately worth
>it to start fresh.
Eric ! Way to go. It's great hearing this and shows hopeful builders that
framing up a Piet fuselage is not that big of a time-consuming
thing. Progress CAN be made quickly.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Eric kicking some spruce !!! |
Well Mike, I sure wish that were the case. Unfortunately you must have read
that message wrong - it was Dave Rowe who wrote about building his fuse
frame in a week. He wrote that in response to my earlier message. Man I
really hate to disappoint you after giving me those accolades so I guess I
had better get busy to keep up with Dave.
My wife told me she would support my airplane building as long as I finish
the half-completed boat that I'm currently building in the garage now. I'm
thinking maybe I can sneak out there in the middle of the night and cut a
little spruce though. I can see it now - she'll catch me coming in the
house late and say "Is that sawdust on your collar!?"
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Eric kicking some spruce !!!
>Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:48:08 -0500
>
>
>
>
> >Eric Williams wrote.........In a week of evenings and a couple of
> >weekends, I had a completed
> >fuselage frame in my shop. For the peace of mind it's definately worth
> >it to start fresh.
>
>
>Eric ! Way to go. It's great hearing this and shows hopeful builders that
>framing up a Piet fuselage is not that big of a time-consuming
>thing. Progress CAN be made quickly.
>
>Mike C.
>
>
From the hottest toys to tips on keeping fit this winter, youll find a
range of helpful holiday info here.
http://special.msn.com/network/happyholidays.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
Listers -
Sport Aviation Association's Winter 2003 "To Fly" magazine has some things
of interest, including a couple of photos of Corky and his magnificent
flying machine, NX41CC. Although Corky's letter is signed "Claude M.
Corbett," I saw through that subterfuge right away. There is also an
article "Finishing your fabric with latex paint?" by the "SAA Editorial
Staff" which really touts Kirk Huizenga's study and report. Good job, Kirk.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | Taper in tail section |
I'm starting to build the tail section very soon and from studying the plans it
looks like there's a taper in the thickness of the tail sections. On the tail
drawing, the leading edge (inside) thickness is 1/2" where the main beam is
5/8". So do the two end members get tapered first and then cut with the "relief"?
Also, I'm assuming the end members are leading edge section. Would I be
correct in that assumption?
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Eric kicking some spruce !!! |
Do I see a Pietenpol/Grumman Duck seaplane shaping up here????
Clif
> >
> My wife told me she would support my airplane building as long as I finish
> the half-completed boat that I'm currently building in the garage now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Eric kicking some spruce !!! |
I've been secretly harbouring (pun intended) thoughts of installing
float attach-points when I build. I would hate to think someone might
beat me to something as obscure and off-the-wall as that...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:03:29 PM >>>
Do I see a Pietenpol/Grumman Duck seaplane shaping up here????
Clif
> >
> My wife told me she would support my airplane building as long as I
finish
> the half-completed boat that I'm currently building in the garage
now.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet Fuel tanks |
I used 5052H-32 .040. It worked very well.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> What guage aluninum are you using for the front mounted fuse fuel tank. I
am
> about ready to make mine up.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi, Australia
> http://cpc-world.cable.nu
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Bad vibes from Sirius |
Dear Pieters,
Has anyone had any dealings with Sirius Aviation in the DFW area? My
father-in-law is having a bad experience with them. He ordered a large bill of
materials from them (various sizes of 4130 tube, 4130 sheet, and aluminum sheet)
about a month ago for his Hatz project. They told him large orders might take
up to a week for processing. He wrote them a check for over $1600. At the end
of the first week, he tried calling and left a message. They did not call
back so he called a couple more times the following week and made contact one
afternoon. They told him some of the sheet materials were at another facility
getting sheared. The next day, he found out his check had already cleared the
bank. After another week, he left another message and got no call back.
Finally this week (after getting quite frustrated with no communications from
them), he tried their fax number and someone answered. They still claimed the
sheet material was at the vendor getting sheared. Tomorrow will be ONE MONTH
since the order was placed. It is obvious that they waited until his check
cleared before they even started to fill the order. And they have not initiated
any communication at all to say the order was partially filled or some on
back-order. Nothing. in fact, they seem to be avoiding his phone calls. He has
now asked them to cancel the order and send his money back. He asked me to
check with the Piet group and see if anyone else has had similar dealings with
them. Or worse, or better? He chose Sirius because of our proximity to their
facility so we could go pick up the order and save shipping. Plus, their prices
were good when compared with Univair, Wicks, AS&S....the only cheaper was
Dillsburg. Whenever and IF ever he gets his $$ back....Dillsburg will get his
business from now on.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Latham" <geebeed(at)grm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad vibes from Sirius |
Terry,
I was fortunate enough to hear about Sirius prior to me donating any money
to Ted's cause.
There have been several, probably 6 or so from another list that I am on
that have felt the
"Sirius Sting". As I recall only one got any satifaction at all and it took
the better part of 6
months or so, claimed the check never came then it turned up cashed and the
story goes
on and on. I can't belive you got anyone to answer the phone from the
stories that I've been
told.
It's too bad as he could have a hell of a business if he'd get things right.
You just can't beat
Dillsburg for metal though.
Good Luck,
Al
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bad vibes from Sirius
>
> Dear Pieters,
> Has anyone had any dealings with Sirius Aviation in the DFW area? My
> father-in-law is having a bad experience with them. He ordered a large
bill of
> materials from them (various sizes of 4130 tube, 4130 sheet, and aluminum
sheet)
> about a month ago for his Hatz project. They told him large orders might
take
> up to a week for processing. He wrote them a check for over $1600. At
the end
> of the first week, he tried calling and left a message. They did not call
> back so he called a couple more times the following week and made contact
one
> afternoon. They told him some of the sheet materials were at another
facility
> getting sheared. The next day, he found out his check had already cleared
the
> bank. After another week, he left another message and got no call back.
> Finally this week (after getting quite frustrated with no communications
from
> them), he tried their fax number and someone answered. They still claimed
the
> sheet material was at the vendor getting sheared. Tomorrow will be ONE
MONTH
> since the order was placed. It is obvious that they waited until his
check
> cleared before they even started to fill the order. And they have not
initiated
> any communication at all to say the order was partially filled or some on
> back-order. Nothing. in fact, they seem to be avoiding his phone calls.
He has
> now asked them to cancel the order and send his money back. He asked me
to
> check with the Piet group and see if anyone else has had similar dealings
with
> them. Or worse, or better? He chose Sirius because of our proximity to
their
> facility so we could go pick up the order and save shipping. Plus, their
prices
> were good when compared with Univair, Wicks, AS&S....the only cheaper was
> Dillsburg. Whenever and IF ever he gets his $$ back....Dillsburg will get
his
> business from now on.
> Terry Bowden
> ph (254) 715-4773
> fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad vibes from Sirius |
Egad, I wish I had known your father-in-law was about to do this..... I
posted a note to the list (or maybe offline to someone in the Piet group)
some time ago regarding Sirius. And I won't spend any more time on this
issue on this forum than to say that I hope the money is returned. Ok, I
will say a bit more.....your father-in-law ain't alone.....
Ok, now for "local" pickup and one of the best suppliers you'll find
ANYWHERE, drive a little farther north/east to Alpha Aviation in Greenville.
(Actually, don't drive there......drive to Mesquite, which you were going to
do anyway, and I'll pick you up and drive you to Greenville myself.....)
Now that I think about it, we can stop a little SW of Greenville (in Caddo
Mills) and we'll take a sailplane up and go find some thermals! Now THAT
would be fun!
Anyway, what he doesn't have he'll get for you and he's simply a pleasure to
deal with. Everything I've bought there has been priced very close to AS&S
(I've only comparison price checked a couple of items) but I can drive over
and pick up what I need. Good service is never free and I would gladly pay
a bit more just for the experience. Good service, local pickup and a fair
price is a combination that's just to rare these days.....
I was over there recently getting some ply (which I cutup into 9" strips and
started attaching to the leading edge just this evening.....) and mentioned
that I needed some 1.5" 4130 for my straight axle. He dug around, found
none and said he would order some. I called back a week or so later, it was
in and I went out and picked it up. No advance payment, no hassle, just go
get it.
OK, I'll get off my soap box....good customer service is one of my pet
peeves.
Again, good luck and let me know if you get up this way.
Jim in Plano
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bad vibes from Sirius
>
> Dear Pieters,
> Has anyone had any dealings with Sirius Aviation in the DFW area? My
> father-in-law is having a bad experience with them. He ordered a large
bill of
> materials from them (various sizes of 4130 tube, 4130 sheet, and aluminum
sheet)
> about a month ago for his Hatz project. They told him large orders might
take
> up to a week for processing. He wrote them a check for over $1600. At
the end
> of the first week, he tried calling and left a message. They did not call
> back so he called a couple more times the following week and made contact
one
> afternoon. They told him some of the sheet materials were at another
facility
> getting sheared. The next day, he found out his check had already cleared
the
> bank. After another week, he left another message and got no call back.
> Finally this week (after getting quite frustrated with no communications
from
> them), he tried their fax number and someone answered. They still claimed
the
> sheet material was at the vendor getting sheared. Tomorrow will be ONE
MONTH
> since the order was placed. It is obvious that they waited until his
check
> cleared before they even started to fill the order. And they have not
initiated
> any communication at all to say the order was partially filled or some on
> back-order. Nothing. in fact, they seem to be avoiding his phone calls.
He has
> now asked them to cancel the order and send his money back. He asked me
to
> check with the Piet group and see if anyone else has had similar dealings
with
> them. Or worse, or better? He chose Sirius because of our proximity to
their
> facility so we could go pick up the order and save shipping. Plus, their
prices
> were good when compared with Univair, Wicks, AS&S....the only cheaper was
> Dillsburg. Whenever and IF ever he gets his $$ back....Dillsburg will get
his
> business from now on.
> Terry Bowden
> ph (254) 715-4773
> fax (254) 853-3805
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad vibes from Sirius |
The guy at Alpha is Russ Chambers, I think, and his son is either a part
timer on this list or the tcraft list, I forget which. Either way, do
busines with him. Jim, I used to tow at Caddo Mills and it is really due
west from greenville not SW.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bad vibes from Sirius
>
> Egad, I wish I had known your father-in-law was about to do this..... I
> posted a note to the list (or maybe offline to someone in the Piet group)
> some time ago regarding Sirius. And I won't spend any more time on this
> issue on this forum than to say that I hope the money is returned. Ok, I
> will say a bit more.....your father-in-law ain't alone.....
>
> Ok, now for "local" pickup and one of the best suppliers you'll find
> ANYWHERE, drive a little farther north/east to Alpha Aviation in
Greenville.
> (Actually, don't drive there......drive to Mesquite, which you were going
to
> do anyway, and I'll pick you up and drive you to Greenville myself.....)
> Now that I think about it, we can stop a little SW of Greenville (in Caddo
> Mills) and we'll take a sailplane up and go find some thermals! Now THAT
> would be fun!
>
> Anyway, what he doesn't have he'll get for you and he's simply a pleasure
to
> deal with. Everything I've bought there has been priced very close to
AS&S
> (I've only comparison price checked a couple of items) but I can drive
over
> and pick up what I need. Good service is never free and I would gladly
pay
> a bit more just for the experience. Good service, local pickup and a fair
> price is a combination that's just to rare these days.....
>
> I was over there recently getting some ply (which I cutup into 9" strips
and
> started attaching to the leading edge just this evening.....) and
mentioned
> that I needed some 1.5" 4130 for my straight axle. He dug around, found
> none and said he would order some. I called back a week or so later, it
was
> in and I went out and picked it up. No advance payment, no hassle, just
go
> get it.
>
> OK, I'll get off my soap box....good customer service is one of my pet
> peeves.
>
> Again, good luck and let me know if you get up this way.
