Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dn
November 24, 2003 - December 08, 2003
| 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: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
Correction on my last. Should read 42 minutes not mi.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: A-65 question |
Hey Bert
I would highly recommend Bolduc Aviation here in Minneapolis. Of course its
not cheap they did mine. $500 They do lots of them they are a major
overhaul facility for engines Their number 763-780-1185
Dick
----- 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: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
Sorry, I just re-lookd and noticed the distance part of the problem.
distance= seconds divided by degrees
420
7 min x 60 = 420sec _____ = 42
42x2mi/min = 84 miles
10
deg.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: A-65 question |
In a message dated 11/24/03 2:30:08 PM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< 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. >>
Bert,
A bent needle in your carb, or maybe the carb was threaded crooked. Look
straight down the venturi, and see if the needle is in the center. This is the
first thing I thought of.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
Tom, Dick, (and Harry too while I am at it),
Thanks for the answers. This was a homework problem for Washburn High
School. THe instructor sent it to me because he began to doubt his answer
was correct.
I think A as well. Just looking at the answers, if you know you are doing 2
miles a minute at 120 kts, then the only answer that allows this is A.,
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 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>
> To: "taylorcraft" ; "pietenpol"
>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Dick,
Greg and Dale are putting stitts silver on right now. The airplane is down at
Stanton.
We can get together after sunday.
I'll try to drag Greg and/or Dale with me.
Exactly where are you? Phone number? Best time? Are we in heated space or do
I dress warm?
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: Christian Bobka
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: inspection
I hope that DAR comes thru for you. How is that project with Greg and Dale coming
along? I am almost ready to re-weight and re-do W/B to send in App for
airworthyness cert.
I have had a couple of NWA A&I's looking things over during the project but a
TC would be helpful.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: Richard Navratil
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: inspection
Dick,
No DAR. They want me to have built and flown an experimental and it needs
to fly 100hrs. Besides, FAA just funded the first training class for december
2003 for the DAR-AB where AB stands for amateur built.
I am piggy backing on to Greg C.'s and Dale J.'s piet in Burnsville to get
to be a builder and we hope to have it inspected in the spring and then fly it
all summer so we have 100 hours by next fall and I can turn in the application.
I am a Technical counselor and could do a TC inspection. It helps for the
DAR's inspection. Most will ask for the TC inspection evidence in your builder's
log anyway and it helps with insurance too.
Maybe you and greg C. can arrrange for one guy to look at two airplanes for
a better price.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: bobka(at)compuserve.com
Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 7:44 PM
Subject: inspection
Hi Chris
Did you ever get your DAR? I am going to need an inspection soon and didn't
see you on their list. There doesn't seem to be anyone near the Mpls area.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Chris
I am leaving town for 10-12 days starting this Friday, going sailing. I
have a heated hangar at Crystal Airport.
I'll be in touch when I get bacl.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: inspection
>
> Dick,
>
> Greg and Dale are putting stitts silver on right now. The airplane is
down at Stanton.
>
> We can get together after sunday.
>
> I'll try to drag Greg and/or Dale with me.
>
> Exactly where are you? Phone number? Best time? Are we in heated space
or do I dress warm?
>
>
> chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Navratil
> To: Christian Bobka
> Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 11:27 AM
> Subject: Re: inspection
>
>
> I hope that DAR comes thru for you. How is that project with Greg and
Dale coming along? I am almost ready to re-weight and re-do W/B to send in
App for airworthyness cert.
> I have had a couple of NWA A&I's looking things over during the project
but a TC would be helpful.
> Dick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Christian Bobka
> To: Richard Navratil
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 8:27 PM
> Subject: Re: inspection
>
>
> Dick,
>
> No DAR. They want me to have built and flown an experimental and it
needs to fly 100hrs. Besides, FAA just funded the first training class for
december 2003 for the DAR-AB where AB stands for amateur built.
>
> I am piggy backing on to Greg C.'s and Dale J.'s piet in Burnsville to
get to be a builder and we hope to have it inspected in the spring and then
fly it all summer so we have 100 hours by next fall and I can turn in the
application.
>
> I am a Technical counselor and could do a TC inspection. It helps for
the DAR's inspection. Most will ask for the TC inspection evidence in your
builder's log anyway and it helps with insurance too.
>
> Maybe you and greg C. can arrrange for one guy to look at two
airplanes for a better price.
>
> chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Richard Navratil
> To: bobka(at)compuserve.com
> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2003 7:44 PM
> Subject: inspection
>
>
> Hi Chris
> Did you ever get your DAR? I am going to need an inspection soon
and didn't see you on their list. There doesn't seem to be anyone near the
Mpls area.
> Dick N.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net> |
| Subject: | Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh"
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
Dear Friends,
QuickTime will not allow me to save anything to the hard drive unless I sign up
for their $30.00 QuickTime Pro package. Since I'd rather spend my money supporting
programs like the Pietenpol list, I'll probably not be able to view the
Corvair test run. - - Too Bad.
To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65 problems own Poplar Piet
N7224X? This is one of the finest examples of an auto engined Pietenpol I have
ever seen. It is built in the best tradition of equipping a light, strong airframe
with an easily obtainable American, liquid cooled powerplant. The smart
20 year olds who were building and flying Ford powered Piets in the thirties
are still around, but now they are tapping computer keys instead of lofting
wing ribs and wielding glue pots and Oxy-acetylene torches. It's rare to see anyone
under 35 flying a plans-built airplane, especially with an auto engine.
Perhaps this will change.
Happy landings, Mike Fisher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
just for point of reference.... I'm 29 yrs old. My Piet will be powered with
my Corvair. I started my project when I was 27.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Fisher
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh"
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
Dear Friends,
QuickTime will not allow me to save anything to the hard drive unless I sign up
for their $30.00 QuickTime Pro package. Since I'd rather spend my money supporting
programs like the Pietenpol list, I'll probably not be able to view the
Corvair test run. - - Too Bad.
To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65 problems own Poplar Piet
N7224X? This is one of the finest examples of an auto engined Pietenpol I have
ever seen. It is built in the best tradition of equipping a light, strong airframe
with an easily obtainable American, liquid cooled powerplant. The smart
20 year olds who were building and flying Ford powered Piets in the thirties
are still around, but now they are tapping computer keys instead of lofting
wing ribs and wielding glue pots and Oxy-acetylene torches. It's rare to see anyone
under 35 flying a plans-built airplane, especially with an auto engine.
Perhaps this will change.
Happy landings, Mike Fisher
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
| From: | "Kent Hallsten" <KHallsten(at)Governair.com> |
Try it again Mike, I just downloaded the free viewer at http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/ and it works fine. Didn't cost a dime. I did get a window asking for a registration number for Quicktime Pro but just leave it blank and click through it.
And DJ's Corvair video is nice too!
Kent
>
> QuickTime will not allow me to save anything to the hard
> drive unless I sign up for their $30.00 QuickTime Pro
> package. Since I'd rather spend my money supporting programs
> like the Pietenpol list, I'll probably not be able to view
> the Corvair test run. - - Too Bad.
>
> To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65
> p
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Congrats... Your website is loaded with good stuff. A good modeler
always makes a great homebuilder. Hope your project is successful.
Weav
On Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 12:25 PM, DJ Vegh wrote:
>
> just for point of reference.... I'm 29 yrs old. My Piet will be
> powered with my Corvair. I started my project when I was 27.
>
> DJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Fisher
> To: pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
>
>
> 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
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> QuickTime will not allow me to save anything to the hard drive unless
> I sign up for their $30.00 QuickTime Pro package. Since I'd rather
> spend my money supporting programs like the Pietenpol list, I'll
> probably not be able to view the Corvair test run. - - Too Bad.
>
> To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65 problems own
> Poplar Piet N7224X? This is one of the finest examples of an auto
> engined Pietenpol I have ever seen. It is built in the best tradition
> of equipping a light, strong airframe with an easily obtainable
> American, liquid cooled powerplant. The smart 20 year olds who were
> building and flying Ford powered Piets in the thirties are still
> around, but now they are tapping computer keys instead of lofting wing
> ribs and wielding glue pots and Oxy-acetylene torches. It's rare to
> see anyone under 35 flying a plans-built airplane, especially with an
> auto engine. Perhaps this will change.
>
> Happy landings, Mike Fisher
>
>
> > 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: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
Christian,
It's almost a trick question, it's like test givers pride themselfs on
confusing you with extra information. Example: If a train is heading to
Boston at 120 miles and hour, and Corky is adding pinto beans to chilli at
the exact same time, how much does a pound of feathers weigh?
Sure you could figure it out with trigonometry, but the only answer that
works is A based on your true airspeed. And I was all ready to pull out my
E6B to correct for crosswinds!
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
"pietenpol"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need help |
with.
OK OK, I'm such a nerd...
In 7 minutes at 120knots, the aircraft travels 14NM. This would be the
opposite end of the right triangle (remember? opposite, adjacent,
hypotenuse) and the distance back to the station off of the 350 radial would
be the hypotenuse, since he is traveling 270. Sin of 10 degrees equals
opposite divided by hypotenuse... so after rearranging that equation,
hypotenuse equals opposite (14NM) divided by Sin of 10 degrees. After
typing all that into my VERY high folutin' HP calculator, rearranging the
pens in my shirt pocket, pushing up my thick glasses and blowing my nose,
the distance is 80.6NM.... gesh, that's not even a choice!
I guess at this point I could back calculate all the distances in the
answers to find the actual distance traveled taking into account a
crosswind, since of course all the answers are bigger and the triangle is
bigger meaning that more distance was traveled in the 7 minutes meaning the
aircraft had a tailwind. But since I don't know the direction or speed it
is an infinite amount of combinations to actually equal the distances from
the station given in the answers... I guess I could iterate through all the
possibilities and find the crosswind directions and speeds that give
distances and times (using the crosswind to correct for groundspeed) that
match one (or likely more) of the answers...
Meanwhile the student taking the test has just wasted twenty minutes on a 30
second question and although he knows the material, the testgiver just
screwed him out of a good grade due to all these damn trick questions.
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need
help with.
> Christian,
>
> It's almost a trick question, it's like test givers pride themselfs on
> confusing you with extra information. Example: If a train is heading to
> Boston at 120 miles and hour, and Corky is adding pinto beans to chilli at
> the exact same time, how much does a pound of feathers weigh?
>
> Sure you could figure it out with trigonometry, but the only answer that
> works is A based on your true airspeed. And I was all ready to pull out
my
> E6B to correct for crosswinds!
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> "pietenpol"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Fisher" <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
>snipped
> To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65 problems own Poplar
Piet N7224X? This is one of the finest examples of an auto engined
Pietenpol I have ever seen. It is built in the best tradition of equipping
a light, strong airframe with an easily obtainable American, liquid cooled
powerplant. >
> Happy landings, Mike Fisher
Poplar Piet was lost in an accident June 2002. The builder was Larry
Harrison. For the record, the accident was NOT engine or performance
related. The passenger inadvertently, somehow, pulled the throttle linkage
from the left side of the fuselage, The engine immediately went to idle
with no ability to control it and apply full power. It occured at the worst
possible time. At about 200 feet AGL right after take off above trees with
no place in site for a emergency landing. Larry managed to nurse it, nearly
at stall, into the top of the trees.
I believe NTSB reports say it was loss of power but it was because of the
linkage being disconnected.
I suggest we all put some protection for the linkage in place. Possibly a
sheet aluminum "chase" or cover to protect it. Or Maybe a different cable
arrangement of some kind.
My 2 cents... It WAS a fine little plane.
Bert Conoly
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Baffling Baffles |
Guys -
How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The little ones
that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got mine all cut and
fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that they will not fall
out.
Thanks -
Craig
Having fun, enjoying life!
Craig Wilcox
craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
I've got some more videos I took today of the Corvair. I have 4 hours on
it now. I'm still fiddling with the needle settings on the AeroCarb, but
overall it's running nicely!
I'll post up the videos tonight and send a link to them tomorrow.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
Thanks Fred....... I'll be starting wings this winter now that the Corvair
engine is complete. If all goes as planned I may be flying this thing next
winter.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weaver" <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
> Congrats... Your website is loaded with good stuff. A good modeler
> always makes a great homebuilder. Hope your project is successful.
> Weav
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear |
Some of you all might remember Dan Zigo from Ardmore, Oklahoma, who participated
on this list up until about a year ago when he left for Iraq. Well, I sent
an email out to his address and below is the reply I got.
When he comes back, let's all give him a good welcome back...
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: ZigoDan(at)aol.com
To: bobka(at)charter.net
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Landing gear
No, he hasn't come back yet. His arrival in the States got pushed back by a few
weeks. He will be home before Christmas and I will save your email for him.
Thanks!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The scale I originally
weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it agreed with my
known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while standing on it the
reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each main and 30 on
the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of 7.01 The actual weight
turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
That error could have been very dangerous.
Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Baffling Baffles |
Craig,
My mentor said that I didn't need them.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Guys -
>
> How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got mine
all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that they
will not fall out.
>
> Thanks -
> Craig
> Having fun, enjoying life!
>
> Craig Wilcox
> craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
>
>
> Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Baffling Baffles |
Walt,
Put them on.
Chris Bobka
ATP, CFI, A&P, IA, FE, AGI
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Craig,
> My mentor said that I didn't need them.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
>
>
> >
> > Guys -
> >
> > How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
> little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got
mine
> all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that they
> will not fall out.
> >
> > Thanks -
> > Craig
> > Having fun, enjoying life!
> >
> > Craig Wilcox
> > craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
> >
> >
> > Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Baffling Baffles |
Craig,
Take a look at your handy copy of Bingelis Firewall Forward page 127 and 131
for patterns to make all the baffles for the small continentals. The oil
cooling baffle shown on page 131 is highly recommended and it really works.
The premise is to positively route cooling air along the lower side of the
case where the oil is in the process of draining back to the sump. It is
where the oil is hottest and is thus able to lose the most heat in the
shortest time frame. This oil shroud also keeps you from having a high
pressure air leak under the cylinders right where you want to have the air
pressure lowest.
High air pressure on top of the cylinders gets forced THROUGH the fins by
the small baffles that are put on from underneath the cylinders. Walt
Evans' airflow does not get forced THROUGH the fins but can conveniently
pass through the big opening near the cylinder fins so he loses out on
cooling that his mentor THINKS he has plenty of.
For an engine the size of the small continentals, you can get by with no
baffling as long as you make about 45 hp or less.
The two nicest setups for the intercylinder baffles is either the
Taylorcraft or the Cessna 140 with the Taylorcraft the better one. See if
you can find someone with a Taylorcraft with a Continental that can show you
the set up.
Can you send pictures of what you have already?
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Walt,
>
> Put them on.
>
> Chris Bobka
> ATP, CFI, A&P, IA, FE, AGI
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
>
> >
> > Craig,
> > My mentor said that I didn't need them.
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Guys -
> > >
> > > How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
> > little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got
> mine
> > all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that
they
> > will not fall out.
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > > Craig
> > > Having fun, enjoying life!
> > >
> > > Craig Wilcox
> > > craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Dick,
If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks, you
can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at your
ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the EXACT
location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in the
front 'pit.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The scale I
originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it agreed
with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while standing
on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each main
and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of 7.01
The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> That error could have been very dangerous.
> Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> Dick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
And although I type on a lot of keyboard, I started my Pober SuperAce when I
was 26. I started on my Slingshot at 30. And although the SuperAce was
disassembled and the Slingshot wings have become garage decoration, I'm
still one year under 35. I thought I was the young'in 'till DJ came on
board. And yes, I have lofted a wing rib, spilled my glue pot, and burned
my fingers with my oxy-acetelyne torch. :) But to a certain degree, I
agree with Mike a little... today, people don't build and take care of the
things one needs on a daily basis, they just go to WalMart and buy a new
plastic one. So industrial arts and fabrication skills are vanishing and
being replaced with Java programming and web page design ( DJ, I'm ribbing
you here :) ).
The way I see it, you either have to get the plane built when your single
and young, or wait much later in life. Things like kids, wife, house, and
career building somewhat consume the middle part of life.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
just for point of reference.... I'm 29 yrs old. My Piet will be powered
with
my Corvair. I started my project when I was 27.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Fisher
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
Pietenpol-List message posted by: "DJ Vegh"
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
Dear Friends,
QuickTime will not allow me to save anything to the hard drive unless I sign
up
for their $30.00 QuickTime Pro package. Since I'd rather spend my money
supporting
programs like the Pietenpol list, I'll probably not be able to view the
Corvair test run. - - Too Bad.
To change the subject, does the Bert Conoly with A-65 problems own Poplar
Piet
N7224X? This is one of the finest examples of an auto engined Pietenpol I
have
ever seen. It is built in the best tradition of equipping a light, strong
airframe
with an easily obtainable American, liquid cooled powerplant. The smart
20 year olds who were building and flying Ford powered Piets in the thirties
are still around, but now they are tapping computer keys instead of lofting
wing ribs and wielding glue pots and Oxy-acetylene torches. It's rare to see
anyone
under 35 flying a plans-built airplane, especially with an auto engine.
Perhaps this will change.
Happy landings, Mike Fisher
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Baffling Baffles |
My IA, others said no need for those-----just the regular
baffles. Compression is fine, temps during the summer mos. is fine. I
left them off....
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
Bob,
As they used to say on the Amos 'n Andy radio show in the thirties, " boy,
did you say a mouthful".
Started a Smith Miniplane in '58. Wife raised hell. Had a welder over on Sat
and she ran his ass off. That's what you call LOVE. Gave up to raise the kids.
Kids are now adults and I begin a Volksplane II. Wife raises more hell. Got
rid of the VP project.
Got rid of the wife. Got a new one. Built a Piet, wife is happy, I finish it
a few month's prior to birthday #80.
Moral of the story; Get the right wife to begin with if you want to build
airplanes.
Corky in La living the good life
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Baffling Baffles |
Craig,
If I remember correctly, his reasoning was that they were necessary in an
enclosed engine config. where, as the air travels from high pressure area
to low past the fins, you can have a "dead" area under the cyls. That is
why you put that "mustasched" shaped baffle under the cyl. bases to shoot
air fore and aft to clear the dead zone.
With mine , the cyls are exposed with eyebrows, and there would be no dead
spots, cause the eyebrows push down and then the free air comming by cools
the undersides.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Craig,
> My mentor said that I didn't need them.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
>
>
> >
> > Guys -
> >
> > How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
> little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got
mine
> all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that they
> will not fall out.
> >
> > Thanks -
> > Craig
> > Having fun, enjoying life!
> >
> > Craig Wilcox
> > craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
> >
> >
> > Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Corky's building problem-- his first wife !!!!!!! |
Corky-- that is just hilarious. Good for you. You got a beauty there in
Isabelle. A dream wife. I didn't even take that chance tho and built
and flew my Piet with NO wife anywhere in sight. Never had to take any
Tums during the whole wonderful process !!!!
Happy Thanksgiving to all you guys out there.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
Corky, you sound like me - an AIDS survivor (Aviation Induced Divorce
Syndrome). First wife loved to fly, until she got that ring on her finger.
Three years after the wedding, she told me that either my J-3 had to go, or
she was leaving. Made the wrong choice and sold the airplane (should have
divorced her on the spot and saved myself 12 more years of misery). Finally
divorced her, started building the Piet, met and married wife number two
(who loved flying until she got that ring on her finger). Stayed married
for 5 years until she got tired of me spending most of my time building the
airplane and she ran off with an ear-ringed, tattooed, pony-tailed 28 year
old and moved to Seattle with him. Now I'm looking for one who is already a
pilot, preferably with her own airplane.
Jack Phillips
Putting the last touches on the fabric work on NX899JP today.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
Bob,
As they used to say on the Amos 'n Andy radio show in the thirties, " boy,
did you say a mouthful".
Started a Smith Miniplane in '58. Wife raised hell. Had a welder over on Sat
and she ran his ass off. That's what you call LOVE. Gave up to raise the
kids.
Kids are now adults and I begin a Volksplane II. Wife raises more hell. Got
rid of the VP project.
Got rid of the wife. Got a new one. Built a Piet, wife is happy, I finish it
a few month's prior to birthday #80.
Moral of the story; Get the right wife to begin with if you want to build
airplanes.
Corky in La living the good life
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
If you absolutely do not want to spend the money to rent the official scales, or
can't find any. Heres a thought on using bathroom scales. put a known weight
on them that is close to what you think the weight will be, and then set the
scale to that weight, or take note of what the error is. if its a lot different
than what you thought the weight was going to be, reset it again with known
weights closer to what it is. if you know any racing clubs around there, they
have pretty good scales also.
Del
Richard Navratil wrote:
I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The scale I originally
weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it agreed with my known
weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while standing on it the reading
was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each main and 30 on the
tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of 7.01 The actual weight
turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
That error could have been very dangerous.
Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
Dick
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
Pieters,
If I get anymore of these goodies about airplanes and wives I think I will
contact Doc Mosher about a "Dear Corky" column in the EAA magazine. Would make
for some darn good reading. Might head off some miserable marriages.
Corky, the freedom liver.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
I'd guess that 96% of them DON'T fly..........but if they are dating you
they DO.
This is VERY typical as far as I'm concerned !
Jack.........being single ain't so bad !
Mike C.
Keep building !!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Dear Corky....... |
Dear Corky,
How do you know that a woman will put up with your love of building and
flying and......ahem...other things even if you do marry her ? Are there
any guidelines for those on the list looking to marry ? Should they just
marry another guy ? Naw......that's just not right. Your words of wisdom
are like jewels to many of us younger than you.
Wondering what shoes to wear on Thursday (yeah, right !)
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | allison waters <awaters25(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | iet list observations |
Pieters-
I've been lurking on this list for a while and having built a couple of Piets in
the past I thought I'd share a couple of observations as food for thought.
Pease don't take these musings the wrong way as they are given in the spirit of
helpfulness.
I see that the GN-1 group has it's own website now. That's a really great step
for the Piet guys as they won't have to put up with John Grega's wierd creation
nor help further his (or his heirs) blatant plagerizied version of what is a
wonderful airplane. Piets are Piets just as glassairs are glassairs. You don't
see t-18 builders over-running the RV website on the basis of them being "almost
the same". Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site up, it's long, long overdue.
( I believe the PRINTED and STATED objective for the BPAN and this Matronics
site are to further PIETENPOL aircraft............check it out, no mention
of GN-1's)
I've seen a couple of really nicely done but atrociously heavy Piets in the past
year. Why put rotating beacons, nav and landing lights, radios, upholstery or
cover the entire fuselage with PLYWOOD or put on other unnecessary add-ons
that don't contribute one iota of flight capability to a great little airplane?
If you want that kind of stuff, go buy a 150 or build a Deuce. Building an airplane
should not be an excercise in seeing how high you can get your empty weight!
There is alltogether too much drivel on the site that should be addressed to individuals
off-line but gets posted anyway. Nobody cares what your credentials
are or if you have a heated hangar while you are sailing on your vacation. It's
pretty easy to spot who is helping the collective group and who is posting letters,
pictures and videos just to blow their own horn. Stop it already......we
don't care!
Everyone should have and use their spell checker and some should get a grammar
checker.
Spruce really isn't that hard to find. Use it.
Model "A" engines are just fine. Next time you're at Brodhead for the Piet reunion,
take a look at those old powerplants that have been showing up for years
and providing their owners with hundreds of hours of troublefree service. They
might not be abundantly powerful, but they are every bit as reliable as other
sources of power that are being used. Let's not get on the bandwagon of "I switched
to a Continental because I wanted a reliable engine". And no, they are
not motors!