>
> Jim in Plano
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bad vibes from Sirius
>
>
> >
> > Dear Pieters,
> > Has anyone had any dealings with Sirius Aviation in the DFW area? My
> > father-in-law is having a bad experience with them. He ordered a large
> bill of
> > materials from them (various sizes of 4130 tube, 4130 sheet, and
aluminum
> sheet)
> > about a month ago for his Hatz project. They told him large orders
might
> take
> > up to a week for processing. He wrote them a check for over $1600. At
> the end
> > of the first week, he tried calling and left a message. They did not
call
> > back so he called a couple more times the following week and made
contact
> one
> > afternoon. They told him some of the sheet materials were at another
> facility
> > getting sheared. The next day, he found out his check had already
cleared
> the
> > bank. After another week, he left another message and got no call back.
> > Finally this week (after getting quite frustrated with no communications
> from
> > them), he tried their fax number and someone answered. They still
claimed
> the
> > sheet material was at the vendor getting sheared. Tomorrow will be ONE
> MONTH
> > since the order was placed. It is obvious that they waited until his
> check
> > cleared before they even started to fill the order. And they have not
> initiated
> > any communication at all to say the order was partially filled or some
on
> > back-order. Nothing. in fact, they seem to be avoiding his phone
calls.
> He has
> > now asked them to cancel the order and send his money back. He asked me
> to
> > check with the Piet group and see if anyone else has had similar
dealings
> with
> > them. Or worse, or better? He chose Sirius because of our proximity to
> their
> > facility so we could go pick up the order and save shipping. Plus,
their
> prices
> > were good when compared with Univair, Wicks, AS&S....the only cheaper
was
> > Dillsburg. Whenever and IF ever he gets his $$ back....Dillsburg will
get
> his
> > business from now on.
> > Terry Bowden
> > ph (254) 715-4773
> > fax (254) 853-3805
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Thanks Dick.
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
-->
I used 5052H-32 .040. It worked very well.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
> -->
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> What guage aluninum are you using for the front mounted fuse fuel
> tank. I
am
> about ready to make mine up.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi, Australia
> http://cpc-world.cable.nu
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/19/03 9:30:51 PM Central Standard Time,
Jford(at)indstate.edu writes:
<< I've been secretly harbouring (pun intended) thoughts of installing
float attach-points when I build. I would hate to think someone might
beat me to something as obscure and off-the-wall as that... >>
John,
Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded emblem on
the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of building fully
plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't remember who it
was...
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Chuck,
That was Dick Navratil's fuselage, beautiful job.
Skip
>Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded emblem
on
>the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of building
fully
>plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't remember who
it
>was...
>Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
John,
I was down at Winter Haven the other day and John Brown (of seaplane fame)
said he had a pair of floats that would work wonderful for a Piet. He
mentioned that they were 1050's or something near that size. Seems they
were on a C3 at one time. He said that if they didn't end up on something
like a Piet that someday they will probably be in a museum. Things dreams
are made of; now if I only lived on the water. I will need amphibs if I
ever get to go splashing.
John Myers
>
>I've been secretly harbouring (pun intended) thoughts of installing
>float attach-points when I build. I would hate to think someone might
>beat me to something as obscure and off-the-wall as that...
>
>John
>
>John Ford
>john(at)indstate.edu
>812-237-8542
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Bad vibes from Sirius |
It seems like a nice organization, but I could never get any response from
them.
Doyle Combs
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bad vibes from Sirius
>
> Dear Pieters,
> Has anyone had any dealings with Sirius Aviation in the DFW area? My
> father-in-law is having a bad experience with them. He ordered a large
bill of
> materials from them (various sizes of 4130 tube, 4130 sheet, and aluminum
sheet)
> about a month ago for his Hatz project. They told him large orders might
take
> up to a week for processing. He wrote them a check for over $1600. At
the end
> of the first week, he tried calling and left a message. They did not call
> back so he called a couple more times the following week and made contact
one
> afternoon. They told him some of the sheet materials were at another
facility
> getting sheared. The next day, he found out his check had already cleared
the
> bank. After another week, he left another message and got no call back.
> Finally this week (after getting quite frustrated with no communications
from
> them), he tried their fax number and someone answered. They still claimed
the
> sheet material was at the vendor getting sheared. Tomorrow will be ONE
MONTH
> since the order was placed. It is obvious that they waited until his
check
> cleared before they even started to fill the order. And they have not
initiated
> any communication at all to say the order was partially filled or some on
> back-order. Nothing. in fact, they seem to be avoiding his phone calls.
He has
> now asked them to cancel the order and send his money back. He asked me
to
> check with the Piet group and see if anyone else has had similar dealings
with
> them. Or worse, or better? He chose Sirius because of our proximity to
their
> facility so we could go pick up the order and save shipping. Plus, their
prices
> were good when compared with Univair, Wicks, AS&S....the only cheaper was
> Dillsburg. Whenever and IF ever he gets his $$ back....Dillsburg will get
his
> business from now on.
> Terry Bowden
> ph (254) 715-4773
> fax (254) 853-3805
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
I remember looking at that. Nice. I wonder how much it weighs with all
that sheeting?
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:37:55 AM >>>
Chuck,
That was Dick Navratil's fuselage, beautiful job.
Skip
>Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded
emblem
on
>the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of
building
fully
>plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't remember
who
it
>was...
>Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | Taper in tail section |
Tom,
Yes, your assumption is correct by the plans. I did mine by the plans
because I always tend to do things the way that would be the most work. The
plans call for the flange to be tapered different from the main part of the
end member, you have to make both right and left hand taper jigs to do the
job.
My 2 cents, a better way to make the piece would be just make a tapered
rectangle, glue the horizontal stab together, then make 1/4 X 1/4 pieces,
glue on top and bottom to give the member the T shape.
Skip
>I'm starting to build the tail section very soon and from studying the
plans it looks like >there's a taper in the thickness of the tail sections.
On the tail drawing, the leading
>edge (inside) thickness is 1/2" where the main beam is 5/8". So do the two
end members get >tapered first and then cut with the "relief"? Also, I'm
assuming the end members are >leading edge section. Would I be correct in
that assumption?
>Tom Brant
>Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
use the muktuk floats
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> In a message dated 11/19/03 9:30:51 PM Central Standard Time,
> Jford(at)indstate.edu writes:
>
> << I've been secretly harbouring (pun intended) thoughts of installing
> float attach-points when I build. I would hate to think someone might
> beat me to something as obscure and off-the-wall as that... >>
>
> John,
> Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded emblem
on
> the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of building
fully
> plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't remember who
it
> was...
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "rambog(at)erols.com" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
I would recommend using 3003 aluminum .040 thick. It is cheap, easy to
obtain (any sheet metal shop has it), easy to work, and is what they
originally would have used.
Gene
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Peter W Johnson vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:29:58 +1100
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
Thanks Dick.
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Richard
Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
-->
I used 5052H-32 .040. It worked very well.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet Fuel tanks
> -->
>
> Hi Guys,
>
> What guage aluninum are you using for the front mounted fuse fuel
> tank. I
am
> about ready to make mine up.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter
> Wonthaggi, Australia
> http://cpc-world.cable.nu
>
>
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
Muktuk floats? Whale fat? Eskimo Ice Cream? Muktuk does float, so I
suppose I could wrap it in a caribou skin and be done with it. I'd need
an enclosed cockpit and a strong cigar to cope with the smell...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:14:35 AM >>>
use the muktuk floats
----- Original Message -----
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
No silly. these
http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
Chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> Muktuk floats? Whale fat? Eskimo Ice Cream? Muktuk does float, so I
> suppose I could wrap it in a caribou skin and be done with it. I'd need
> an enclosed cockpit and a strong cigar to cope with the smell...
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:14:35 AM >>>
>
>
> use the muktuk floats
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
those are inexpensive and look to be pretty simple to build. me likes!
too bad out here in AZ there's no lakes suited for float flying, save for Lake
Havasu of course.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
No silly. these
http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
Chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> Muktuk floats? Whale fat? Eskimo Ice Cream? Muktuk does float, so I
> suppose I could wrap it in a caribou skin and be done with it. I'd need
> an enclosed cockpit and a strong cigar to cope with the smell...
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:14:35 AM >>>
>
>
> use the muktuk floats
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
Extremely cool! Very, very nice... Thanks!
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Thursday, November 20, 2003 2:52:43 PM >>>
No silly. these
http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
Chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> Muktuk floats? Whale fat? Eskimo Ice Cream? Muktuk does float, so
I
> suppose I could wrap it in a caribou skin and be done with it. I'd
need
> an enclosed cockpit and a strong cigar to cope with the smell...
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Thursday, November 20, 2003 11:14:35 AM >>>
>
>
> use the muktuk floats
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
John
Thats my project. As best that I figure the fuse is within 3lb. of a
normal fuse.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> I remember looking at that. Nice. I wonder how much it weighs with all
> that sheeting?
>
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:37:55 AM >>>
>
> Chuck,
> That was Dick Navratil's fuselage, beautiful job.
> Skip
>
> >Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded
> emblem
> on
> >the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of
> building
> fully
> >plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't remember
> who
> it
> >was...
> >Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I just checked out that muctuc floats web site. Those are very nice. I was thinking
of building a set of wings at SNF this year but maybe floats would be a
good project.
If anyone else wants to make lots of quick progress on a project, the group at
Sun n Fun is great and you can meet lots of other builders.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
Dick,
It sure looks good, and I reckon it's quite stiff torsionally. I'm
excited to see it when you're finished.
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> horzpool(at)goldengate.net Thursday, November 20, 2003 9:18:51 PM >>>
John
Thats my project. As best that I figure the fuse is within 3lb. of a
normal fuse.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Floats ?
>
> I remember looking at that. Nice. I wonder how much it weighs with
all
> that sheeting?
>
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
>
>
> >>> Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov Thursday, November 20, 2003 7:37:55 AM >>>
>
> Chuck,
> That was Dick Navratil's fuselage, beautiful job.
> Skip
>
> >Someone from this list had a fully sheeted fuselage with an embeded
> emblem
> on
> >the side, on display at Brodhead this year, with intentions of
> building
> fully
> >plywood sheeted floats, to match. Way cool idea !! I don't
remember
> who
> it
> >was...
> >Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bob Seibert" <dsseibert(at)earthlink.net> |
Well, I guess its time to move on to new challenges.
Diane and I are putting the house up for sale with the goal of moving
closer to our son in California and doing the semi-retirement thing.
We are selling Macho Grande Airport here in Taylor, TX and our free hangar
rent is going to go away.
SO....
For Sale - 2003 Pietenpol Aircamper - A-65 Continental recently gone
through, cruises 80, top speed 95! (on a good day) Photos on the Matronics
photo page (July 29, 2003), this has the hours flown off of it and is legal
for the Sport Pilot category. It was fun to build and is fun to fly. I will
do an annual with purchase. $14K Bob Seibert 512-365-8918.
NOTE THAT MY EMAIL ADDRESS IS CHANGED. It is dsseibert(at)earthlink.net
Regards,
Bob Seibert
PS- If anybody wants to buy a 2500' runway, hangar, barn, shop and house on
42 acres 1/2 hour from Austin, we can work a deal on that too!
--- Bob Seibert
--- dsseibert(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I found a box of designee documents. Such items as riveting, welding, etc. Some
are aircraft spefic. Any interest in thm here..or should I use them to start
a cozy fire on Thanksgiving?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> |
Guys,
I need a little help! How are the seat belts anchored for the rear
cockpit? I have the shoulder harness anchored with a 1/4 inch cable attached
to the bolt running back to the tailwheel spring mount but I'm having a
problem figuring out just where to mount the rear seat belts. I don't feel
attaching them to the floor plywood would be strong enough even if the area
is reinforced with a ply doubler. The front belts are attached to the ash
member across the floor so they are plenty secure. Anybody have any ideas?