That's it for now. Keep up the good work and get those Piets in the air!
Bernard
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
UH OH!
Tighten your seatbelts, and shoulder harnesses if you have them, this mey be
a bumpy ride! I see turbulence up ahead.
:
O
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "allison waters" <awaters25(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>
> Pieters-
> I've been lurking on this list for a while and having built a couple of
Piets in the past I thought I'd share a couple of observations as food for
thought. Pease don't take these musings the wrong way as they are given in
the spirit of helpfulness.
>
> I see that the GN-1 group has it's own website now. That's a really great
step for the Piet guys as they won't have to put up with John Grega's wierd
creation nor help further his (or his heirs) blatant plagerizied version of
what is a wonderful airplane. Piets are Piets just as glassairs are
glassairs. You don't see t-18 builders over-running the RV website on the
basis of them being "almost the same". Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site
up, it's long, long overdue. ( I believe the PRINTED and STATED objective
for the BPAN and this Matronics site are to further PIETENPOL
aircraft............check it out, no mention of GN-1's)
>
> I've seen a couple of really nicely done but atrociously heavy Piets in
the past year. Why put rotating beacons, nav and landing lights, radios,
upholstery or cover the entire fuselage with PLYWOOD or put on other
unnecessary add-ons that don't contribute one iota of flight capability to a
great little airplane? If you want that kind of stuff, go buy a 150 or build
a Deuce. Building an airplane should not be an excercise in seeing how high
you can get your empty weight!
>
> There is alltogether too much drivel on the site that should be addressed
to individuals off-line but gets posted anyway. Nobody cares what your
credentials are or if you have a heated hangar while you are sailing on your
vacation. It's pretty easy to spot who is helping the collective group and
who is posting letters, pictures and videos just to blow their own horn.
Stop it already......we don't care!
>
> Everyone should have and use their spell checker and some should get a
grammar checker.
>
> Spruce really isn't that hard to find. Use it.
>
> Model "A" engines are just fine. Next time you're at Brodhead for the Piet
reunion, take a look at those old powerplants that have been showing up for
years and providing their owners with hundreds of hours of troublefree
service. They might not be abundantly powerful, but they are every bit as
reliable as other sources of power that are being used. Let's not get on the
bandwagon of "I switched to a Continental because I wanted a reliable
engine". And no, they are not motors!
>
> That's it for now. Keep up the good work and get those Piets in the air!
>
> Bernard
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Chuck wrote-
>Someone from this list had... intentions of building fully
>plywood sheeted floats, to match.
Not sure if they were trying to scratch-design the floats, but there is an
easier way. I bought a set of construction plans for all-wood floats by
MukTuk Floats. You give them the info on your airplane (up to 1500 lbs.
displacement) and they size the floats for that plane and send you
dimensioned construction drawings for it. They have expanded their
offerings to include kits too, but I suspect most Pieters will go the
plans-build route. Take a look at their website, at
http://www.ultralightfloats.com/
Happy Thanksgiving, y'all!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
sometimes my temper flares when I hear non-sense... so my apologies in advance.
blah blah blah....... you make it sound like all we talk about are GN-1's.
Lay-off the GN-1 crowd dude.... we all (GN-1 builders)contribute the the building
process of an AirCamper/Aircamper be it GN-1 or Piet. You imply that GN-1
builder are "over-running" this list. Where the hell did you get your numbers??
About 85% of the posts here are from Pieters and the other 15% that aren't
are normally not discussing "GN-1 related" issues. Is that your definition
of "over-run"?
It's comments like the ones that you make that really tick me off... Sorry ....
I know you said your comments were intended to be "helpful" but I fail to
see how they possibly could be.
And another thing.... I have no idea if you were insinuating that I am one of the
"horn blowers" but I kind of took it that way. (since I was the only one who
has posted videos in the past few weeks) For your information... I don't get
a hard-on sending my pics/videos to the list. I do it because I enjoy sharing
my trials/errors/successes so that others can be helped by my experience.
I must get 2 or 3 emails a week form other PIET builders who love that I spend
a little extra time documenting my progress with photos, videos, write-ups....
forgive me if I'm not some hermit reclusive builder who talks/shares with no
one.
Who made you God and said you can dictate who's Piet is too heavy or overly equipped??
Spell Check??? did you happen to see how you spelled "Piet" in your subject line?
When your fingers hit the keyboard all that came out was non-sense and Llama crap.
OK... I'm done..... (for now)
DJ Vegh
N74DV (a GN-1)
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site up, it's long, long overdue. ( I believe the
PRINTED and STATED objective for the BPAN and this Matronics site are to further
PIETENPOL aircraft............check it out, no mention of GN-1's)
=
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: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
"DING!"... Round One goes to DJ.
I happen to like DJ's website, and the RC model of the Pieten... uh uh, I
mean GN-1 is very cool. The pictures in the construction log are also very
helpful.
(I'm going to hide behind the turkey now so that other guy doesn't throw
stuff at me).
>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:58:38 -0700
>
>
>sometimes my temper flares when I hear non-sense... so my apologies in
>advance.
>
>blah blah blah....... you make it sound like all we talk about are
>GN-1's. Lay-off the GN-1 crowd dude.... we all (GN-1
>builders)contribute the the building process of an AirCamper/Aircamper be
>it GN-1 or Piet. You imply that GN-1 builder are "over-running" this list.
> Where the hell did you get your numbers?? About 85% of the posts here
>are from Pieters and the other 15% that aren't are normally not discussing
>"GN-1 related" issues. Is that your definition of "over-run"?
>
>It's comments like the ones that you make that really tick me off...
>Sorry .... I know you said your comments were intended to be "helpful" but
>I fail to see how they possibly could be.
>
>And another thing.... I have no idea if you were insinuating that I am one
>of the "horn blowers" but I kind of took it that way. (since I was the only
>one who has posted videos in the past few weeks) For your information... I
>don't get a hard-on sending my pics/videos to the list. I do it because I
>enjoy sharing my trials/errors/successes so that others can be helped by my
>experience. I must get 2 or 3 emails a week form other PIET builders who
>love that I spend a little extra time documenting my progress with photos,
>videos, write-ups.... forgive me if I'm not some hermit reclusive builder
>who talks/shares with no one.
>
>Who made you God and said you can dictate who's Piet is too heavy or overly
>equipped??
>
>Spell Check??? did you happen to see how you spelled "Piet" in your
>subject line?
>
>When your fingers hit the keyboard all that came out was non-sense and
>Llama crap.
>
>OK... I'm done..... (for now)
>
>
>DJ Vegh
>N74DV (a GN-1)
>www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>
>
>Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site up, it's long, long overdue. ( I
>believe the PRINTED and STATED objective for the BPAN and this Matronics
>site are to further PIETENPOL aircraft............check it out, no mention
>of GN-1's)
>
>
>>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>.
>
>
Groove on the latest from the hot new rock groups! Get downloads, videos,
and more here. http://special.msn.com/entertainment/wiredformusic.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
The only thing I can think of is William Wynne's T-Shirts "MY EX WANTED ME
TO QUIT FLYING"
Barry Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
>
> Bob,
>
> As they used to say on the Amos 'n Andy radio show in the thirties, " boy,
> did you say a mouthful".
>
> Started a Smith Miniplane in '58. Wife raised hell. Had a welder over on
Sat
> and she ran his ass off. That's what you call LOVE. Gave up to raise the
kids.
> Kids are now adults and I begin a Volksplane II. Wife raises more hell.
Got
> rid of the VP project.
> Got rid of the wife. Got a new one. Built a Piet, wife is happy, I finish
it
> a few month's prior to birthday #80.
> Moral of the story; Get the right wife to begin with if you want to build
> airplanes.
>
> Corky in La living the good life
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
Please lurk somewhere else......we don't need this crap.
OK Bert, you're next
Barry Davis - iet Builder
----- Original Message -----
From: "allison waters" <awaters25(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>
> Pieters-
> I've been lurking on this list for a while and having built a couple of
Piets in the past I thought I'd share a couple of observations as food for
thought. Pease don't take these musings the wrong way as they are given in
the spirit of helpfulness.
>
> I see that the GN-1 group has it's own website now. That's a really great
step for the Piet guys as they won't have to put up with John Grega's wierd
creation nor help further his (or his heirs) blatant plagerizied version of
what is a wonderful airplane. Piets are Piets just as glassairs are
glassairs. You don't see t-18 builders over-running the RV website on the
basis of them being "almost the same". Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site
up, it's long, long overdue. ( I believe the PRINTED and STATED objective
for the BPAN and this Matronics site are to further PIETENPOL
aircraft............check it out, no mention of GN-1's)
>
> I've seen a couple of really nicely done but atrociously heavy Piets in
the past year. Why put rotating beacons, nav and landing lights, radios,
upholstery or cover the entire fuselage with PLYWOOD or put on other
unnecessary add-ons that don't contribute one iota of flight capability to a
great little airplane? If you want that kind of stuff, go buy a 150 or build
a Deuce. Building an airplane should not be an excercise in seeing how high
you can get your empty weight!
>
> There is alltogether too much drivel on the site that should be addressed
to individuals off-line but gets posted anyway. Nobody cares what your
credentials are or if you have a heated hangar while you are sailing on your
vacation. It's pretty easy to spot who is helping the collective group and
who is posting letters, pictures and videos just to blow their own horn.
Stop it already......we don't care!
>
> Everyone should have and use their spell checker and some should get a
grammar checker.
>
> Spruce really isn't that hard to find. Use it.
>
> Model "A" engines are just fine. Next time you're at Brodhead for the Piet
reunion, take a look at those old powerplants that have been showing up for
years and providing their owners with hundreds of hours of troublefree
service. They might not be abundantly powerful, but they are every bit as
reliable as other sources of power that are being used. Let's not get on the
bandwagon of "I switched to a Continental because I wanted a reliable
engine". And no, they are not motors!
>
> That's it for now. Keep up the good work and get those Piets in the air!
>
> Bernard
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | say our peace, then ignore this guy....... |
Guys-- don't let this guys mess up a good group of people------GN-1's and
Piets, no matter what kind of
engine are GREAT to talk about so let's enjoy it.
Another Fisherman here I think.....
Also, Allison/Bernard....whatever your real name is..---at what stage are
YOU in the building process ???
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
Hey DJ - Have a landing gear question for you and anyone else that may know,(you
have a great piet website by the way, thanks for sharing your project pictures).
Anyhow, I am building using the original plans with a long fuse but I think
I would like to use the J3 style landing gear as you are doing. I assume the
GN version of the Piet includes the J3 gear, question is do plans exist for
the J3 gear? Or better yet J3 style gear adapted to the original Piet design?
Or do you just got out to the airport with a measuring tape and find a Cub?
One other question, you used bungie cords on your gear, is this better than springs?
(I know this is kind of a religious question).
Thanks
Rick Holland
> Thanks Fred....... I'll be starting wings this winter now that the Corvair
> engine is complete. If all goes as planned I may be flying
> this thing next
> winter.
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV
> Mesa, AZ
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Rick,
When you look at a GN 1 you will notice the aft L/G attach point is about 6"
forward of the aft lift strut attach point. This is because the Cub gear
Grega used is shorter, and the GN 1 has an extra bay in the fuse sides just
so there will be vertical members at both the aft L/G and aft lift strut
attach points. You can go to DJ's website and see this.
The 34 plans have a Cub like L/G, the Flyer and Glider plans have the solid
axle L/G.
Skip
> do plans exist for the J3 gear? Or better yet J3 style gear adapted to the
original Piet
>design? Or do you just got out to the airport with a measuring tape and
find a Cub?
>Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Getting back to what this list was designed, has the Pieter with the cold #3
cyl on the A 65 rectified the problem. I'm interested to know the fixes and
solutions.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: say our peace, then ignore this guy....... |
Agreed. The fisherman kept coming back JUST because he kept getting
responses. I believe he sincerely felt that some on the list also had
time/energy dribble to waste.....the real pity is that he probably had
something worthwhile to contribute and never did.