Sam Marinucci
NX115SM (reserved number)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sam Marinucci" <srmjem(at)ezol.com> |
Guys,
I need a little help! How are the seat belts anchored for the rear
cockpit? I have the shoulder harness anchored with a 1/4 inch cable attached
to the bolt running back to the tailwheel spring mount but I'm having a
problem figuring out just where to mount the rear seat belts. I don't feel
attaching them to the floor plywood would be strong enough even if the area
is reinforced with a ply doubler. The front belts are attached to the ash
member across the floor so they are plenty secure. Anybody have any ideas?
Sam Marinucci
NX115SM (reserved number)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Hi Sam,
I anchored mine through the lower longerons and two thicknesses of plywood
doublers, with 5/16" bolts. The FAA says seatbelts are to be attached to
primary structure. In a Pietenpol, that pretty much means the longerons.
Jack Phillips
Putting the last finishing tapes on NX899JP today.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sam
Marinucci
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seat belts
Guys,
I need a little help! How are the seat belts anchored for the rear
cockpit? I have the shoulder harness anchored with a 1/4 inch cable attached
to the bolt running back to the tailwheel spring mount but I'm having a
problem figuring out just where to mount the rear seat belts. I don't feel
attaching them to the floor plywood would be strong enough even if the area
is reinforced with a ply doubler. The front belts are attached to the ash
member across the floor so they are plenty secure. Anybody have any ideas?
Sam Marinucci
NX115SM (reserved number)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
did you not put them on ebay, Jim?
What are they, specifiaclly?
Chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Vydra" <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Misc info
>
> I found a box of designee documents. Such items as riveting, welding, etc.
Some are aircraft spefic. Any interest in thm here..or should I use them to
start a cozy fire on Thanksgiving?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: correct plans? |
>
>I'm just checking to see if I got a complete set of plans with the project I
>acquired a couple weeks ago. I know I need to order the supplemental plans
>for the long fuselage but I didn't want to also order the original plans
>unless I need to. This is the list of sheets I have along with the date on
>the title block:
>
>#1 - Fuselage details, 1-19-33
>#2 - Stabilizer and rudder details, 3-23-33
>#3 - Split axle landing gear, 1-25-34
>#4 - Dual control assembly, 2-26-34
>#5 - Wing details, 3-3-34
>#6 - Struts, tailskid, motor mount, 3-?-34
>#7 - Cowling and 3-view of plane, 3-20-34
>#8 - Model A conversion, (no date)
>
>There is also an additional, undated sheet showing the steel tube fuselage.
>
>Is this a complete set of the original plans? Also, in addition to the long
>fuse plans I would assume I should order the Builder's Manual and the
>3-piece wing plans that the Piet family website sells. Is the Manual
>helpful and accurate?
>
>Thanks.
Eric,
I checked my set of plans & the set of 9 sheets that you have is the
complete 'basic' set.
The 3-piece wing plan is a single sheet.
The Long Fuselage/Corvair plans are a set of 5 sheets:
#1 Long Fuselage layout & motor mounts
#2 Corvair Engine Mount
#3 Continental Engine Mount
#4 Corvair Prop Hub & Safety Shaft
#5 Corvair Prop Hub Details
Hope that helps.
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Nav lghts on a Piet |
Pieters,
While building the fuse for Repiet I want to wire it for nav lights, install
switch and ammeter plus plan for the installation of a small wind driven
generator. Would like an installation to be installed and removed easily as night
flying is not a regular activity.
Edwin Johnson and I have discussed this and feel that if 311CC has the
capability for night flight it would increase it's value to the next owner after
I'm
gone.
From some in the know: How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
lights?
Is a strobe or rotating beacon required? If you know the reg numbers on this
I would appreciate having them.
Would appreciate your input on this subject.
Thanks in advance
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net> |
| Subject: | Apple QuickTime Video Help |
After downloading the QuickTime free software, I am still unable to view the referenced
video. Have the rest of you been able to see it? Any help would be
most welcome.
I have the crankshaft/propeller adaptor almost fully machined for my 116 cubic
inch Ford project. Looks nice - - a 48# steel billet was reduced to about 4.5#
for a 4 inch extension with a 6 inch flange. Knowledgeable people say pessimistic
things about running direct drive, nodular iron crankshafts with no outboard
bearings and I take them seriously.
The end thrust provision for an auto engine is designed to absorb a momentary 300#
push on the flywheel end when the clutch is disengaged. Cruising a Pietenpol
Scout at 70 MPH might involve a steady pull of about 137# on the flywheel
end. Can the little Ford take this? Who knows?
They won't let you present at the Oshkosh Auto Engine Forums unless you've flown
your engine. This is a wise rule.
Happy landings, Mike Fisher, P. O. Box 347, Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Corvair is alive and running
I got my Corvair finished and running on Friday. Was a rush! After over a year
it's finally done. I'm still breaking it in but I get about 2750 rpm static
with a 66x29 Tenesee prop. This thing has some good power!
a QuickTime video of the first run is here:
www.imagedv.com/aircamper/first-run.mov
DJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
you'll need a rotating beacon, red and green wing tip lights and a white
tail light. I'm pretty sure you can substitute strobes for a rotating
beacon if desired. No landing light required but nice to have for dark
nights at poorly lit fields.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
> Pieters,
>
> While building the fuse for Repiet I want to wire it for nav lights,
install
> switch and ammeter plus plan for the installation of a small wind driven
> generator. Would like an installation to be installed and removed easily
as night
> flying is not a regular activity.
> Edwin Johnson and I have discussed this and feel that if 311CC has the
> capability for night flight it would increase it's value to the next owner
after I'm
> gone.
> From some in the know: How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> lights?
> Is a strobe or rotating beacon required? If you know the reg numbers on
this
> I would appreciate having them.
> Would appreciate your input on this subject.
> Thanks in advance
>
> Corky in La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Corky,
Here it all is: nav lights, anticollision (strobe or rotating beacon) (per
91.205 (c)(3) ) installed to meet the part 23 criteria (if you need this let
me know), and a landing light (per 91.507). It is 91.507 that really gets
you because this is relatively new addition to part 91 that says that you
need the instruments needed for IFR flight installed to fly night VFR. You
also need to have it on your particular experimental aircraft's specific
operating limitations (the paperwork the DAR gives you) that you are ok for
night VFR.
All the pertinent parts are below. I have edited out sections that don't
apply. I don't think it will happen with a Pietenpol.....too much weight.
91.209 Aircraft lights.
(a) No person may, during the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska,
during the period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a
distance of 3 statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the
horizon) --
(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
(2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft --
(i) Is clearly illuminated;
(ii) Has lighted position lights; or
(iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
(b) No person may operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision
light system, unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the
anticollision lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command
determines that, because of operating conditions, it would be in the
interest of safety to turn the lights off.
[Doc. No. 27806, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996]
91.507 Equipment requirements: Over-the-top or night VFR operations.
No person may operate an airplane over-the-top or at night under VFR unless
that airplane is equipped with the instruments and equipment required for
IFR operations under 91.205(d) and one electric landing light for night
operations. Each required instrument and item of equipment must be in
operable condition.
91.205 Powered civil aircraft with standard category U.S. airworthiness
certificates: Instrument and equipment requirements.
(a) General. Except as provided in paragraphs (c)(3) and (e) of this
section, no person may operate a powered civil aircraft with a standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificate in any operation described in
paragraphs (b) through (f) of this section unless that aircraft contains the
instruments and equipment specified in those paragraphs (or FAA-approved
equivalents) for that type of operation, and those instruments and items of
equipment are in operable condition.
(b) Visual-flight rules (day). For VFR flight during the day, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Airspeed indicator.
(2) Altimeter.
(3) Magnetic direction indicator.
(4) Tachometer for each engine.
(5) Oil pressure gauge for each engine using pressure system.
(6) Temperature gauge for each liquid-cooled engine.
(7) Oil temperature gauge for each air-cooled engine.
(8) Manifold pressure gauge for each altitude engine.
(9) Fuel gauge indicating the quantity of fuel in each tank.
(10) Landing gear position indicator, if the aircraft has a retractable
landing gear.
(11) For small civil airplanes certificated after March 11, 1996, in
accordance with part 23 of this chapter, an approved aviation red or
aviation white anticollision light system. In the event of failure of any
light of the anticollision light system, operation of the aircraft may
continue to a location where repairs or replacement can be made.
(15) An emergency locator transmitter, if required by 91.207.
(c) Visual flight rules (night). For VFR flight at night, the following
instruments and equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
(2) Approved position lights.
(3) An approved aviation red or aviation white anticollision light system on
all U.S.-registered civil aircraft. Anticollision light systems initially
installed after August 11, 1971, on aircraft for which a type certificate
was issued or applied for before August 11, 1971, must at least meet the
anticollision light standards of part 23, 25, 27, or 29 of this chapter, as
applicable, that were in effect on August 10, 1971, except that the color
may be either aviation red or aviation white. In the event of failure of any
light of the anticollision light system, operations with the aircraft may be
continued to a stop where repairs or replacement can be made.
(5) An adequate source of electrical energy for all installed electrical and
radio equipment.
(6) One spare set of fuses, or three spare fuses of each kind required, that
are accessible to the pilot in flight.
(d) Instrument flight rules. For IFR flight, the following instruments and
equipment are required:
(1) Instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (b) of this section,
and, for night flight, instruments and equipment specified in paragraph (c)
of this section.
(2) Two-way radio communications system and navigational equipment
appropriate to the ground facilities to be used.
(3) Gyroscopic rate-of-turn indicator.
(4) Slip-skid indicator.
(5) Sensitive altimeter adjustable for barometric pressure.
(6) A clock displaying hours, minutes, and seconds with a sweep-second
pointer or digital presentation.
(7) Generator or alternator of adequate capacity.
(8) Gyroscopic pitch and bank indicator (artificial horizon).
(9) Gyroscopic direction indicator (directional gyro or equivalent).
[Doc. No. 18334, 54 FR 34292, Aug. 18, 1989, as amended by Amdt. 91-220, 55
FR 43310, Oct. 26, 1990; Amdt. 91-223, 56 FR 41052, Aug. 16, 1991; Amdt.
91-231, 57 FR 42672, Sept. 15, 1992; Amdt. 91-248, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996;
Amdt. 91-251, 61 FR 34560, July 2, 1996]
91.319 Aircraft having experimental certificates: Operating limitations.
(d) (2) Each person operating an aircraft that has an experimental
certificate shall operate under VFR, day only, unless otherwise specifically
authorized by the Administrator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number
2120-0005)
Chris Bobka
CFI, ATP, A&P, IA, FE, AGI
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
> Pieters,
>
> While building the fuse for Repiet I want to wire it for nav lights,
install
> switch and ammeter plus plan for the installation of a small wind driven
> generator. Would like an installation to be installed and removed easily
as night
> flying is not a regular activity.
> Edwin Johnson and I have discussed this and feel that if 311CC has the
> capability for night flight it would increase it's value to the next owner
after I'm
> gone.
> From some in the know: How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> lights?
> Is a strobe or rotating beacon required? If you know the reg numbers on
this
> I would appreciate having them.
> Would appreciate your input on this subject.
> Thanks in advance
>
> Corky in La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Thanks Chris,
Things sure have changed in the past 50 yrs. I sure am glad I threw the light
question out. You people are right if you thought, " how bumb can someone
be". I sure didn't have a clue that an experimental was denied night flight.
Thanks again for setting me straight.
Corky in La who will only fly on sun shining days.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
DJ,
Read the whole post I sent to corky on lights. A landing light AND IFR
isntrumentation is required now, and that goes for the old taylorcrafts and
cessna 140s, etc., as well.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> you'll need a rotating beacon, red and green wing tip lights and a white
> tail light. I'm pretty sure you can substitute strobes for a rotating
> beacon if desired. No landing light required but nice to have for dark
> nights at poorly lit fields.