So what do we learn from this????? :-)
Jim in Plano, heading out to the garage to laminate some maple/black walnut
(for the cabanes) with my NEW vacuum bagging setup!!!! Cost next to nothing
thanks to junk yard refrigerator compressors...... NO MORE CLAMPS!!!!
(Well, not for some things anyway.....) Wow this is fun......
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
> Guys-- don't let this guys mess up a good group of people------GN-1's and
> Piets, no matter what kind of
> engine are GREAT to talk about so let's enjoy it.
>
> Another Fisherman here I think.....
>
> Also, Allison/Bernard....whatever your real name is..---at what stage are
> YOU in the building process ???
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chris,
I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
Pietenpol weighed accurately.
Where is chapter 25?
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Dick,
>
> If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks, you
> can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at
your
> ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the EXACT
> location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in
the
> front 'pit.
>
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The scale
I
> originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it agreed
> with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
standing
> on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each
main
> and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of 7.01
> The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > Dick
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
Corky,
You have given me a goal. Finnish within the next 5 years to match your
achievement, of the Pietenpol that is.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems
>
> Bob,
>
> As they used to say on the Amos 'n Andy radio show in the thirties, " boy,
> did you say a mouthful".
>
> Started a Smith Miniplane in '58. Wife raised hell. Had a welder over on
Sat
> and she ran his ass off. That's what you call LOVE. Gave up to raise the
kids.
> Kids are now adults and I begin a Volksplane II. Wife raises more hell.
Got
> rid of the VP project.
> Got rid of the wife. Got a new one. Built a Piet, wife is happy, I finish
it
> a few month's prior to birthday #80.
> Moral of the story; Get the right wife to begin with if you want to build
> airplanes.
>
> Corky in La living the good life
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Minneapolis MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Chris,
> I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> Where is chapter 25?
> Alex Sloan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
you
> > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at
> your
> > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
EXACT
> > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in
> the
> > front 'pit.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
scale
> I
> > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
agreed
> > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> standing
> > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each
> main
> > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
7.01
> > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > Dick
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky's building problem-- his first wife !!!!!!! |
Mike,
Thanks for the greetings and the same back to you and all the rest .
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corky's building problem-- his first wife !!!!!!!
>
> Corky-- that is just hilarious. Good for you. You got a beauty there in
> Isabelle. A dream wife. I didn't even take that chance tho and built
> and flew my Piet with NO wife anywhere in sight. Never had to take any
> Tums during the whole wonderful process !!!!
>
> Happy Thanksgiving to all you guys out there.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
I have a drawing that shows dimensions for the J-3 cub gear. I can email
you off list with those dimensions. I'll gather it up and send it this
weekend.
I went with Bungees because my gear is an actual 1943 cub gear and I wanted
to use it as is. There is a spring conversion kit that is sold to convert
from bungees to springs. I have no experience with it so I can't speak of
it's benefits if any.
Personally I like using the Cub gear because it's a hefty gear that can be
easily obtained... albeit it's a tad bit spendy if you buy it "new" from
Wag-Aero or similar.
I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
note* this message has not been spell or grammar checked and may contain
certain red-neckism's that some may find difficult to comprehend.... it also
contains GN-1 references... read at your own risk. ;)
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
>
> Hey DJ - Have a landing gear question for you and anyone else that may
know,(you have a great piet website by the way, thanks for sharing your
project pictures). Anyhow, I am building using the original plans with a
long fuse but I think I would like to use the J3 style landing gear as you
are doing. I assume the GN version of the Piet includes the J3 gear,
question is do plans exist for the J3 gear? Or better yet J3 style gear
adapted to the original Piet design? Or do you just got out to the airport
with a measuring tape and find a Cub?
>
> One other question, you used bungie cords on your gear, is this better
than springs? (I know this is kind of a religious question).
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick Holland
>
> > Thanks Fred....... I'll be starting wings this winter now that the
Corvair
> > engine is complete. If all goes as planned I may be flying
> > this thing next
> > winter.
> >
> > DJ Vegh
> > N74DV
> > Mesa, AZ
> > www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Thanks Cy,
That is a bit far from Florence, Alabama.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Minneapolis MN
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone
in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: say our peace, then ignore this guy....... |
Jim,
You have piqued my curiosity. When you take a break from having fun in the
work shop, explain the "no clamp" method.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
> Agreed. The fisherman kept coming back JUST because he kept getting
> responses. I believe he sincerely felt that some on the list also had
> time/energy dribble to waste.....the real pity is that he probably had
> something worthwhile to contribute and never did.
>
> So what do we learn from this????? :-)
>
> Jim in Plano, heading out to the garage to laminate some maple/black
walnut
> (for the cabanes) with my NEW vacuum bagging setup!!!! Cost next to
nothing
> thanks to junk yard refrigerator compressors...... NO MORE CLAMPS!!!!
> (Well, not for some things anyway.....) Wow this is fun......
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
>
>
> >
> > Guys-- don't let this guys mess up a good group of people------GN-1's
and
> > Piets, no matter what kind of
> > engine are GREAT to talk about so let's enjoy it.
> >
> > Another Fisherman here I think.....
> >
> > Also, Allison/Bernard....whatever your real name is..---at what stage
are
> > YOU in the building process ???
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com> |
Hey guys, regarding the use of lead in fuels, didn't the older engines
(certainly in the Model T) actually have NO lead? The lead was, I believe,
added later when the engines became more powerful and the lubrication was
needed. I don't know if the Model A engines used leaded or unleaded fuel.
Jeff in warm North TX in November
Say goodbye to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet
connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.
https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: lead in fuel |
Tetraethyl lead was never added to gas for lubrication. It is an anti-knock
compound to increase the octane rating. The OWT was added by a public
relations man. I was told this by one of the engineers that worked at the
Ethyl Corp during its development. Their biggest problem was killing the
operators of the facility. Many died as it is very toxic.
If it lubricated, then exhaust valves would not stick.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hill" <jeff2dogs(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: lead in fuel
>
> Hey guys, regarding the use of lead in fuels, didn't the older engines
> (certainly in the Model T) actually have NO lead? The lead was, I believe,
> added later when the engines became more powerful and the lubrication was
> needed. I don't know if the Model A engines used leaded or unleaded fuel.
>
> Jeff in warm North TX in November
>
> Say goodbye to busy signals and slow downloads with a high-speed Internet
> connection! Prices start at less than $1 a day average.
> https://broadband.msn.com (Prices may vary by service area.)
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Apple QuickTime Viewing Problems |
>
>But to a certain degree, I
>agree with Mike a little... today, people don't build and take care of the
>things one needs on a daily basis, they just go to WalMart and buy a new
>plastic one. So industrial arts and fabrication skills are vanishing and
>being replaced with Java programming and web page design ( DJ, I'm ribbing
>you here :) ).
>
>The way I see it, you either have to get the plane built when your single
>and young, or wait much later in life. Things like kids, wife, house, and
>career building somewhat consume the middle part of life.
>
>
>Robert Haines
>Du Quoin, Illinois
Robert,
A hundred years ago, someone who would spend hours in a shop building an
engine, or whatever, was an inventor. Now, he's just a somewhat eccentric
hobbyist, not that that is a bad thing.
I'm fortunate to live in the middle of Amish country, so I still see a lot
of people who build and take care of the things they need on a daily
basis. Kind of refreshing - too bad their beliefs don't allow them to fly:).
As for the other thing, I'm very glad to have wife #2 in my life & she does
not object to my aviation activities. Some of us had to wait until middle
life to start work on our projects & yes, the other priorities do make it
harder. I've learned not to sweat it if things get slowed way down because
of them.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone.
Kip Gardner
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Baffling Baffles |
W.B, others -
Thanks for your input on the baffling question. The airplane is NOT a Piet,
but a Bakeng Duce, with Lyc O-290-D, fully enclosed cowl.
I am going to use Chris' idea of using a rectangular aluminum plate directly
above the intercylinder baffle, safety wired to the baffle. This should
form a sandwich which will force air through the fins instead of the dead
space between the cylinders.
The other baffles were a pain to cut and bend - several times I got them cut
perfectly, only to bend them the wrong way on the brake. Got to learn to
put the bend line on the inside of the bend, instead of all on one side!
Lots of rejects, which I have turned into smaller pieces for other places.
Appreciate all the help!
Craig
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Craig,
> If I remember correctly, his reasoning was that they were necessary in an
> enclosed engine config. where, as the air travels from high pressure area
> to low past the fins, you can have a "dead" area under the cyls. That is
> why you put that "mustasched" shaped baffle under the cyl. bases to shoot
> air fore and aft to clear the dead zone.
> With mine , the cyls are exposed with eyebrows, and there would be no dead
> spots, cause the eyebrows push down and then the free air comming by cools
> the undersides.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
>
> >
> > Craig,
> > My mentor said that I didn't need them.
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Guys -
> > >
> > > How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
> > little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got
> mine
> > all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that
they
> > will not fall out.
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > > Craig
> > > Having fun, enjoying life!
> > >
> > > Craig Wilcox
> > > craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken & Lisa Rickards" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
Way to go DJ. This list is for people who are building.... I for one like
seeing pictiures and videos of other peoples projects, keeps me stoked on
my project. I boated for many years and listened to the same stuff from
the sail and power boys, " you stink potters" " You stick boaters". Who
cares, you should take a step back and listen to yourself. We "GN1"
builders find a lot in common with the Piet builders on this list. I for
one have got many usefull tips on this list from people like DJ and Mike
Cuy. It's time to get off your soap box and realize that everyone on this
list has 2 things in common. 1). We all love to fly and 2). We all love to
build. It really makes no difference if it's a GN1 or A Piet, this is a
community of builders, not airplane racists.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>
> sometimes my temper flares when I hear non-sense... so my apologies in
advance.
>
> blah blah blah....... you make it sound like all we talk about are
GN-1's. Lay-off the GN-1 crowd dude.... we all (GN-1 builders)contribute
the the building process of an AirCamper/Aircamper be it GN-1 or Piet. You
imply that GN-1 builder are "over-running" this list. Where the hell did
you get your numbers?? About 85% of the posts here are from Pieters and the
other 15% that aren't are normally not discussing "GN-1 related" issues. Is
that your definition of "over-run"?
>
> It's comments like the ones that you make that really tick me off...
Sorry .... I know you said your comments were intended to be "helpful" but I
fail to see how they possibly could be.
>
> And another thing.... I have no idea if you were insinuating that I am one
of the "horn blowers" but I kind of took it that way. (since I was the only
one who has posted videos in the past few weeks) For your information... I
don't get a hard-on sending my pics/videos to the list. I do it because I
enjoy sharing my trials/errors/successes so that others can be helped by my
experience. I must get 2 or 3 emails a week form other PIET builders who
love that I spend a little extra time documenting my progre
> ss with photos, videos, write-ups.... forgive me if I'm not some hermit
reclusive builder who talks/shares with no one.
>
> Who made you God and said you can dictate who's Piet is too heavy or
overly equipped??
>
> Spell Check??? did you happen to see how you spelled "Piet" in your
subject line?
>
> When your fingers hit the keyboard all that came out was non-sense and
Llama crap.
>
> OK... I'm done..... (for now)
>
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV (a GN-1)
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site up, it's long, long overdue. ( I
believe the PRINTED and STATED objective for the BPAN and this Matronics
site are to further PIETENPOL aircraft............check it out, no mention
of GN-1's)
>
>
> > 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: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Also look in your city for some Car Racers mechanic, he should have or
locate a set of scales, their scales work perfect in airplanes, we use
them here, in fact we make a Barbacue everytime we need to weight a
plane... the mechanic and a few racers join, of course, Corona Beers
come from the cooler until the CG is perfectly located :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- Cy Galley wrote:
>
> Minneapolis MN
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get
> my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten
> bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come
> look at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine
> the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with
> someone in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise.