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> Mesa, AZ
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> -
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
> >
> >
> > Pieters,
> >
> > While building the fuse for Repiet I want to wire it for nav lights,
> install
> > switch and ammeter plus plan for the installation of a small wind driven
> > generator. Would like an installation to be installed and removed easily
> as night
> > flying is not a regular activity.
> > Edwin Johnson and I have discussed this and feel that if 311CC has the
> > capability for night flight it would increase it's value to the next
owner
> after I'm
> > gone.
> > From some in the know: How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary
nav
> > lights?
> > Is a strobe or rotating beacon required? If you know the reg numbers on
> this
> > I would appreciate having them.
> > Would appreciate your input on this subject.
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > Corky in La
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Video Help |
you need to right click that video link and choose "save target as" then
save it locally to your hard drive. It will play fine after doing that.
For some reason which I have yet to figure out, some browsers do not like to
play the video even if the proper quicktime codec is installed.
do the save target as and you'll be able to view it.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Fisher" <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Video Help
>
> After downloading the QuickTime free software, I am still unable to view
the referenced video. Have the rest of you been able to see it? Any help
would be most welcome.
>
> I have the crankshaft/propeller adaptor almost fully machined for my 116
cubic inch Ford project. Looks nice - - a 48# steel billet was reduced to
about 4.5# for a 4 inch extension with a 6 inch flange. Knowledgeable
people say pessimistic things about running direct drive, nodular iron
crankshafts with no outboard bearings and I take them seriously.
>
> The end thrust provision for an auto engine is designed to absorb a
momentary 300# push on the flywheel end when the clutch is disengaged.
Cruising a Pietenpol Scout at 70 MPH might involve a steady pull of about
137# on the flywheel end. Can the little Ford take this? Who knows?
>
> They won't let you present at the Oshkosh Auto Engine Forums unless you've
flown your engine. This is a wise rule.
>
> Happy landings, Mike Fisher, P. O. Box 347, Talkeetna, Alaska 99676
>
> From: "DJ Vegh" <aircamper(at)imagedv.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Corvair is alive and running
>
>
> I got my Corvair finished and running on Friday. Was a rush! After over
a year
> it's finally done. I'm still breaking it in but I get about 2750 rpm
static
> with a 66x29 Tenesee prop. This thing has some good power!
>
> a QuickTime video of the first run is here:
>
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper/first-run.mov
>
> DJ
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
No, Corky, an experimental is NOT necessarily blanket denied night VFR or
day/night IFR. You need to look at the paperwork the DAR gave you in the
form of limitations of the experimental airworthiness certificate of YOUR
particular airplane. It might be denied, it might not. What is on the
limitations may be based on what you wrote on the application...
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> Thanks Chris,
> Things sure have changed in the past 50 yrs. I sure am glad I threw the
light
> question out. You people are right if you thought, " how bumb can someone
> be". I sure didn't have a clue that an experimental was denied night
flight.
> Thanks again for setting me straight.
>
> Corky in La who will only fly on sun shining days.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Here is my understanding of the rules, hopefully it will be of some help to
you,
91.507 (or for that matter any of the rules within subpart F of part 91)
does not apply unless you are a large or turbine powered multi-engine
airplane.
As for lights, here is how I understand the rules for part 91 operations in
an airplane that is not large or turbine powered:
If you have strobe lights you must use them - Always, unless they are
interefering with the safe conduct of flight (for example reflecting off
clouds or the prop and distracting you.) Ref 91.209(b)
If you wish to fly after sunset but before sunrise you must have navigation
lights (the green and red wing tip lights.) (ref 91.209)
If you wish to fly after the end of evening civil twilight but before the
begining of mourning civil twilight you must have anti-collision lights
(ref 91.205c). This civil twilight stuff is a time as recorded in the Air
Almanac (an expensive book.) An unofficial source for the civil twilight
information is on airnav.com, which lists civil twilight for that day when
you look up an airport. It is about the time that the city starts to turn
the street lights on and you start noticing all the house lights. This
differs from nautical twilight which is defined as the time when you can no
longer distinguish the horizon. Civil twilight buys you about an extra 20
minutes here in Florida.
For people that have old airplanes to operate at night (after the end of
civil twilight) they must have an approved lighting system that meets the
standards on a specified date in the early 1970's, which if you dig through
the references breaks down to you must have a strobe or rotating beacon.
New airplanes are not allowed to use this option and must have the strobes.
For instance a Stinson that was originally equipped for night flight when
it was certified cannot legally be used at night today unless it has a
beacon or strobes.
I hope this helps, to make sense of it keep in mind that one reg refers to
sunset/sunrise, the other refers to 'night' which means end of civil
twilight to start of civil twilight.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
In a message dated 11/21/03 9:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
lights? >>
Corky,
You should consider Super Bright LED's, for your nav lights. They use a lot
less current, and almost last forever. I think several of them would have to
be used together in a small group, each of them pointing in a different
direction, because they are focal in their light emmition. You would probably
have
to make them up yourself. Today they are being used in flashlights,
taillights on cars, and traffic lights. I'm planning on using them on my Tailwind,
for
the nav lights. Here are a couple of web sites that have some info about
them: http://ledtaillights.com/
http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
Chuck G.
Three flights this week !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Chris,
Thanks for the update. I've got some studying to do !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Does the FAA care about the specific colors of nav lights? LED's have come
a long way in the last 20 years, but I'm curious if they come in the colors
we'd need or if we could fake it with an 'ornagish' red, or a 'bluish' green.
JIm Ash
>
>In a message dated 11/21/03 9:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
>Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
>
><< How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> lights? >>
>
>Corky,
>You should consider Super Bright LED's, for your nav lights. They use a lot
>less current, and almost last forever. I think several of them would have to
>be used together in a small group, each of them pointing in a different
>direction, because they are focal in their light emmition. You would
>probably have
>to make them up yourself. Today they are being used in flashlights,
>taillights on cars, and traffic lights. I'm planning on using them on my
>Tailwind, for
>the nav lights. Here are a couple of web sites that have some info about
>them: http://ledtaillights.com/
>http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
>
>Chuck G.
>Three flights this week !!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Kevin and corky,
You are right about the 91.507 not applying. I should have realized it was
in the subpart dealing with the large aircraft.
The reference to "civil twilight" went out with the rewrite of the regs a
few years back. It now just says "sunrise to sunset" unless you are in
alaska, where another definition applies
Nav lights and strobe or RB, that's how I see it. Or is the RB option out
the window now? The Saabs I flew has an RB fo0r the A models and strobes on
the B model. The A models were built in the late eighties and the B models
were made in the nineties.
chris
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> Here is my understanding of the rules, hopefully it will be of some help
to
> you,
>
> 91.507 (or for that matter any of the rules within subpart F of part 91)
> does not apply unless you are a large or turbine powered multi-engine
> airplane.
>
> As for lights, here is how I understand the rules for part 91 operations
in
> an airplane that is not large or turbine powered:
>
> If you have strobe lights you must use them - Always, unless they are
> interefering with the safe conduct of flight (for example reflecting off
> clouds or the prop and distracting you.) Ref 91.209(b)
>
> If you wish to fly after sunset but before sunrise you must have
navigation
> lights (the green and red wing tip lights.) (ref 91.209)
>
> If you wish to fly after the end of evening civil twilight but before the
> begining of mourning civil twilight you must have anti-collision lights
> (ref 91.205c). This civil twilight stuff is a time as recorded in the Air
> Almanac (an expensive book.) An unofficial source for the civil twilight
> information is on airnav.com, which lists civil twilight for that day when
> you look up an airport. It is about the time that the city starts to turn
> the street lights on and you start noticing all the house lights. This
> differs from nautical twilight which is defined as the time when you can
no
> longer distinguish the horizon. Civil twilight buys you about an extra 20
> minutes here in Florida.
>
> For people that have old airplanes to operate at night (after the end of
> civil twilight) they must have an approved lighting system that meets the
> standards on a specified date in the early 1970's, which if you dig
through
> the references breaks down to you must have a strobe or rotating beacon.
> New airplanes are not allowed to use this option and must have the
strobes.
> For instance a Stinson that was originally equipped for night flight when
> it was certified cannot legally be used at night today unless it has a
> beacon or strobes.
>
> I hope this helps, to make sense of it keep in mind that one reg refers to
> sunset/sunrise, the other refers to 'night' which means end of civil
> twilight to start of civil twilight.
>
> Kevin
> www.airminded.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Jim,
I would think that an experimental could have whatever the builder wants in
this regard but the DAR may have other ideas in the this area since one
youare flying around, other airplanes will not know you as an experimental
but merely as another aircraft airborne at night.
Reference the following for color specifications:
23.1397 Color specifications.
Each position light color must have the applicable International Commission
on Illumination chromaticity coordinates as follows:
(a) Aviation red --
y is not greater than 0.335; and
z is not greater than 0.002.
(b) Aviation green --
x is not greater than 0.4400.320y;
x is not greater than y0.170; and
y is not less than 0.3900.170x.
(c) Aviation white --
x is not less than 0.300 and not greater than 0.540;
y is not less than x0.040 or y00.010, whichever is the smaller; and
y is not greater than x+0.020 nor 0.6360.400x;
Where y0 is the y coordinate of the Planckian radiator for the value of x
considered.
[Doc. No. 4080, 29 FR 17955, Dec. 18, 1964, amended by Amdt. 23-11, 36 FR
12971, July 10, 1971]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> Does the FAA care about the specific colors of nav lights? LED's have come
> a long way in the last 20 years, but I'm curious if they come in the
colors
> we'd need or if we could fake it with an 'ornagish' red, or a 'bluish'
green.
>
> JIm Ash
>
>
> >
> >In a message dated 11/21/03 9:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
> >Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
> >
> ><< How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> > lights? >>
> >
> >Corky,
> >You should consider Super Bright LED's, for your nav lights. They use a
lot
> >less current, and almost last forever. I think several of them would
have to
> >be used together in a small group, each of them pointing in a different
> >direction, because they are focal in their light emmition. You would
> >probably have
> >to make them up yourself. Today they are being used in flashlights,
> >taillights on cars, and traffic lights. I'm planning on using them on my
> >Tailwind, for
> >the nav lights. Here are a couple of web sites that have some info about
> >them: http://ledtaillights.com/
> >http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
> >
> >Chuck G.
> >Three flights this week !!
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Jim, I see no reason why LED's could not be used. There are red and green
LED's available in the 20,000 MCD brightness value. They are BRIGHT! So
bright you can damage your eyes by looking directly at them. If you grouped
5 or 6 of them together each facing a slightly different angle you could
make nav lights from them that shine the proper spread angle. They are very
low current drain also. I'm not sure why no aircraft light manufacturers
have jumped on this bandwagon. LED's have come a very long way in the last
5 years.
They make these for cars which are pretty cool....
http://www.xkms.org/JC-Whitney-44/Red-Type-1157-LED-Bulbs.htm
direct replacements for incandescent.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> Does the FAA care about the specific colors of nav lights? LED's have come
> a long way in the last 20 years, but I'm curious if they come in the
colors
> we'd need or if we could fake it with an 'ornagish' red, or a 'bluish'
green.
>
> JIm Ash
>
>
> >
> >In a message dated 11/21/03 9:40:29 PM Central Standard Time,
> >Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
> >
> ><< How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> > lights? >>
> >
> >Corky,
> >You should consider Super Bright LED's, for your nav lights. They use a
lot
> >less current, and almost last forever. I think several of them would
have to
> >be used together in a small group, each of them pointing in a different
> >direction, because they are focal in their light emmition. You would
> >probably have
> >to make them up yourself. Today they are being used in flashlights,
> >taillights on cars, and traffic lights. I'm planning on using them on my
> >Tailwind, for
> >the nav lights. Here are a couple of web sites that have some info about
> >them: http://ledtaillights.com/
> >http://www.killacycle.com/Lights.htm
> >
> >Chuck G.
> >Three flights this week !!
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Chris,
After a good nights sleep and a cup of Isabelle's BLACK cajun coffee this
morning I found a copy of the "operating limitations" issued by my DAR for 41CC
and began reading. I find that that par (6) of Phase 1 says: This aircraft is
to be operated under VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR), day only.
Under Phase 2, par (4) says: Unless appropriately equipped for night and/ or
instrument flight in accordance with par 91.205, this aircraft is to be
operated under VFR, day.
I interpret this to mean that as long as I provide NX311CC (Repiet) with
appropriate equipment for night flying according to the latest regulations a
qualified pilot would be allowed to perform VFR night flights.
Thanks again for you input on this subject. I can't see how I could possibly
perform my proposed "Circum Gulf-Carrib goodwill flight" without night flight
capabilities.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Unfortunatly civil twilight is still with us. Per FAR 1.1 (as printed in
my 2003 FAR/AIM) "Night means the time between the end of evening civil
twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the
American Air Almanac, conveted to local time." This is invoked by FAR
91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night.) Which starts out with 'For VFR
flight at night.....'.
I really wish this would go away, sundown to sunset would be so much easier
than having to teach my students one definition for counting time as night
for proficiency, another for being equipped to fly at night, and yet
another for turning the navigation lights on. Student pilots have enough
to master without this little bit of trivia to deal with.
As for rotating beacons, my understanding is they are an acceptable
substitute for strobes on old airplanes (aircraft for which a type
certificate was applied for or obtained prior to August 11,1971.) However
they are not an acceptable for meeting the night requirements on a new
airplane. Thus, you are of course more than welcome to put a rotating
beacon on an exerimental, it will probably increase safety somewhat over
having nothing. However that beacon will not allow you to operate legally
at night.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Ah kevin. The light reg in 91 says "sunrise to sunset". It never mentions
the word "night". Granted night is defined in Part 1 but it applies solely
to 91.205. Part 91.205 is titled "Powered civil aircraft with standard
category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
requirements" and the question was about an experimetnal airworthiness
certificate, not a standard category airworthiness certificate so we can
ignore part 91.205(c) and revert to the "sunrise to sunset" of 91.209.
Its good to go back and forth like this becuase this is how you learn the
darn regs!
chris
91.209 Aircraft lights.
No person may:
(a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon) --
(1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
(2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft --
(i) Is clearly illuminated;
(ii) Has lighted position lights; or
(iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
(3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft --
(i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
(ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
(b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light system,
unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to
turn the lights off.
[Doc. No. 27806, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996]
61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
(a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying
passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight
crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three
landings within the preceding 90 days, and --
(i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the
same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the
aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and
landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a tailwheel.
(2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day VFR
or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.
(3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section
may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device that
is --
(i) Approved by the Administrator for landings; and
(ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
(b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an
aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset
and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that
person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop
during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before
sunrise, and --
(i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
(ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of the
same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).
(2) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section
may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is --
(i) Approved by the Administrator for takeoffs and landings, if the visual
system is adjusted to represent the period described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section; and
(ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
[Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898, July
30, 1997; Amdt. 61-106, 64 FR 23529, Apr. 30, 1999; Amdt. 61-109, 68 FR
54559, Sept. 17, 2003]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> Unfortunatly civil twilight is still with us. Per FAR 1.1 (as printed in
> my 2003 FAR/AIM) "Night means the time between the end of evening civil
> twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in the
> American Air Almanac, conveted to local time." This is invoked by FAR
> 91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night.) Which starts out with 'For VFR
> flight at night.....'.
>
> I really wish this would go away, sundown to sunset would be so much
easier
> than having to teach my students one definition for counting time as night
> for proficiency, another for being equipped to fly at night, and yet
> another for turning the navigation lights on. Student pilots have enough
> to master without this little bit of trivia to deal with.
>
> As for rotating beacons, my understanding is they are an acceptable
> substitute for strobes on old airplanes (aircraft for which a type
> certificate was applied for or obtained prior to August 11,1971.) However
> they are not an acceptable for meeting the night requirements on a new
> airplane. Thus, you are of course more than welcome to put a rotating
> beacon on an exerimental, it will probably increase safety somewhat over
> having nothing. However that beacon will not allow you to operate legally
> at night.
>
> Kevin
> www.airminded.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Chris and Kevin,
Can I or can't I ????????????????
Corky in La wanting to fly 311CC at night in the future
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Correction of last transmission
Corky in La wanting to fly 311CC "between sunset and sunrise" sometime in the
future
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re:Night flight in a Piet |
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Corky..... Of course you can fly it at night. It simply has to have
the right combination of lights.
The amount of current required varies with the lights you select. The
RV guys have been talking
quite a bit about the LED lights and when I have a few minutes, I will
provide you with the websites.
LED lights use A LOT LESS amps and will provide you with the legal
light. The strobe/strobes however
use a few amps as I recall... I think you can get away with only two
strobes, one on the top and one on the
bottom. BTW, I'm not too impressed with the Aeroflash units. The only
units that have worked flawlessly
for me in the past were Whelen. Spend a little extra money and get
Whelen's when it's time. When you flip
the switch, they fire off and work.
Start running some wire.... Enjoy the opportunity to fly Experimental
at Night.
Weav
On Saturday, November 22, 2003, at 04:53 PM, Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Correction of last transmission
>
>
> Corky in La wanting to fly 311CC "between sunset and sunrise" sometime
> in the
> future
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re:Night flight in a Piet |
Thanks Fred,
All the help from you builders and experienced pilots you offer the list I
appreciate very much.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
You could go the way of Alan Wise and hang Kerosene R.R. lanterns on the
wing tips and just talk to curious people about how well they work.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
> Pieters,
>
> While building the fuse for Repiet I want to wire it for nav lights,
install
> switch and ammeter plus plan for the installation of a small wind driven
> generator. Would like an installation to be installed and removed easily
as night
> flying is not a regular activity.
> Edwin Johnson and I have discussed this and feel that if 311CC has the
> capability for night flight it would increase it's value to the next owner
after I'm
> gone.
> From some in the know: How much 12 v drain is there for the necessary nav
> lights?
> Is a strobe or rotating beacon required? If you know the reg numbers on
this
> I would appreciate having them.
> Would appreciate your input on this subject.
> Thanks in advance
>
> Corky in La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
Boy and I thought the US was the land of the free. Maybe it should be
called the land of never ending rules. Here in Canada all we need is a
spotlight and a whistle. We have twice the land and 1/10th the
population, we figure hey, what are the chances of hitting one another.
I suppose you guys don't use hand-carved props held together with Moose
Glue! (True story by the way, 1930's bush flying history) I guess we
have come a long way in aviation this century, but it sure takes some of
the adventuring spirit out of things doesn't it!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Atta Way Dave!! Sort of says it all eh? Rules rules rules..... God
isn't it great?
On Saturday, November 22, 2003, at 08:18 PM, dave rowe wrote:
>
> Boy and I thought the US was the land of the free. Maybe it should be
> called the land of never ending rules. Here in Canada all we need is a
> spotlight and a whistle. We have twice the land and 1/10th the
> population, we figure hey, what are the chances of hitting one another.
> I suppose you guys don't use hand-carved props held together with Moose
> Glue! (True story by the way, 1930's bush flying history) I guess we
> have come a long way in aviation this century, but it sure takes some
> of
> the adventuring spirit out of things doesn't it!
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"chilton" ,
"pietenpol"
| Subject: | Rnager upright conversion |
Has anyone ever come across any information about converting a Ranger engine into
an upright configuration?
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"pietenpol" ,
"chilton" , "Doc Mosher"
| Subject: | Fw: Ranger upright conversion |
Has anyone ever come across any information about converting a Ranger engine into
an upright configuration?
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Nav lghts on a Piet |
I missed that, good catch. Corky, I agree with Chris, for experimentals as
long as the operating limitations do not require you to comply with 91.205
you can get by with just navigation lights after dark.
> [Original Message]
> From: Christian Bobka <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Date: 11/22/2003 7:30:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
> Ah kevin. The light reg in 91 says "sunrise to sunset". It never
mentions
> the word "night". Granted night is defined in Part 1 but it applies
solely
> to 91.205. Part 91.205 is titled "Powered civil aircraft with standard
> category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
> requirements" and the question was about an experimetnal airworthiness
> certificate, not a standard category airworthiness certificate so we can
> ignore part 91.205(c) and revert to the "sunrise to sunset" of 91.209.
>
> Its good to go back and forth like this becuase this is how you learn the
> darn regs!
>
> chris
>
>
> 91.209 Aircraft lights.
>
>
> No person may:
>
> (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
> period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
> statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon) --
>
> (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
>
> (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
> flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft --
>
> (i) Is clearly illuminated;
>
> (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
>
> (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
>
> (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft --
>
> (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
>
> (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
>
> (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
system,
> unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
> lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
> because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety to
> turn the lights off.
>
> [Doc. No. 27806, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996]
>
>
> 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
>
>
> (a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
> section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying
> passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight
> crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three
> landings within the preceding 90 days, and --
>
> (i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
>
> (ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
the
> same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if the
> aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and
> landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a
tailwheel.
>
> (2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
this
> section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day
VFR
> or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
> aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.
>
> (3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section
> may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device that
> is --
>
> (i) Approved by the Administrator for landings; and
>
> (ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
> center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
>
> (b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in
> paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an
> aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after
sunset
> and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days that
> person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full stop
> during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before
> sunrise, and --
>
> (i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
>
> (ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
the
> same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).
>
> (2) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section
> may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is --
>
> (i) Approved by the Administrator for takeoffs and landings, if the visual
> system is adjusted to represent the period described in paragraph (b)(1)
of
> this section; and
>
> (ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
> center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
>
> [Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898,
July
> 30, 1997; Amdt. 61-106, 64 FR 23529, Apr. 30, 1999; Amdt. 61-109, 68 FR
> 54559, Sept. 17, 2003]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
>
>
> >
> > Unfortunatly civil twilight is still with us. Per FAR 1.1 (as printed
in
> > my 2003 FAR/AIM) "Night means the time between the end of evening civil
> > twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in
the
> > American Air Almanac, conveted to local time." This is invoked by FAR
> > 91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night.) Which starts out with 'For VFR
> > flight at night.....'.
> >
> > I really wish this would go away, sundown to sunset would be so much
> easier
> > than having to teach my students one definition for counting time as
night
> > for proficiency, another for being equipped to fly at night, and yet
> > another for turning the navigation lights on. Student pilots have
enough
> > to master without this little bit of trivia to deal with.
> >
> > As for rotating beacons, my understanding is they are an acceptable
> > substitute for strobes on old airplanes (aircraft for which a type
> > certificate was applied for or obtained prior to August 11,1971.)
However
> > they are not an acceptable for meeting the night requirements on a new
> > airplane. Thus, you are of course more than welcome to put a rotating
> > beacon on an exerimental, it will probably increase safety somewhat over
> > having nothing. However that beacon will not allow you to operate
legally
> > at night.
> >
> > Kevin
> > www.airminded.net
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | No anticollision light needed on an experimental |
Kevin and Corky,
I agree that even an anticollision light is not needed. Merely nav lights.
As 91.209 is the only part that applies to the experimental certificated
aircraft, its operator merely has to have the AC light(s) on if it (they) is
(are) installed, subject to the vertigo caveat. Do you agree?
This is a substantial thing to know about. It is like certifying the
homebuilt as an experimental motorglider so you don't need a medical....