> The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on,
> it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas
> while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265
> on each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty
> CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of
> 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> _->
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | iet list observations |
Well said, Ken
Jack Phillips,
Building a Pietenpol, but flew a GN-1 first and loved it.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ken & Lisa
Rickards
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
Way to go DJ. This list is for people who are building.... I for one like
seeing pictiures and videos of other peoples projects, keeps me stoked on
my project. I boated for many years and listened to the same stuff from
the sail and power boys, " you stink potters" " You stick boaters". Who
cares, you should take a step back and listen to yourself. We "GN1"
builders find a lot in common with the Piet builders on this list. I for
one have got many usefull tips on this list from people like DJ and Mike
Cuy. It's time to get off your soap box and realize that everyone on this
list has 2 things in common. 1). We all love to fly and 2). We all love to
build. It really makes no difference if it's a GN1 or A Piet, this is a
community of builders, not airplane racists.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>
> sometimes my temper flares when I hear non-sense... so my apologies in
advance.
>
> blah blah blah....... you make it sound like all we talk about are
GN-1's. Lay-off the GN-1 crowd dude.... we all (GN-1 builders)contribute
the the building process of an AirCamper/Aircamper be it GN-1 or Piet. You
imply that GN-1 builder are "over-running" this list. Where the hell did
you get your numbers?? About 85% of the posts here are from Pieters and the
other 15% that aren't are normally not discussing "GN-1 related" issues. Is
that your definition of "over-run"?
>
> It's comments like the ones that you make that really tick me off...
Sorry .... I know you said your comments were intended to be "helpful" but I
fail to see how they possibly could be.
>
> And another thing.... I have no idea if you were insinuating that I am one
of the "horn blowers" but I kind of took it that way. (since I was the only
one who has posted videos in the past few weeks) For your information... I
don't get a hard-on sending my pics/videos to the list. I do it because I
enjoy sharing my trials/errors/successes so that others can be helped by my
experience. I must get 2 or 3 emails a week form other PIET builders who
love that I spend a little extra time documenting my progre
> ss with photos, videos, write-ups.... forgive me if I'm not some hermit
reclusive builder who talks/shares with no one.
>
> Who made you God and said you can dictate who's Piet is too heavy or
overly equipped??
>
> Spell Check??? did you happen to see how you spelled "Piet" in your
subject line?
>
> When your fingers hit the keyboard all that came out was non-sense and
Llama crap.
>
> OK... I'm done..... (for now)
>
>
> DJ Vegh
> N74DV (a GN-1)
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> Hooray for whoever put the GN-1 site up, it's long, long overdue. ( I
believe the PRINTED and STATED objective for the BPAN and this Matronics
site are to further PIETENPOL aircraft............check it out, no mention
of GN-1's)
>
>
> > 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: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | No more clamps (well, for some things.....) |
Well, basically, after slopping on the epoxy where you want to join the
parts, you stick them into a plastic bag, suck all the air out and voila!
Perfectly uniform pressure over the ENTIRE area (as long as you maintain the
vacuum). No voids or air bubbles or delamination or excess epoxy...the
result is a perfectly even, easily controlled pressure. And useless excess
air and epoxy gets sucked out (into a thin line along the edge that is as
sharp as a razor blade....)
A number of years ago I bought a $400 "professional" bagging system with
pump, etc so I could build foam core and hollow core wings for my
competition radio controlled sailplanes. I got tired of trying to stack
bricks on top of the epoxy/foam/carbon fiber/kevlar/whatever sandwich and
just hoping for even pressure throughout. (It was a teeny bit frustrating
to check it the next day and find some carbon fiber delamination where one
of the bricks moved a bit....) Even though the materials used in my
sailplanes was different, the benefit of applying a perfectly even (and
easily controlled) pressure to the parts being joined is the same for wood
construction.
It's perfect for laminated pieces like wing tip bows.....just build a
rectangular box with a curved top, stack some epoxied strips on top of each
other and lay them on top of the curve, put everything (the box with the
epoxied strips on top) in a bag and draw a vacuum. Let it sit overnite and
you're done.....
And being much more of a scrounger now than I was then, I've actually built
an even better setup using a (free) freon pump from a discarded refrigerator
and some pvc/plastic tubing/plastic sheets/window sealer goop from Home
Depot. MUCH cheaper! You could probably put the whole setup together for
under $20.
It's a pretty worthless process for things like attaching ribs to spars but
it would work very nicely for a number of other homebuilding processes.
I'll bet the composite homebuilders use vacuum bagging on a regular basis.
There's really no other way to so easily control the epoxy to cloth ratios
which optimizes the weight to strength ratio. And that same benefit would
surely apply to epoxy/wood/ply construction.
Yes, you can draw too much vacuum and starve the joints of epoxy. But with
a bit of patience you quickly figure out how much pressure to use. And
making one adjustment to the vacuum pressure is MUCH easier than running
around adjusting a bunch of clamps....
If anyone's interested in pursuing this, let me know (offline please) and
I'll put some pictures and a little more detail together.
Jim in Plano,
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
> Jim,
> You have piqued my curiosity. When you take a break from having fun in
the
> work shop, explain the "no clamp" method.
> Alex S.
________________________________________________________________________________
Dick,
I weighed my short fuselage plane four times. I weigh 205 lbs. The first
time was from rented, calibrated scales. Each of the next three times (four
bathroom scales), agreed with the calibrated ones, and with each other - as far
as the C.G. is concerned. It took me all that, before I was convinced that I
knew where the C.G. is. As it turned out, I had to build the Continental
engine mount 8" longer than the plans show (using heavier wall tubing), to maintain
a safe C.G. location, without using ballast. Ballast sucks big time.
Pietenpols are notoriously tail heavy, most likely because Bernard Pietenpol was
only about 160 lbs, and he designed and built to his weight. Most folks today
are bigger and fatter, me included.
The most important thing is that you are convinced that you are not tail
heavy in the flying configuration.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Wanted: Good woman, with airplane. Please send picture of plane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
When you said good woman with Piet, only one thought came to my mind. Here
she is with NX41CC. Isabelle.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Thanks all for the w/b comments. I hauled my trusty old scale from work today
to the hangar. It' one of those that you add the weights to counterbalance.
I have readings that I belive now.
I will be joining Chapter 25 and having the pre inspection done.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a bear to do
any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16 worth of high
heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines like powdercoating,
but much safer and easier to work with. find it at fireplace stores in
colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color, and cinnamon. It is also extemely
durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
Del
I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: iet list observations |
Oh Dear! Another hippogator.
Clif. Wife gone, both happier.
>
> Pieters-
> I've been lurking on this list for a while and having built a couple of
Piets in the past I thought I'd share a couple of observations as food for
thought. Pease don't take these musings the wrong way as they are given in
the spirit of helpfulness.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
Alex,
Chapter 25 is in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. We have a hangar at
Lakeville (LVN).
Greg Cardinal
Chapter 25 member since 1994
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Chris,
> I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> Where is chapter 25?
> Alex Sloan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
you
> > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at
> your
> > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
EXACT
> > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in
> the
> > front 'pit.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
scale
> I
> > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
agreed
> > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> standing
> > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each
> main
> > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
7.01
> > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > Dick
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger & Kathy Green <rgreen(at)libby.org> |
| Subject: | Re: lead in fuel |
"Hey guys, regarding the use of lead in fuels..."
Jeff,
You are correct. There was no lead in the early fuels.
I have run my Model A car and an 1911, 1 cylinder car on unleaded fuels for
years with no problems.
Lead was not needed until the higher compression engines came along.
Roger Green
Libby, Montana
>pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
Congratulations Cliff!!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clif Dawson" <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: iet list observations
>
> Oh Dear! Another hippogator.
>
> Clif. Wife gone, both happier.
>
>
> >
> > Pieters-
> > I've been lurking on this list for a while and having built a couple of
> Piets in the past I thought I'd share a couple of observations as food
for
> thought. Pease don't take these musings the wrong way as they are given in
> the spirit of helpfulness.
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | More on wood selection |
Here's various charts on wood strength of softwood
species available for our use. As Dave Rowe and I
have preached before, Yellow Cedar is a low cost
alternative to spruce. At least for the time being.
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fplrp565.pdf
Wood suppliers. And not just Yellow Cedar, either!
http://www.wdfindr.com/wdf/search.phtml?keywords=Yellow%20Cedar
Here's some stuff to "wet" your apetite for vacuums ( not to be confused
with what your ex-wife took! ).
http://www.badger.rchomepage.com/vacbag.html
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~flyingwing/vacbag/
http://www.bertram31.com/proj/tips/vaccuum.htm
http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/hurley/pdf/Vacuum-Bagging.pdf
http://www.fibreglast.net/printcontent.php?ContentID=230
http://www.wicksaircraft.com/gotopage.php?page=21
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electronic ignition |
Pieters:
I am working with a 75 cont series 9 and cannot use a mag with a
impulse and wonder if electric ignition might be my answer. Does anyone know
a
good information about this development.
Ken Conrad, Long Grove, Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Franck <franck(at)geneseo.net> |
| Subject: | CG Check Station? |
Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started wondering....
Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to owners.
Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
Do not Archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
(if it isn't spam),
"see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview": Pieters(at)matronics.com,
I.want.to.know.what.is.the.best.glue.for.laminations.for.a.prop.I.think.I.heard.once.that.resorsnal.is.good.but.cannot.find.any.Thanks(at)matronics.com
(SP),
Pieters(at)matronics.com,
I.want.to.know.what.is.the.best.glue.for.laminations.for.a.prop.I.think.I.heard.once.that.resorsnal.is.good.but.cannot.find.any.Thanks(at)matronics.com
(SP),
"[...]
Pieters,
I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find any.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re:Electronic ignition |
Here you go.... http://www.lightspeedengineering.com/ Klaus can get
you going.....
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wizzard187(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electronic ignition
>
> Pieters:
> I am working with a 75 cont series 9 and cannot use a mag with a
> impulse and wonder if electric ignition might be my answer. Does anyone
know a
> good information about this development.
> Ken Conrad, Long Grove, Iowa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Actually, the EZ guys in Southern California do just that once in awhile at
their events. It's a lot of fun to compare the empty weight on the placard
to the "Actual" weight when they are finished. AND you are right, it's also
an eye opener if it's been drifting aft...
Fred
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
IMHO Resorcinol is the best glue Period for wooden structures (it is still
the only glue the FAA certifies for use on certificated aircraft). It is
also a pain to work with, but I built nearly my entire Pietenpol with it.
Aircraft Spruce & Secialty carries it, as do the better lumber companies
(those catering to furniture builders). It makes a brown stain at the glue
lines, which I think enhances the look of the laminations.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Wizzard187(at)aol.com
Content preview : Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP; Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP;
[...] Content analysis details : (4.2 points, 5.0 required)
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
Pieters,
I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find any.
Thanks,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Al Latham" <geebeed(at)grm.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
Jack,
Weldwood, now Dap Plastic Resin glue is also FAA certified. It also is what
The Kimball's / Falcon Propellers used in their props. Not sure who owns
Falcon now.
Al Latham
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
>
> IMHO Resorcinol is the best glue Period for wooden structures (it is still
> the only glue the FAA certifies for use on certificated aircraft). It is
> also a pain to work with, but I built nearly my entire Pietenpol with it.
> Aircraft Spruce & Secialty carries it, as do the better lumber companies
> (those catering to furniture builders). It makes a brown stain at the
glue
> lines, which I think enhances the look of the laminations.
>
> Jack
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> Wizzard187(at)aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:44 AM
> To: if it isn't spam; see the administrator of that system for
details.
> Content preview : Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP; Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP;
> [...] Content analysis details : (4.2 points, 5.0 required)
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
>
>
> Pieters,
> I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
> prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find
any.