Does everybody know that you need to have only a private certificate or
better in ANY category to fly ANY experimentally certificated aircraft e.g.
you can fly any experimental balloon, rotorcraft, airplane, seaplane, and
single or multiengine to boot with just a private glider rating (self
certifying medical)? THe sport pilot NPRM contains proof in the FAA's own
words of this loophole.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
>
> I missed that, good catch. Corky, I agree with Chris, for experimentals
as
> long as the operating limitations do not require you to comply with 91.205
> you can get by with just navigation lights after dark.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Christian Bobka <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Date: 11/22/2003 7:30:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
> >
>
> >
> > Ah kevin. The light reg in 91 says "sunrise to sunset". It never
> mentions
> > the word "night". Granted night is defined in Part 1 but it applies
> solely
> > to 91.205. Part 91.205 is titled "Powered civil aircraft with
standard
> > category U.S. airworthiness certificates: Instrument and equipment
> > requirements" and the question was about an experimetnal airworthiness
> > certificate, not a standard category airworthiness certificate so we can
> > ignore part 91.205(c) and revert to the "sunrise to sunset" of 91.209.
> >
> > Its good to go back and forth like this becuase this is how you learn
the
> > darn regs!
> >
> > chris
> >
> >
> > 91.209 Aircraft lights.
> >
> >
> > No person may:
> >
> > (a) During the period from sunset to sunrise (or, in Alaska, during the
> > period a prominent unlighted object cannot be seen from a distance of 3
> > statute miles or the sun is more than 6 degrees below the horizon) --
> >
> > (1) Operate an aircraft unless it has lighted position lights;
> >
> > (2) Park or move an aircraft in, or in dangerous proximity to, a night
> > flight operations area of an airport unless the aircraft --
> >
> > (i) Is clearly illuminated;
> >
> > (ii) Has lighted position lights; or
> >
> > (iii) is in an area that is marked by obstruction lights;
> >
> > (3) Anchor an aircraft unless the aircraft --
> >
> > (i) Has lighted anchor lights; or
> >
> > (ii) Is in an area where anchor lights are not required on vessels; or
> >
> > (b) Operate an aircraft that is equipped with an anticollision light
> system,
> > unless it has lighted anticollision lights. However, the anticollision
> > lights need not be lighted when the pilot-in-command determines that,
> > because of operating conditions, it would be in the interest of safety
to
> > turn the lights off.
> >
> > [Doc. No. 27806, 61 FR 5171, Feb. 9, 1996]
> >
> >
> > 61.57 Recent flight experience: Pilot in command.
> >
> >
> > (a) General experience. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this
> > section, no person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft carrying
> > passengers or of an aircraft certificated for more than one pilot flight
> > crewmember unless that person has made at least three takeoffs and three
> > landings within the preceding 90 days, and --
> >
> > (i) The person acted as the sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
> >
> > (ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
> the
> > same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required), and, if
the
> > aircraft to be flown is an airplane with a tailwheel, the takeoffs and
> > landings must have been made to a full stop in an airplane with a
> tailwheel.
> >
> > (2) For the purpose of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of
> this
> > section, a person may act as a pilot in command of an aircraft under day
> VFR
> > or day IFR, provided no persons or property are carried on board the
> > aircraft, other than those necessary for the conduct of the flight.
> >
> > (3) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (a)(1) of this
section
> > may be accomplished in a flight simulator or flight training device that
> > is --
> >
> > (i) Approved by the Administrator for landings; and
> >
> > (ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
> > center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
> >
> > (b) Night takeoff and landing experience. (1) Except as provided in
> > paragraph (e) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of
an
> > aircraft carrying passengers during the period beginning 1 hour after
> sunset
> > and ending 1 hour before sunrise, unless within the preceding 90 days
that
> > person has made at least three takeoffs and three landings to a full
stop
> > during the period beginning 1 hour after sunset and ending 1 hour before
> > sunrise, and --
> >
> > (i) That person acted as sole manipulator of the flight controls; and
> >
> > (ii) The required takeoffs and landings were performed in an aircraft of
> the
> > same category, class, and type (if a type rating is required).
> >
> > (2) The takeoffs and landings required by paragraph (b)(1) of this
section
> > may be accomplished in a flight simulator that is --
> >
> > (i) Approved by the Administrator for takeoffs and landings, if the
visual
> > system is adjusted to represent the period described in paragraph (b)(1)
> of
> > this section; and
> >
> > (ii) Used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training
> > center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
> >
> > [Doc. No. 25910, 62 FR 16298, Apr. 4, 1997; Amdt. 61-103, 62 FR 40898,
> July
> > 30, 1997; Amdt. 61-106, 64 FR 23529, Apr. 30, 1999; Amdt. 61-109, 68 FR
> > 54559, Sept. 17, 2003]
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Nav lghts on a Piet
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Unfortunatly civil twilight is still with us. Per FAR 1.1 (as printed
> in
> > > my 2003 FAR/AIM) "Night means the time between the end of evening
civil
> > > twilight and the beginning of morning civil twilight, as published in
> the
> > > American Air Almanac, conveted to local time." This is invoked by FAR
> > > 91.205 (c) Visual flight rules (night.) Which starts out with 'For VFR
> > > flight at night.....'.
> > >
> > > I really wish this would go away, sundown to sunset would be so much
> > easier
> > > than having to teach my students one definition for counting time as
> night
> > > for proficiency, another for being equipped to fly at night, and yet
> > > another for turning the navigation lights on. Student pilots have
> enough
> > > to master without this little bit of trivia to deal with.
> > >
> > > As for rotating beacons, my understanding is they are an acceptable
> > > substitute for strobes on old airplanes (aircraft for which a type
> > > certificate was applied for or obtained prior to August 11,1971.)
> However
> > > they are not an acceptable for meeting the night requirements on a new
> > > airplane. Thus, you are of course more than welcome to put a rotating
> > > beacon on an exerimental, it will probably increase safety somewhat
over
> > > having nothing. However that beacon will not allow you to operate
> legally
> > > at night.
> > >
> > > Kevin
> > > www.airminded.net
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Lights on a Piet |
Boy, did we open a can of snakes on this subject. I've finalized my future
plans to lay the wires and any future owner can light it if he or she desires.
End of that problem
Corky in La bracing for this expected cold front.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | interchange manual |
Pieters,
The interchange manual that Baldy and Dave have kindly made available to us is
dated back in the 40's somewhere. It predates the O-200 and O-300 so no references
are even made to them as they didn't exist yet although they are important
members of the family. Also, many part numbers have been superceded by updated
parts. The point is that you must use it with caution! It is quite a tool
thought for understanding the A and C series engines and how stuff interrelates,
especially the discussion on camshafts and lifter bodies that must be compatible
with each other!
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Sun'n'Fun forums |
Pieters -
I have received the following from Bob Curtis regarding forum reservations
at Sun'N'Fun:
"Doc: I have you down for Wed. 10 am in tent 9 and Sat. 11 am in tent 9 also."
This gives us space for two forums, one a the beginning of the week, the
other on the weekend. Both are at prime times, so we get good attendance.
Now all we have to do is line up who will be doing what. Several of you
have already said you could participate. Please reply off line to confirm
which day you want to present your
10 to 12 minutes, and what your subject will be. I will gather this info
and let everyone know what the forums will each be.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Emailing: eBayISAPI |
I dont know if this forward will work with the list, but I saw this A-7 mag switch
on e-bay. It's a nice one for a Piet
Dick N
Your files are attached and ready to send with this message.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Rnager upright conversion |
Chris, If you don't get any other responses on your upright Ranger query,
see if you can get in contact with Al Ball at Santa Paula. You may know of him.
He is a Ranger engine guru and rebuilder located on the airport. I do not have
his address or phone, but it should not be too hard to find. I think his
operation is called Antique Engine Rebuilders. Maybe one of the other listers has
this info ??? Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rnager upright conversion |
Thanks, Don, I will have to make a trip out there to visit. I will track
him down.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <Waytogopiet(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rnager upright conversion
>
> Chris, If you don't get any other responses on your upright Ranger query,
> see if you can get in contact with Al Ball at Santa Paula. You may know of
him.
> He is a Ranger engine guru and rebuilder located on the airport. I do not
have
> his address or phone, but it should not be too hard to find. I think his
> operation is called Antique Engine Rebuilders. Maybe one of the other
listers has
> this info ??? Don Hicks
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
My newly overhauled engine runs good using a borrowed Stromberg carb. Cranks with
one or two props. But when I put MY carburetor (also a Stromberg) on it it
will not run on cylinder number three. I've re-checked the mag timing, compression
is 80/75 to 80/71 on all 4. New exhaust valves. Lapped intake valves.
The intake tubes and hoses are new, the valves all close right, all new gaskets.
The cylinders were done by an A&P so I do not have an concerns with the
cylinders. I actually swapped the offending cylinder 3 with cylinder 1 and the
problem stayed on number 3. I have brand spanking new Slick Mags and new plugs.
I would have assumed that a carb problem would have affected all 4 cylinders the
same. Have you guys ever heard of anything like this? I have cleaned the carb
(soaked it) and inspected it - I don't see any problems.
It makes GREAT power with the borrowed carb and all four cyls get hot as a firecracker.
But with my carb, number three stays cold as a clam.
I"ve been scratching my head on this one.
Who would you all recommend to send the carb to for overhaul?.
Bert
www.bconoly.tripod.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carden <flywrite(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Fir lumber source |
Scattergun question to all within range:
I'm looking for a source of top quality fir to use instead of spruce.
Do any of you have a source you've used (and found reputable) that you
can share with me?
Many thanks,
Dick Carden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 question |
Bert,
Carb doesn't know what cyl it's sending fuel/air to.
Doesn't sound like the carb to me.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A-65 question
>
> My newly overhauled engine runs good using a borrowed Stromberg carb.
Cranks with one or two props. But when I put MY carburetor (also a
Stromberg) on it it will not run on cylinder number three. I've re-checked
the mag timing, compression is 80/75 to 80/71 on all 4. New exhaust valves.
Lapped intake valves. The intake tubes and hoses are new, the valves all
close right, all new gaskets. The cylinders were done by an A&P so I do not
have an concerns with the cylinders. I actually swapped the offending
cylinder 3 with cylinder 1 and the problem stayed on number 3. I have brand
spanking new Slick Mags and new plugs.
>
> I would have assumed that a carb problem would have affected all 4
cylinders the same. Have you guys ever heard of anything like this? I have
cleaned the carb (soaked it) and inspected it - I don't see any problems.
>
> It makes GREAT power with the borrowed carb and all four cyls get hot as a
firecracker.
>
> But with my carb, number three stays cold as a clam.
> I"ve been scratching my head on this one.
>
> Who would you all recommend to send the carb to for overhaul?.
>
> Bert
> www.bconoly.tripod.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fir lumber source |
It would be helpful to know where you are located. In most ares of the
country, good quality Douglas fir is available at lumber yards. Fine
quality tight grain is used for T&G flooring.. Also when looking in bins of
regular 2x4's you willl notice they are designated SPF. That stands for
Spruce, Pine, Fir. If you know what you are looking for that is the
cheapest place. Fir has a reddish color and has a distintive smell.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Carden" <flywrite(at)erols.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fir lumber source
>
> Scattergun question to all within range:
>
> I'm looking for a source of top quality fir to use instead of spruce.
> Do any of you have a source you've used (and found reputable) that you
> can share with me?
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Dick Carden
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Fir lumber source |
If you are in the Pacific Northwest, Fir is plentiful, and Yellow Cedar
also an option. YC is far less prone to splitting, bends beautifully,
and smells great. Also totally bug-resistant and rot resistant!!
Richard Navratil wrote:
>
>
> It would be helpful to know where you are located. In most ares of the
> country, good quality Douglas fir is available at lumber yards. Fine
> quality tight grain is used for T&G flooring.. Also when looking in bins of
> regular 2x4's you willl notice they are designated SPF. That stands for
> Spruce, Pine, Fir. If you know what you are looking for that is the
> cheapest place. Fir has a reddish color and has a distintive smell.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Carden" <flywrite(at)erols.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fir lumber source
>
> >
> > Scattergun question to all within range:
> >
> > I'm looking for a source of top quality fir to use instead of spruce.
> > Do any of you have a source you've used (and found reputable) that you
> > can share with me?