> Thanks,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chuck,
Way to go. Better to be safe than scratched.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Dick,
> I weighed my short fuselage plane four times. I weigh 205 lbs. The first
> time was from rented, calibrated scales. Each of the next three times
(four
> bathroom scales), agreed with the calibrated ones, and with each other -
as far
> as the C.G. is concerned. It took me all that, before I was convinced
that I
> knew where the C.G. is. As it turned out, I had to build the Continental
> engine mount 8" longer than the plans show (using heavier wall tubing), to
maintain
> a safe C.G. location, without using ballast. Ballast sucks big time.
> Pietenpols are notoriously tail heavy, most likely because Bernard
Pietenpol was
> only about 160 lbs, and he designed and built to his weight. Most folks
today
> are bigger and fatter, me included.
> The most important thing is that you are convinced that you are not tail
> heavy in the flying configuration.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
> Wanted: Good woman, with airplane. Please send picture of plane.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Greg,
If you were not so far from Florence, Al. I would be a member to take
advantage of your fellowship and scales.
Thanks.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> Alex,
> Chapter 25 is in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. We have a hangar at
> Lakeville (LVN).
>
> Greg Cardinal
> Chapter 25 member since 1994
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone
in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Franck,
I like the idea of a weighing station personally and think it would be a
great addition to any flying event. It is a time consuming job and is not
something that can be done quickly so trained personnel with a specific job
would have to be available to assist.
Just a few thoughts.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chuck,
Way to go. Better to be safe than scratched.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Dick,
> I weighed my short fuselage plane four times. I weigh 205 lbs. The first
> time was from rented, calibrated scales. Each of the next three times
(four
> bathroom scales), agreed with the calibrated ones, and with each other -
as far
> as the C.G. is concerned. It took me all that, before I was convinced
that I
> knew where the C.G. is. As it turned out, I had to build the Continental
> engine mount 8" longer than the plans show (using heavier wall tubing), to
maintain
> a safe C.G. location, without using ballast. Ballast sucks big time.
> Pietenpols are notoriously tail heavy, most likely because Bernard
Pietenpol was
> only about 160 lbs, and he designed and built to his weight. Most folks
today
> are bigger and fatter, me included.
> The most important thing is that you are convinced that you are not tail
> heavy in the flying configuration.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
> Wanted: Good woman, with airplane. Please send picture of plane.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Greg,
If you were not so far from Florence, Al. I would be a member to take
advantage of your fellowship and scales.
Thanks.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> Alex,
> Chapter 25 is in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area. We have a hangar at
> Lakeville (LVN).
>
> Greg Cardinal
> Chapter 25 member since 1994
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone
in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Franck,
I like the idea of a weighing station personally and think it would be a
great addition to any flying event. It is a time consuming job and is not
something that can be done quickly so trained personnel with a specific job
would have to be available to assist.
Just a few thoughts.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electronic ignition |
Curious. What is the reason that you can't use a mag with an impulse?
Distance to firewall? The Slick 4330 is only 7 19/32" OAL, 5 11/16 behind
the mounting flange and is listed as approved for the A-75 in my Slick
Master Service Manual. You do have to replace the drive gears and use the
correct spacer according to SL1-93. The spacer extends the mag from .79 to
1.04 inches. (add to the 5 11/16")
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wizzard187(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electronic ignition
>
> Pieters:
> I am working with a 75 cont series 9 and cannot use a mag with a
> impulse and wonder if electric ignition might be my answer. Does anyone
know a
> good information about this development.
> Ken Conrad, Long Grove, Iowa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
If you have been to Oshkosh, you might have noticed the "Hangar Cafe" It was
built to weigh ultralites. The EAA has never placed itself as an enforcer
so I think it was quickly dropped. We prefer to educate not police.
Doing a W&B on a non-standard plane cannot be done outdoors quickly. The
plane must be in flight attitude with no-wind, which means inside. All gas
must be emptied out which can be a real fire hazard. The liability of
defueling with all the by standers is enough to make the weighing
impossible.
We tried it at the North-Central Flyin at Rock Fall, IL but all of the above
problems occurred. The doubling of bath scales was done but outside which
literally tells you very little if there is any wind. My Chapter has set of
electronic scales but even keeping them calibrated and in good working order
is very expensive. The load cells have a limit and if exceeded breaks them.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
Weldwood has the two part (liquid and powder) Resorcinol glue. Wicks,
Aircraft Spruce has it as well as many hardware and boat stores.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wizzard187(at)aol.com>
; ; "SP"
;
; "SP"
;
"[...] Content analysis details : (4.2 points, 5.0 required)"
<"pts.rule.name.description.----.----------------------.--------------------
------"@[score:0.7501]
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
>
> Pieters,
> I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
> prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find
any.
> Thanks,
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
Re: Kimballs/Falcon Props.
Jim and Kevin Kimball sold their prop business some years back to some one
in Oklahoma. I think Larry Williams bought a prop from the Okalhoma guy.
Jim and kevin are quite busy with their Pitts 12 with the Russian radial
engine.
Our Chapter has our March Meeting at Kimballs and it is always a treat to
see what they are doing.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
Lou Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Latham" <geebeed(at)grm.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
>
> Jack,
>
> Weldwood, now Dap Plastic Resin glue is also FAA certified. It also is
what
> The Kimball's / Falcon Propellers used in their props. Not sure who owns
> Falcon now.
>
> Al Latham
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
>
>
>
> >
> > IMHO Resorcinol is the best glue Period for wooden structures (it is
still
> > the only glue the FAA certifies for use on certificated aircraft). It
is
> > also a pain to work with, but I built nearly my entire Pietenpol with
it.
> > Aircraft Spruce & Secialty carries it, as do the better lumber companies
> > (those catering to furniture builders). It makes a brown stain at the
> glue
> > lines, which I think enhances the look of the laminations.
> >
> > Jack
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> > [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> > Wizzard187(at)aol.com
> > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 7:44 AM
> > To: if it isn't spam; see the administrator of that system for
> details.
> > Content preview : Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP; Pieters(at)matronics.com; SP;
> > [...] Content analysis details : (4.2 points, 5.0 required)
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: PietenpolProp glue
> >
> >
> > Pieters,
> > I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
> > prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find
> any.
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
Thanks for the info Skip
What about adding a V strut to the split axle design in the 1934 plans?
Probably another religious question but I see so many conventional gear designed
with the V strut that I would assume it is a better, stronger design, opinions?
Rick Holland
When you look at a GN 1 you will notice the aft L/G attach point is about 6"
forward of the aft lift strut attach point. This is because the Cub gear
Grega used is shorter, and the GN 1 has an extra bay in the fuse sides just
so there will be vertical members at both the aft L/G and aft lift strut
attach points. You can go to DJ's website and see this.
The 34 plans have a Cub like L/G, the Flyer and Glider plans have the solid
axle L/G.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: lead in fuel |
Roger in Libby Montana? Is that the home of the Libby Loggers football team?
Do the cheerleaders still rev up their chainsaws on every touchdown?
Sorry for the off topic.
Rick Holland
You are correct. There was no lead in the early fuels.
I have run my Model A car and an 1911, 1 cylinder car on unleaded fuels for
years with no problems.
Lead was not needed until the higher compression engines came along.
Roger Green
Libby, Montana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: lead in fuel |
The only car that I ever owned that really needed Ethyl gas was my 1957
Pontiac Starchief Convertible with 10.5 to 1 C.R. Since I was poor at the
time, I retarded the timing just a bit and ran regular. After I got married,
I didn't need to put my foot in it as often. It would still run the red
spiral speedo around so it would start over at above 120 mph. But at that
speed the tires would begin to smell and I would have to slow down.
----- Original Message -----
From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: lead in fuel
>
> Roger in Libby Montana? Is that the home of the Libby Loggers football
team?
> Do the cheerleaders still rev up their chainsaws on every touchdown?
>
> Sorry for the off topic.
>
> Rick Holland
> You are correct. There was no lead in the early fuels.
> I have run my Model A car and an 1911, 1 cylinder car on unleaded fuels
for
> years with no problems.
> Lead was not needed until the higher compression engines came along.
>
> Roger Green
> Libby, Montana
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Just wondering? I plan on using a Cont O-200, and wiegh 200 lbs. Did you
move the wing back a couple of inches to compensate for the tail wt? Many
builders have. If you did, you had to move the engine 8 inches forward huh? What
engine are you using?
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
Off topic conversation,
Not long ago someone mentioned the "emachineshop" for getting metal
parts machine cut and produced. I downloaded the cad software and noticed that
they do not carry 4130 sheet steel in their inventory of materials. What did
you use?
Secondly, rather than hundreds of Piet builders trying to draw each
item into the cad software, are those emachineshop drawings stored in a data
base aval. to others for time saving convenience?
Thanks,
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
My wing is back 5 in. and engine mount forward 2 in. I am going with
ballast.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <Gnwac(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Just wondering? I plan on using a Cont O-200, and wiegh 200 lbs. Did you
> move the wing back a couple of inches to compensate for the tail wt? Many
> builders have. If you did, you had to move the engine 8 inches forward
huh? What
> engine are you using?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Sorry, forgot to add A-65 engine 13 gal fuel in wing and 4 gal in nose.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: <Gnwac(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Just wondering? I plan on using a Cont O-200, and wiegh 200 lbs. Did you
> move the wing back a couple of inches to compensate for the tail wt? Many
> builders have. If you did, you had to move the engine 8 inches forward
huh? What
> engine are you using?
>
> Thanks,
> Greg
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
Resorcinal is not tolerant of any sloppyness in
preparation of the surfaces. You also have to
clamp the crap out of it. The link below gives
some good info on the stuff.
http://www.practical-sailor.com/newspics/charts/872adhesives.pdf
Clif
>
> Weldwood has the two part (liquid and powder) Resorcinol glue. Wicks,
> Aircraft Spruce has it as well as many hardware and boat stores.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/27/03 10:35:39 PM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
<< I am going with ballast. >>
Ballast !!??? My gradeschool teacher, Sister Ephrem, would smack your
fingers with a wood ruler, for using such profanity !! :)
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/27/03 9:09:12 PM Central Standard Time, Gnwac(at)cs.com
writes:
<< Just wondering? I plan on using a Cont O-200, and wiegh 200 lbs. Did you
move the wing back a couple of inches to compensate for the tail wt? Many
builders have. If you did, you had to move the engine 8 inches forward huh?
What engine are you using? >>
Greg,
I had already moved the wing back 3 1/2" on my short fuselage, when I had the
Model A engine installed, and I still had to use 14 lb ballast, bolted to the
bellhousing mount of the Model A engine, in order to stay in the safe C.G.
range. I couldn't move the wing back any more, without the cables going down
through the middle of the windscreen. I cast the ballast from lead shot, with
a
wood mould that I made, so it fit under the nose cone. I cringed every time
I had to take that 14 lb hunk of dead weight for a flight with me. I logged
22 hours in that configuration.
Last November '02, I grounded my plane, for a firewall forward retrofit,
using a Continental A65 engine. I weighed the plane once more before removing
the Model A, just to re-confirm what I had a hard time believing. On paper,
I removed the Model A engine and ballast, using it's arm to datum, then added
the weight of the Cont A65, using it's arm to datum. I had to keep moving the
Cont. A65 forward, one inch at a time on paper, until I had the configuration
in the safe C.G. range. It ended up hanging out there 8". I've never heard
of anyone hanging their Continental out so far, but I was NOT going to use
ballast, and numbers just don't lie. Busy time for six months. I built all of
the following:
mold for the cowl tank (10.7 gal), built the fiberglass tank, .020"
stainless steel firewall, engine mount 8" longer than the plans, A65 engine with
channel chrome cylinders, 72 X 42 Birch prop, 3003 alum.040" eyebrows, steel carb
heat box, cowling & cub nose bowl, brakes, and a bunch of other stuff. Now
came the time to weigh it in this configuration, and see if I got the numbers
right on paper.....BAM !! I nailed it right on the numbers I estimated on paper
!! Now, no matter what amount of fuel, passenger, pilot at 205 lbs, I'm
always in the safe C.G. range. I finished the flight test phase, and flew to
Brodhead & Oshkosh for my final shakedown flight. Big Adventure !! I love this
airplane !!
The O-200 weighs more, with the starter, battery, and all the other
associated crap that goes with it, so you probably won't have to make it look like
a turbine engine hanging out there, like mine does.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Wichita, KS
looking forward to the 75th Anniversary - Brodhead '04
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Rick,
My opinion is the V strut is better engineering, don't know the math term
but the triangle is shorter and fatter, so there is better mechanical
advantage. Also no religious problem, the last two Piets made by Pietenpol,
the 2 Corvairs, had the V strut and die springs.
Skip
>What about adding a V strut to the split axle design in the 1934 plans?
>Probably another religious question but I see so many conventional gear
designed
>with the V strut that I would assume it is a better, stronger design,
opinions?
>Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:emachineshop |
> Not long ago someone mentioned the "emachineshop" for getting metal
> parts machine cut and produced.
I was the one who had the emachineshop laser cut parts made. They will use
4130 is you make a special request. I used 4140 which they have readily
available. The parts I needed did not need to be welded so 4140 was good
for me.
It would be great if someone would draw up all the parts for the Piet and
GN-1 in CAD. My parts are for a modified GN-1 and will only work on my
plane.
I can't reccomend emachineshop any longer. They have raised their priced
about 400 or 500% since I used them. They are insane on their pricing now
UNLESS you buy 15 sets or more of a certain part. They no longer cater to
the "one-off" guys like us. The reason I wrote such good things of them
before was for the overall experience with them.... quality of parts and
price. Now it's only quality that is good...
It's unfortunate because they had an excellent product at a reasonable
price.
If someone were to draw up all the parts for a Piet and have 15 or more sets
fabricated the cost for each set would only be about $175 or so. Just one
set would cost over $700..... see what I mean?
Replicraft used to be the place to go to get all metal parts for GN-1's and
Piets.... until the owner ran off with about 10 open orders and more than
$10K (of that $1300 was mine).
You'd find better pricing at your local lasercutting shop than you would
with emachineshop.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ron Butcher" <rbutch(at)inreach.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electronic ignition |
Ken...
I'm just wondering, why don't you want a magneto with an impulse coupler??
Ron
Turlock, Cal
----- Original Message -----
From: <Wizzard187(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electronic ignition
>
> Pieters:
> I am working with a 75 cont series 9 and cannot use a mag with a
> impulse and wonder if electric ignition might be my answer. Does anyone
know a
> good information about this development.
> Ken Conrad, Long Grove, Iowa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | What Listers Are Saying III |
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Chuck and Dick,
I have two young boys and the thought of hand propping a 65 was to
scary. That's why the O-200 with the starter for safety and a little extra wt
with the battery would help me out. I've heard many move the wing back a couple
of inches. Jack McCarthy in Maryland recommended at least 2.
I was thinking about using a J3 gas tank in the front nose section
too. Someone had mentioned that the fuse is not made to support the gas tank in
that forward section. Any thoughts? Hopefully along with the long fuse, will
all help compensate for my 200 lb.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:emachineshop |
In a message dated 11/28/03 10:47:39 AM Eastern Standard Time,
djv(at)imagedv.com writes:
> www.imagedv.com/aircamper
thanks DJ,
Looks like I'll start looking eles where
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: More on wood selection |
Hello Clif, Been back from Nova Scotia for a couple of weeks, but very
busy. A note to all who fly the coastline, I just requalified for
Underwater Egress Training, and although I have done it before, and am
an accomplished Scuba Diver, imagine being suspended over a pool, pitch
dark, dropped from 10 feet, spun upside down, and then you have to
figure your way out. If you plan on flying a lot over the water, there
are some companies who offer this sort of training geared for fixed-wing
pilots. It is well worth it!! You are trained how to prepare to ditch,
how to survive the initial cold-water shock, how to egress, and how to
stay alive while awaiting rescue. (Hopefully not our big grey
oil-spurting part-flinging Sea Kings!!). Haven't updated the
mykitplanes stuff yet, but I have the tail feathers done except for
hinging, and now have turtledeck and instrument panels attached. PS,
for those who care, I have far more important things to worry about,
like surviving flights in zero-zero vis in raging seas trying to save
some idiot who took his boat out in ridiculous weather, to worry about
spell-checking or my grammer. DJ, your photos convinced me to build a
Pietenpol. Everyone's wacky sense of humour, and rambling stories keep
me building. Don't stop, and don't change, you're all part of a great
thing, a bunch of people around the world with one thing in common, the
love of an airplane that has captured our hearts.
Clif Dawson wrote:
>
>
> Here's various charts on wood strength of softwood
> species available for our use. As Dave Rowe and I
> have preached before, Yellow Cedar is a low cost
> alternative to spruce. At least for the time being.
>
> http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fplrp565.pdf
>
> Wood suppliers. And not just Yellow Cedar, either!
>
> http://www.wdfindr.com/wdf/search.phtml?keywords=Yellow%20Cedar
>
> Here's some stuff to "wet" your apetite for vacuums ( not to be confused
> with what your ex-wife took! ).
>
> http://www.badger.rchomepage.com/vacbag.html
>
> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~flyingwing/vacbag/
>
> http://www.bertram31.com/proj/tips/vaccuum.htm
>
> http://www.modelaircraft.org/mag/hurley/pdf/Vacuum-Bagging.pdf
>
> http://www.fibreglast.net/printcontent.php?ContentID=230
>
> http://www.wicksaircraft.com/gotopage.php?page=21
>
> Clif
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: PietenpolProp glue |
Canadian bush pilots have used Moose glue quite sucessfully. It is very
hard to get the Moose to stand still long enough to extract the required
quantity, but a pal of mine laminated his prop with cold cure epoxy, and
a layer of kevlar over the wood. His site is tiswildeair.com, can't
remember his email off the top off my head, but he loves to chat and
will share his secrets.
Wizzard187(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Pieters,
> I want to know what is the best glue for laminations for a
> prop. I think I heard once that resorsnal(SP) is good but cannot find any.
> Thanks,
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Sounds great to me.
Franck wrote:
>
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: my follow-up on Baffling Baffles |
Today in spite of the high winds, I stopped in at the airport and checked
out the beautiful, pristene J-3 Cub. It didn't have those baffles, and
it runs eyebrows.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
> Craig,
> If I remember correctly, his reasoning was that they were necessary in an
> enclosed engine config. where, as the air travels from high pressure area
> to low past the fins, you can have a "dead" area under the cyls. That is
> why you put that "mustasched" shaped baffle under the cyl. bases to shoot
> air fore and aft to clear the dead zone.
> With mine , the cyls are exposed with eyebrows, and there would be no dead
> spots, cause the eyebrows push down and then the free air comming by cools
> the undersides.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
>
>
> >
> > Craig,
> > My mentor said that I didn't need them.
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Craig Wilcox" <CRAIGWILCOX(at)peoplepc.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Baffling Baffles
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Guys -
> > >
> > > How have most of you affixed your inter-cylinder cooling baffles? The
> > little ones that go between the cylinders from the bottom. I have got
> mine
> > all cut and fitted in place - many bends!, but need to make sure that
they
> > will not fall out.
> > >
> > > Thanks -
> > > Craig
> > > Having fun, enjoying life!
> > >
> > > Craig Wilcox
> > > craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com
> > >
> > >
> > > Powered by Plaxo Want a signature like this?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Corky in the SAA mag |
Corky,
Got an issue of SAA mag today, and the builders corner had a letter from you with
a pic that I know. Was the other one you too? If so, you have to be a building
wildman.
Is that you in both pics?
walt evans
NX140DL
I like the looks of that magazine and think I'll subscribe. All the other mags
have gone the way of the buyers, and to the corperate jets.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
Walt, I learned of the SAA several months ago. After I sent my $25 Mr Paul P
sent a letter requesting info on projects and glossy pics if possible with a
letter of explanation. That's how it all happened.
I am making my plans to attend their fly-in in Urbana, Il next June 11-13.
Isabelle will fly to Champaign where I'll meet her in a rented convertible. We
will visit Mattoon, Casey and Terre Haute before I send her home. Ole Corky
plans to be there in 41CC. I do hope the Sport Pilot thing is official by then
otherwise the pilot will be Nathan Moss.
This orgn is now like EAA was when I joined in the 50s. I prefer it.
Consider Urbana in June.
Corky, that hell raisin rebel from La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
Corky,
Is that you in both pics? Are you the guy next to the Piet on the wheels?
If so, can't be the new one, is it?
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <Isablcorky(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the SAA mag
>
> Walt, I learned of the SAA several months ago. After I sent my $25 Mr Paul
P
> sent a letter requesting info on projects and glossy pics if possible with
a
> letter of explanation. That's how it all happened.
> I am making my plans to attend their fly-in in Urbana, Il next June 11-13.
> Isabelle will fly to Champaign where I'll meet her in a rented
convertible. We
> will visit Mattoon, Casey and Terre Haute before I send her home. Ole
Corky
> plans to be there in 41CC. I do hope the Sport Pilot thing is official by
then
> otherwise the pilot will be Nathan Moss.
> This orgn is now like EAA was when I joined in the 50s. I prefer it.
> Consider Urbana in June.
>
> Corky, that hell raisin rebel from La
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> need help with. |
| Subject: | Re: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I |
need help with.
with.
I just downloaded several days' email after being gone for a few days.
I did the problem using triangle math and got 80.6 nm / 40.3 minutes, just
like Robert got.
If crosswind is factored in, the problem has more unknowns than equations,
and the result itself would be an equation (or a system of equations, I
didn't look at it that closely), relating the crosswind direction and angle
to the result. Unless high school has really changed a lot, this is more
akin to a numerical analysis class I had in college than high school trig.
Either way the answer is D: The test writer screwed up. Tell the instructor
he was correct to question the answers. To his credit, the jerk who taught
that numerical analysis class started his class with 'question everything',
including your results, his results, and the textbook. I guess this is one
of those times...
IIRC, there is a similar approximation used in instrument training, but I
never sat down to figure out when it gets bad enough to not be useful any
more, so I never used it.
Jim Ash
>
>
>OK OK, I'm such a nerd...
>
>In 7 minutes at 120knots, the aircraft travels 14NM. This would be the
>opposite end of the right triangle (remember? opposite, adjacent,
>hypotenuse) and the distance back to the station off of the 350 radial would
>be the hypotenuse, since he is traveling 270. Sin of 10 degrees equals
>opposite divided by hypotenuse... so after rearranging that equation,
>hypotenuse equals opposite (14NM) divided by Sin of 10 degrees. After
>typing all that into my VERY high folutin' HP calculator, rearranging the
>pens in my shirt pocket, pushing up my thick glasses and blowing my nose,
>the distance is 80.6NM.... gesh, that's not even a choice!
>
>I guess at this point I could back calculate all the distances in the
>answers to find the actual distance traveled taking into account a
>crosswind, since of course all the answers are bigger and the triangle is
>bigger meaning that more distance was traveled in the 7 minutes meaning the
>aircraft had a tailwind. But since I don't know the direction or speed it
>is an infinite amount of combinations to actually equal the distances from
>the station given in the answers... I guess I could iterate through all the
>possibilities and find the crosswind directions and speeds that give
>distances and times (using the crosswind to correct for groundspeed) that
>match one (or likely more) of the answers...
>
>Meanwhile the student taking the test has just wasted twenty minutes on a 30
>second question and although he knows the material, the testgiver just
>screwed him out of a good grade due to all these damn trick questions.
>
>
>Robert
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fw: [EAA Chapter 25] Navigation problem I need
>help with.
>
>
> > Christian,
> >
> > It's almost a trick question, it's like test givers pride themselfs on
> > confusing you with extra information. Example: If a train is heading to
> > Boston at 120 miles and hour, and Corky is adding pinto beans to chilli at
> > the exact same time, how much does a pound of feathers weigh?