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Dick Carden
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Darrel E. Jones" <wd6bor(at)vom.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: Ranger upright conversion |
Chris,
Contact Leo Opdycke, publisher of World War I Aero, for a reprint of the
Ranger conversion use on many WWI replicas. The address is:
WWI Aero
15 Crescent Road
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Good luck,
Darrel Jones
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
; "chilton" ;
"Doc Mosher"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fw: Ranger upright conversion
>
> Has anyone ever come across any information about converting a Ranger
engine into an upright configuration?
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rnager upright conversion |
Check with old car racing guys. I remember in the 50's there was
this guy in Victoria who was converting them for car racing. He
had to turn them over. At the time I thought it was sacrilegious to
do such a thing so never found out any details.
ClifSubject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rnager upright conversion
>
> Chris, If you don't get any other responses on your upright Ranger query,
> see if you can get in contact with Al Ball at Santa Paula. You may know of
him.
> He is a Ranger engine guru and rebuilder located on the airport. I do not
have
> his address or phone, but it should not be too hard to find. I think his
> operation is called Antique Engine Rebuilders. Maybe one of the other
listers has
> this info ??? Don Hicks
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: NEW ORLEANS CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT CELEBRATION |
In a message dated 11/24/2003 9:28:12 AM Central Standard Time,
ttoelle(at)eaa.org writes:
Any of you nawtherners want to pass a good time yes read the
following
Corky in nawthern La
> Subj: NEW ORLEANS CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT CELEBRATION
> Date: 11/24/2003 9:28:12 AM Central Standard Time
> From: <A HREF="mailto:ttoelle(at)eaa.org">ttoelle(at)eaa.org
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> Hi Gang,
>
> Well, ten down - one to go. Our November event was at the St. John the
> Baptist Airport in Reserve. They finally got a really nice weather day
> after several years of weather difficulties. I don't have an official
> count but I would guess around 70-75 airplanes attended and they flew around
> 45
> Young Eagles. I saw a lot of smiles on a lot of faces. President Harold
> Miller and his Chapter 971 volunteers did a great job with organizing and
> running the fly-in. The food was great as usual. Head cook Darrel Louque
> cooked 50% more jambalaya than last year and it was all consumed in no
> time.
> Thanks to everyone for their hard work, including our very cooperative
> Airport Manager Rick Moran, and to all the pilots that took the time to
> fly over. They had a great time and because of their attendance we all had
> a
> great time. Here is the link to the pictures.
>
> http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b35405f56598
>
> We will be gathering one more time for this Centennial year at Lakefront
> Airport on December 13th for the grand finale. It is great to see the
> 99's participate in a big way to make this event even bigger and better.
> There
> is also another group putting on the Pan American Air Races that weekend
> (Friday-Sunday) for 1930's era biplanes which is another added attraction.
> That is what this series was all about - to pull the Louisiana aviation
> community together and to show aviation to the general public. You just
> have to attend so that we can show aviation people all over the United
> States that Louisiana knows how to celebrate the Centennial of Flight in
> their typical big way. Here are the details:
>
> NEW ORLEANS CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT CELEBRATION
>
> SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2003
>
> NEW ORLEANS LAKEFRONT AIRPORT
>
> All aircraft welcome, Homebuilt's, Helicopters, Ultra light's, Antique &
> Vintage
>
> Plaques will be awarded in various categories
> Military Aircraft and War birds on Static Display
>
> Fuel Discount of $0.25 per gallon at GAC
> Overnight Rates at Holiday Inn Express-$49.00
>
> Official Sponsor Lancair
> PANCAKE BREAKFAST: 8:00AM-10: 30AM; $5.00-ALL YOU CAN EAT
>
> HANGAR PARTY: "TAYLOR HANGAR" Catered dinner-Cash Bar -& DJ 7::00
> PM-11:00 PM by: New Orleans Chapter 99s
>
> Aviation Costume Contest
>
> Tickets: $15.00 (RSVP by December 1, 2003)
> Door Prizes
> For Advanced tickets: Contact Vickie Goodbee (Day) 504-486-8299
> (Night) 504-486-4825 or email: Vickie(at)midcitybusiness.com
> www. Propclear.com
> For more information: Contact Terry Bounds (504) 282-2237
>
> Just to whet your appetite a little and to entice you to attend the
> Centennial Celebration at Lakefront on December 13, here is the menu for
> that night's party, Lisa Cotham has furnished us with the menu for the
> Hangar Party...
>
> Crawfish tarts
> Shrimp Alfredo
> Crab and corn soup
> Cocktail meatballs
> Artichoke balls
> Mini muffulletas
> Hot crab dip
> Fruit, cheese, and relish tray
> Spinach/artichoke dip
> Shrimp salad
> Roasted pork tenderloin
> Desserts
>
> There will be a cash bar, a DJ, and door prizes. Cost is $15 per person
> in advance, $20 at the door. Also, prizes for the year-long fly-in series
> will be given out by EAA. We do hope you will a) join us and b) help get
> the
> word out.
>
> Hope to see you there!
>
> Lisa Cotham
> New Orleans 99s
>
> Because of the complexity of the events they are planning, New Orleans EAA
> Chapter 261 President Terry Bounds has asked that everyone who plans to
> attend the event(s) e-mail him at terry_bounds(at)yahoo.com or call
> (504)282-2237, if possible. Their caterer has requested a head count by
> December 1st for planning purposes, but they will welcome last minute
> drop-ins. They would also like to have a count of aircraft plus the type
> so they can do a rough parking plan (this event is open to the public).
>
> Everyone that registers at this event gets one entry to a year-end drawing
> for merchandise or services donated by our sponsors (the drawings will
> take place at the hangar party). Sponsors include Pride Aviation, Brignac
> Aviation, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co., Rans Aircraft, Van's
> Aircraft, Angel Flight, EAA, Lancair and Exxon Elite Aviation Oil.
>
>
> Remember, we are using the Propclear Website as our official information
> and communication site for the Fly-in series and all of the other events.
> Please check the calendar and the discussion board routinely. We are already
> putting in event dates for our 2004 Louisiana Fly-in Series so be sure to
> check those out. Here is the address...
> http://www.propclear.com/
>
> Please share this note with all of your aviation friends.
> For further information, please contact the series coordinator Jim Riviere
> at 225-869-3481 or email rivierja(at)cox.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
Subject: NEW ORLEANS CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT CELEBRATION
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:25:14 -0600
From: "Troy Toelle" <ttoelle(at)eaa.org>
Hi Gang,
Well, ten down - one to go. Our November event was at the St. John the
Baptist Airport in Reserve. They finally got a really nice weather day
after several years of weather difficulties. I don't have an official
count but I would guess around 70-75 airplanes attended and they flew around 45
Young Eagles. I saw a lot of smiles on a lot of faces. President Harold
Miller and his Chapter 971 volunteers did a great job with organizing and
running the fly-in. The food was great as usual. Head cook Darrel Louque
cooked 50% more jambalaya than last year and it was all consumed in no
time.
Thanks to everyone for their hard work, including our very cooperative
Airport Manager Rick Moran, and to all the pilots that took the time to
fly over. They had a great time and because of their attendance we all had=20a
great time. Here is the link to the pictures.
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i67b0de21b35405f56598
We will be gathering one more time for this Centennial year at Lakefront
Airport on December 13th for the grand finale. It is great to see the
99's participate in a big way to make this event even bigger and better. There
is also another group putting on the Pan American Air Races that weekend
(Friday-Sunday) for 1930's era biplanes which is another added attraction.
That is what this series was all about - to pull the Louisiana aviation
community together and to show aviation to the general public. You just
have to attend so that we can show aviation people all over the United
States that Louisiana knows how to celebrate the Centennial of Flight in
their typical big way. Here are the details:
NEW ORLEANS CENTENNIAL OF FLIGHT CELEBRATION
SATURDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2003
NEW ORLEANS LAKEFRONT AIRPORT
All aircraft welcome, Homebuilt's, Helicopters, Ultra light's, Antique &
Vintage
Plaques will be awarded in various categories
Military Aircraft and War birds on Static Display
Fuel Discount of $0.25 per gallon at GAC
Overnight Rates at Holiday Inn Express-$49.00
Official Sponsor Lancair
PANCAKE BREAKFAST: 8:00AM-10: 30AM; $5.00-ALL YOU CAN EAT
HANGAR PARTY: "TAYLOR HANGAR" Catered dinner-Cash Bar -& DJ 7::00
PM-11:00 PM by: New Orleans Chapter 99s
Aviation Costume Contest
Tickets: $15.00 (RSVP by December 1, 2003)
Door Prizes
For Advanced tickets: Contact Vickie Goodbee (Day) 504-486-8299
(Night) 504-486-4825 or email: Vickie(at)midcitybusiness.com
www. Propclear.com
For more information: Contact Terry Bounds (504) 282-2237
Just to whet your appetite a little and to entice you to attend the
Centennial Celebration at Lakefront on December 13, here is the menu for
that night's party, Lisa Cotham has furnished us with the menu for the
Hangar Party...
Crawfish tarts
Shrimp Alfredo
Crab and corn soup
Cocktail meatballs
Artichoke balls
Mini muffulletas
Hot crab dip
Fruit, cheese, and relish tray
Spinach/artichoke dip
Shrimp salad
Roasted pork tenderloin
Desserts
There will be a cash bar, a DJ, and door prizes. Cost is $15 per person
in advance, $20 at the door. Also, prizes for the year-long fly-in series
will be given out by EAA. We do hope you will a) join us and b) help get the
word out.
Hope to see you there!
Lisa Cotham
New Orleans 99s
Because of the complexity of the events they are planning, New Orleans EAA
Chapter 261 President Terry Bounds has asked that everyone who plans to
attend the event(s) e-mail him at terry_bounds(at)yahoo.com or call
(504)282-2237, if possible. Their caterer has requested a head count by
December 1st for planning purposes, but they will welcome last minute
drop-ins. They would also like to have a count of aircraft plus the type
so they can do a rough parking plan (this event is open to the public).
Everyone that registers at this event gets one entry to a year-end drawing
for merchandise or services donated by our sponsors (the drawings will
take place at the hangar party). Sponsors include Pride Aviation, Brignac
Aviation, Aircraft Spruce and Specialty Co., Rans Aircraft, Van's
Aircraft, Angel Flight, EAA, Lancair and Exxon Elite Aviation Oil.
Remember, we are using the Propclear Website as our official information
and communication site for the Fly-in series and all of the other events.
Please check the calendar and the discussion board routinely. We are already
putting in event dates for our 2004 Louisiana Fly-in Series so be sure to
check those out. Here is the address...
http://www.propclear.com/
Please share this note with all of your aviation friends.
For further information, please contact the series coordinator Jim Riviere
at 225-869-3481 or email rivierja(at)cox.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Would someone please re-post the web site on mukluk floats. I deleted accidently.
Thanks
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
Eric,
First the disclaimer: I'm not a structural engineer, and I haven't run the
numbers for the Piet fuselage. I do understand a lot of the physics
involved. I built my Piet fuselage 1 inch spruce longerons.
You're calculations are correct, at least for tensile strength. Stiffness
depends on dimension squared, and goes down even faster. There's a MIL-SPEC
on spruce--I don't have the number handy, but someone on the list probably
does. It lists substitution recommendations for other woods, including
Douglas fir.
On the other hand, there seems to be a general consensus that the Piet is
overbuilt. You could check into the construction used for other wood planes
to get a feeling for what is done. The only data point I (think) I remember
is that I've seen an Ospery I amphibian that appeared to be built of 3/4
inch fir.
Doublers seem like an interesting idea. If I were going to do it that way,
I'd think about 8 long strips on the outsides of the corners, over the
gussets, with filler blocks between the gussets. 1/8 inch Douglas fir over
1/8 inch filler would probably bring your strength back to nominal.
Stiffness would (probably) be better than using 1" spruce. I'd worry a bit
about using a spruce doubler over Douglas Fir because of a difference in
stiffness (Young's modulus to be specific).
Let us know how you decide to go.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Williams [mailto:ewilliams805(at)msn.com]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Hi everyone. This is my first posting to this list (although Ive been
lurking for a while) and I have a situation that I would really appreciate
any comments or suggestions on.
While at Oshkosh this year, a very good friend of mine, who has too many
airplanes in various stages of repair, offered to give me a Piet project
that he had acquired several years ago from a friend of his (the builder).
I picked up the project this past weekend and it consists of a completed
fuselage structure with the plywood skin on the forward half and the floor,
a complete set of wing ribs, and a complete set of tail surfaces.
The workmanship on the project looks to be acceptable however, one thing
that bothered me was the longerons and the other fuselage members appeared
to be small in cross-section. The builder happened to stop by while we were
loading it all onto my trailer. He said that he had used douglas fir and
since his research proved to him that fir was 25% stronger than spruce, he
had reduced the dimensions of the members by 25% (from 1" to 3/4"). The
problem with this line of thinking, as I see it, is that when you multiply
3/4" by 3/4" you end up with 0.56 square inches as the cross-sectional area
of the wood that was used, as compared to 1.00 square inch in a 1" x 1"
member. That means the longerons in my fuselage actually contain 44% less
material than had they been built using 1x1 stock.
I would sincerely appreciate any thoughts you all might have as to the
usability of this fuselage. I should say that it "feels" strong and I did
sit in it while it was supported at the approximate landing gear points and
there appeared to be no deflection or creaking at all (there were a few
engine noises made however). I also wonder if I might be able to epoxy some
1/4" strips to the various members for added strength? The builder said he
had used West System epoxy to construct it.
Thanks for your input.
Concerned that messages may bounce because your Hotmail account is over
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Dick,
http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
Btw, I like both ideas on what to build next S&F woodshop, which do you need
first.
Skip
>Would someone please re-post the web site on mukluk floats. I deleted
accidently. Thanks
>
>Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Corky,
Since you have been considering adding lights to Repiet, I've got a story
for you. This happened to me as I was doing some night flying ten years ago
or so. My brother just asked by email about this so I had the story all
typed up....
I was doing touch-and-goes at dusk and had just landed, pulled the flaps
back in, was at full throttle, and saw a herd of deer running at me from the
left. I knew they were in my path but I was going to fast to stop, to slow
to fly, and turning's not much of an option on a runway. I met the herd and
struck one with the nose of the plane. I had seen her coming and new I was
going to hit and for a fraction of a second, I saw her as bright as can be
in the landing light before impact. When she hit, the light went out and
with the exception of the runway edge lights, I was in darkness. The deer
went through the prop and between the nose wheel and the right main wheel
and hit the wing root as I went by.
I got pretty lucky: I could have hit her with the end of the wing and that
would have spun me around, not a wise move at that speed; she could have
taken out either the front wheel, the right main, or both, again not a good
thing at that speed; or she could have jumped and I could have hit her with
the windshield and that would have been the end of me.
My training immediately kicked in and the emergency checklist just drove my
next actions... fly (or drive in this case) the plane, kill engine, coast
off runway and call tower to close that runway, shut off electrics in
aircraft (so to not start a fire), get out of the plane (in case there is a
fire). It wasn't until I was out of the plane a half a minute or so did my
adrenalin kick in. I also had my flashlight in hand and was able to look at
the damage... the whole left side of the plane was coated red... puts a new
meaning to prop-wash.
The first time I told that story was to a group of friend at a bar. When I
was finished, I guy standing in an adjacent group leaned over and asked "are
you Robert Haines", I said "yes", and he said "I cleaned up your deer!" He
proceeded to tell the rest of the story as he was part of the airport
maintenance crew that got to drive out and shovel the runway clean. It was
one of the best beer drinking stories that we ever told.
I've hit two deer in my life, one with a Plymouth, one with a Piper.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 question |
Bert,
A light just went on after thinking about this.
A friend had a newly overhauled O200 that ran rough and had a cold cylinder.
Our Mentor put his finger right on it,,,had one of the cork intake tube
gaskets folded and sucking in air.
Got a feeling that you have the same thing, but maybe a very small leak.
When you use the borrowed carb, and it runs, maybe the idle mixture screw is
adjusted very rich so the cyl will still fire even though it's getting some
extra air. When you use yours, your mixture could be set on the very lean
side so with the extra comming in it's just enough to not fire.
If the "bad" carb is still on the engine, richen the idle way up and try it
again. If that's it, look for an intake leak. You should find a bad spot
with a light and one of those small dental mirrors.
Let us know.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A-65 question
>
> My newly overhauled engine runs good using a borrowed Stromberg carb.
Cranks with one or two props. But when I put MY carburetor (also a
Stromberg) on it it will not run on cylinder number three. I've re-checked
the mag timing, compression is 80/75 to 80/71 on all 4. New exhaust valves.
Lapped intake valves. The intake tubes and hoses are new, the valves all
close right, all new gaskets. The cylinders were done by an A&P so I do not
have an concerns with the cylinders. I actually swapped the offending
cylinder 3 with cylinder 1 and the problem stayed on number 3. I have brand
spanking new Slick Mags and new plugs.
>
> I would have assumed that a carb problem would have affected all 4
cylinders the same. Have you guys ever heard of anything like this? I have
cleaned the carb (soaked it) and inspected it - I don't see any problems.
>
> It makes GREAT power with the borrowed carb and all four cyls get hot as a
firecracker.
>
> But with my carb, number three stays cold as a clam.
> I"ve been scratching my head on this one.
>
> Who would you all recommend to send the carb to for overhaul?.
>
> Bert
> www.bconoly.tripod.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 question |
Bert,
Had lunch today with an aviation type and I threw your problem at him. He
took a few bites, chewed, sipped a little beer and came up with a possibility.
Rare, very rare, but it might be it. He says, " the only way that #3 could be
starved other than manifold blockage is for the jet in the center of the venturi
to have been bent slightly thereby depriving #3 of fuel. Rare but maybe.
Corsky in La drinking hot beer on a cold day
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: deer at night |
Man! Chris barely beat me to the "deer drinking story" comment. It just
fits so well.
>From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: deer at night
>Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 13:16:29 -0600
>
>
>
>Corky,
>
>Since you have been considering adding lights to Repiet, I've got a story
>for you. This happened to me as I was doing some night flying ten years
>ago
>or so. My brother just asked by email about this so I had the story all
>typed up....
>
>
>I was doing touch-and-goes at dusk and had just landed, pulled the flaps
>back in, was at full throttle, and saw a herd of deer running at me from
>the
>left. I knew they were in my path but I was going to fast to stop, to slow
>to fly, and turning's not much of an option on a runway. I met the herd
>and
>struck one with the nose of the plane. I had seen her coming and new I was
>going to hit and for a fraction of a second, I saw her as bright as can be
>in the landing light before impact. When she hit, the light went out and
>with the exception of the runway edge lights, I was in darkness. The deer
>went through the prop and between the nose wheel and the right main wheel
>and hit the wing root as I went by.
>
>I got pretty lucky: I could have hit her with the end of the wing and that
>would have spun me around, not a wise move at that speed; she could have
>taken out either the front wheel, the right main, or both, again not a good
>thing at that speed; or she could have jumped and I could have hit her with
>the windshield and that would have been the end of me.
>
>My training immediately kicked in and the emergency checklist just drove my
>next actions... fly (or drive in this case) the plane, kill engine, coast
>off runway and call tower to close that runway, shut off electrics in
>aircraft (so to not start a fire), get out of the plane (in case there is a
>fire). It wasn't until I was out of the plane a half a minute or so did my
>adrenalin kick in. I also had my flashlight in hand and was able to look
>at
>the damage... the whole left side of the plane was coated red... puts a new
>meaning to prop-wash.
>
>The first time I told that story was to a group of friend at a bar. When I
>was finished, I guy standing in an adjacent group leaned over and asked
>"are
>you Robert Haines", I said "yes", and he said "I cleaned up your deer!" He
>proceeded to tell the rest of the story as he was part of the airport
>maintenance crew that got to drive out and shovel the runway clean. It was
>one of the best beer drinking stories that we ever told.
>
>I've hit two deer in my life, one with a Plymouth, one with a Piper.
>
>
>Robert Haines
>Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads, videos,
and more here. http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Tailwheel for sale..... |
I've decided to build a "conventional" Pietenpol tail wheel and not use the
leaf spring/6" solid steerable wheel I have.
Although I would prefer a trade of a more "to the plans" tailwheel assembly,
I would sell what I have for $100 plus shipping.....
I believe the wheel and spring are the following:
From the Sept 2003 Wag Aero catalog:
Wheel: page 32. Cat No D-203-000 ($146.50 retail)
Spring: page 31 Cat No D-295-000 ($46.30)
From Aircraft Spruce 2000-2001 catalog :
Cat No 06-01615 ($138.00 retail)
Cat No 06-14200 ($72.00)
Pictures on request (offline please).......
Jim in Plano, just sitting here staring at how nice my powder coating turned
out! Wow, powder coating's the ticket!! I have an HVLP setup, but start to
finish with that process is a couple hours minimum (and a lot of nasty
cleanup). Start to finish with powder coating (8-10 small parts) is less
than an hour......WAY COOL!!!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Tailwheel for sale..... |
Like I said in my Powdercoating article, Jim, it is the only way to go.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel for sale.....
>
> I've decided to build a "conventional" Pietenpol tail wheel and not use
the
> leaf spring/6" solid steerable wheel I have.
>
> Although I would prefer a trade of a more "to the plans" tailwheel
assembly,
> I would sell what I have for $100 plus shipping.....
>
> I believe the wheel and spring are the following:
>
> From the Sept 2003 Wag Aero catalog:
> Wheel: page 32. Cat No D-203-000 ($146.50 retail)
> Spring: page 31 Cat No D-295-000 ($46.30)
>
> From Aircraft Spruce 2000-2001 catalog :
> Cat No 06-01615 ($138.00 retail)
> Cat No 06-14200 ($72.00)
>
> Pictures on request (offline please).......
>
> Jim in Plano, just sitting here staring at how nice my powder coating
turned
> out! Wow, powder coating's the ticket!! I have an HVLP setup, but start
to
> finish with that process is a couple hours minimum (and a lot of nasty
> cleanup). Start to finish with powder coating (8-10 small parts) is less
> than an hour......WAY COOL!!!!!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"pietenpol"
| Subject: | Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help with. |
Navigation problem I need help with.
Could someone tackle this problem for me..I'm not sure if I have the correct
answer.
"While maintaining a magnetic heading of 270 degrees and a true airspeed of 120
knots, the 360 radial of a VOR is crossed at 1237 and the 350 radial is crossed
at 1244. The approximate time and distance to this station are:
a) 42 minutes and 84 NM
b) 42 minutes and 91 NM
c) 44 minutes and 96 NM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
I think it's (A). 42 minutes and 84nm.
Time to station =Time for Bearing Change(minutes) X60 divided by 10.
Time to station = 7X60 = 420/10 = 42.
Distance to station = Time to station (minutes) X TAS divided by bearing
change.
Distance to station = ( 7 minutes) X TAS / 10 = 84.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Thanks Skip.
aaai actually need the wings first, but I remember being a little let down
building last time. I looked forward to it for so long and the assembly
went so fast. The floats would be a new challange.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: floats
>
> Dick,
>
> http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
>
> Btw, I like both ideas on what to build next S&F woodshop, which do you
need
> first.
> Skip
>
>
> >Would someone please re-post the web site on mukluk floats. I deleted
> accidently. Thanks
> >
> >Dick N.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
Hi Chris
I'll give it a try.
minutes to station=time in seconds divided bynumber of degrees
7x60=420
__________ = 42 mi.
10
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
November 08, 2003 - November 24, 2003
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dm