> >
> > Sure you could figure it out with trigonometry, but the only answer that
> > works is A based on your true airspeed. And I was all ready to pull out
>my
> > E6B to correct for crosswinds!
> >
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
> > "pietenpol"
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: 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
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
I've always been curious...Has anyone ever heard of a Pietenpol with the wing
moved FORWARD from vertical, for a nose heavy condition ???
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 11/28/03 10:23:42 PM Central Standard Time, Gnwac(at)cs.com
writes:
<< Someone had mentioned that the fuse is not made to support the gas tank in
that forward section. Any thoughts? >>
Greg,
There's lots of Pietenpol's around with a nose, or 'cowling' fuel tanks. I
made mine from fiberglass, and have flanges molded in on the sides, to sit on
the top of the forward longerons. The bottom of the tank slopes forward,
toward the outlet, with the plane sitting static laden (tail down). After fitting
the tank, I then made wedges under the forward portion of the tank to help
support the weight of the 10.7 gallons. These wedges were then glued to the
plywood deck, on top of the crossmember above the firewall, and everything is
behind the stainless steel firewall. I used thick heavy fiberglass deck cloth,
on the aft side of the firewall. The outlet is a blister, that sticks forward
through the firewall, where a 'weldable' fitting is molded in the fiberglass,
and then an elbow, and then a cable operated on / off valve. The inlet for
the wing tank is also a blister molded in the fiberglass tank, that sticks
through the cowling, and is located on the aft, top left side, at about 10
O'clock. I did it this way so as to keep all fittings OUTSIDE the cowling, so
any
leaks would not collect fuel in the cockpit or forward deck area. I'm not sure
which is scarier, and inflight fire, aft C.G. condition, or my gal when she
says "Chuck, we need to talk..."
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Carden <flywrite(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
What's SAA, the name of the magazine, and how to join/subscribe?
Dick Carden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
SAA is the name of the organization.
http://www.sportaviation.org/index.html
"To Fly" is the name of the (really fantastic) magazine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Carden" <flywrite(at)erols.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the SAA mag
>
> What's SAA, the name of the magazine, and how to join/subscribe?
>
> Dick Carden
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
You can say "really fantastic" again. Kitplane mag has gone the way of the
sport plane buyer. While that's OK, "TO FLY" stirs the building bug in
me again.
I just sent my membership in, plus another $32.00 for the 16 back issues @
$2.00 per. for postage
If you look there are a few Piets here and there thru the mag.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the SAA mag
>
> SAA is the name of the organization.
>
> http://www.sportaviation.org/index.html
>
> "To Fly" is the name of the (really fantastic) magazine.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Carden" <flywrite(at)erols.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corky in the SAA mag
>
>
> >
> > What's SAA, the name of the magazine, and how to join/subscribe?
> >
> > Dick Carden
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: say our peace, then ignore this guy....... |
If a vacuum sucks, is it good or bad?
Ask Jim.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
> Agreed. The fisherman kept coming back JUST because he kept getting
> responses. I believe he sincerely felt that some on the list also had
> time/energy dribble to waste.....the real pity is that he probably had
> something worthwhile to contribute and never did.
>
> So what do we learn from this????? :-)
>
> Jim in Plano, heading out to the garage to laminate some maple/black
walnut
> (for the cabanes) with my NEW vacuum bagging setup!!!! Cost next to
nothing
> thanks to junk yard refrigerator compressors...... NO MORE CLAMPS!!!!
> (Well, not for some things anyway.....) Wow this is fun......
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
>
>
> >
> > Guys-- don't let this guys mess up a good group of people------GN-1's
and
> > Piets, no matter what kind of
> > engine are GREAT to talk about so let's enjoy it.
> >
> > Another Fisherman here I think.....
> >
> > Also, Allison/Bernard....whatever your real name is..---at what stage
are
> > YOU in the building process ???
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Minneapolis MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Chris,
> I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> Where is chapter 25?
> Alex Sloan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
you
> > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at
> your
> > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
EXACT
> > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in
> the
> > front 'pit.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
scale
> I
> > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
agreed
> > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> standing
> > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each
> main
> > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
7.01
> > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > Dick
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
ALex, from AL. The oint is that you should join your local EAA chapter. I
am pretty sure that Florence has a good group.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Chris,
> I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> Where is chapter 25?
> Alex Sloan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
you
> > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look at
> your
> > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
EXACT
> > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone in
> the
> > front 'pit.
> >
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
scale
> I
> > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
agreed
> > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> standing
> > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on each
> main
> > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
7.01
> > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > Dick
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Hey Dave,
Just wondering, but are your Sea King helicopters anything like the CH-53's
our Navy uses? The reason I ask is that you made a comment about
'parts-spewing'. My best friend back in Norfolk was a CH-53 pilot until he
got out of the Navy & went to work for some contractor doing something
classified with the GPS system. He rarely had a good thing to say about the
53 & 'parts-spewing' would have been one of the milder comments.
I will also say that our ship was NEVER went out in weather that might have
required someone like you to come out after us. Our captain was a Down
Easter who got his Master's license when he was 16 & his philosophy was
that science could wait for weather any day.
BTW, I'm still real interested in Yellow Cedar for spar material whenever
you have the time to figure out if there is a reasonable way to ship it.
Thanks!
Kip Gardner, in NE Ohio, far,far from any Navy town.
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Franck,
I was thinking the same thing. Maybe see if we could do a "weigh in" at
Brodhead next year where we can do a "W and B" for anyone whose experimental
we can hoist up onto the scales.
We can get someone with a computer program to do the printouts that would
suffice for the FAA. A couple of us who are A and Ps could sign it off for
those who don't have the Repariman Certificate for their aircraft.
We could also weigh the ship with the pilot/passenger on board to determine
the exact location of the seats....
Anybody else interested?
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts about
> CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
wondering....
> Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for there
> use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA Convention
> at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
owners.
> Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> Do not Archive
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electronic ignition |
Cy,
The -9 case is special in that the mags need to reach way inside to mate up
with the drive gear.
You have probably seen A series mag gears that look like a cone that do this
reaching....
They show them in the picture in my 2-15-48 A-series manual with the brown
cover. Page 61, Figure 33, item 151.
Chris
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electronic ignition
>
> Curious. What is the reason that you can't use a mag with an impulse?
> Distance to firewall? The Slick 4330 is only 7 19/32" OAL, 5 11/16
behind
> the mounting flange and is listed as approved for the A-75 in my Slick
> Master Service Manual. You do have to replace the drive gears and use the
> correct spacer according to SL1-93. The spacer extends the mag from .79 to
> 1.04 inches. (add to the 5 11/16")
>
> Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
>
> Always looking for articles for the Experimenter
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Wizzard187(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:electronic ignition
>
>
> >
> > Pieters:
> > I am working with a 75 cont series 9 and cannot use a mag with a
> > impulse and wonder if electric ignition might be my answer. Does
anyone
> know a
> > good information about this development.
> > Ken Conrad, Long Grove, Iowa
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: No more clamps (well, for some things.....) |
Jim,
It sounds as if you need to write an article for To Fly! or Experimenter on
this subject.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: No more clamps (well, for some things.....)
>
> Well, basically, after slopping on the epoxy where you want to join the
> parts, you stick them into a plastic bag, suck all the air out and voila!
> Perfectly uniform pressure over the ENTIRE area (as long as you maintain
the
> vacuum). No voids or air bubbles or delamination or excess epoxy...the
> result is a perfectly even, easily controlled pressure. And useless
excess
> air and epoxy gets sucked out (into a thin line along the edge that is as
> sharp as a razor blade....)
>
> A number of years ago I bought a $400 "professional" bagging system with
> pump, etc so I could build foam core and hollow core wings for my
> competition radio controlled sailplanes. I got tired of trying to stack
> bricks on top of the epoxy/foam/carbon fiber/kevlar/whatever sandwich and
> just hoping for even pressure throughout. (It was a teeny bit frustrating
> to check it the next day and find some carbon fiber delamination where one
> of the bricks moved a bit....) Even though the materials used in my
> sailplanes was different, the benefit of applying a perfectly even (and
> easily controlled) pressure to the parts being joined is the same for wood
> construction.
>
> It's perfect for laminated pieces like wing tip bows.....just build a
> rectangular box with a curved top, stack some epoxied strips on top of
each
> other and lay them on top of the curve, put everything (the box with the
> epoxied strips on top) in a bag and draw a vacuum. Let it sit overnite
and
> you're done.....
>
> And being much more of a scrounger now than I was then, I've actually
built
> an even better setup using a (free) freon pump from a discarded
refrigerator
> and some pvc/plastic tubing/plastic sheets/window sealer goop from Home
> Depot. MUCH cheaper! You could probably put the whole setup together for
> under $20.
>
> It's a pretty worthless process for things like attaching ribs to spars
but
> it would work very nicely for a number of other homebuilding processes.
> I'll bet the composite homebuilders use vacuum bagging on a regular basis.
> There's really no other way to so easily control the epoxy to cloth ratios
> which optimizes the weight to strength ratio. And that same benefit would
> surely apply to epoxy/wood/ply construction.
>
> Yes, you can draw too much vacuum and starve the joints of epoxy. But
with
> a bit of patience you quickly figure out how much pressure to use. And
> making one adjustment to the vacuum pressure is MUCH easier than running
> around adjusting a bunch of clamps....
>
> If anyone's interested in pursuing this, let me know (offline please) and
> I'll put some pictures and a little more detail together.
>
> Jim in Plano,
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: say our peace, then ignore this guy.......
>
>
> >
> > Jim,
> > You have piqued my curiosity. When you take a break from having fun in
> the
> > work shop, explain the "no clamp" method.
> > Alex S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | more on powdercoating |
Del,
There is more than one type of powder out there and you have to be careful
what is used.
There is powder that is "bridging" powder that will stretch when the
underlying metal cracks and spreads apart. This is not what we would want
to use but they might use it on lawn furniture. Appropriate powders will
leave a coating that will crack when the underlying metal crack. I have
first hand experience in the matter.
Nor do you want to use epoxy based powder which will rapidly deteriorate in
sunlight because, well, it is the nature of epoxy to chaulk in the sun.
Some powders leave a coating that is as fragile as glass. This is no good
because a swinging wrench will chip it bad.
For more very worthwhile reading on powder coating, go to the following link
for the article I wrote on the old BPA website:
http://members.aol.com/bpabpabpa/powder.html
Once you powdercoat, you will never go back....
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
>
> I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a bear
to do any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16 worth
of high heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines
like powdercoating, but much safer and easier to work with. find it at
fireplace stores in colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color, and
cinnamon. It is also extemely durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
> Del
>
> I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
> finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
> Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
>
>
> Del-New Richmond, Wi
> "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
>
> ---------------------------------
> Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Thanks Chuck,
Sounds like you did a wonderful job. Some of you that have been doing this
building stuff for a while are very resourceful.
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
Good, no, Great article except for the A-65 case. FAA doesn't permit
aluminum to be heated to 400 for powder coating. Don't know if this
includes casting however.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
> Del,
>
> There is more than one type of powder out there and you have to be careful
> what is used.
>
> There is powder that is "bridging" powder that will stretch when the
> underlying metal cracks and spreads apart. This is not what we would want
> to use but they might use it on lawn furniture. Appropriate powders will
> leave a coating that will crack when the underlying metal crack. I have
> first hand experience in the matter.
>
> Nor do you want to use epoxy based powder which will rapidly deteriorate
in
> sunlight because, well, it is the nature of epoxy to chaulk in the sun.
>
> Some powders leave a coating that is as fragile as glass. This is no good
> because a swinging wrench will chip it bad.
>
> For more very worthwhile reading on powder coating, go to the following
link
> for the article I wrote on the old BPA website:
>
> http://members.aol.com/bpabpabpa/powder.html
>
> Once you powdercoat, you will never go back....
>
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
>
>
>
> >
> > I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a
bear
> to do any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16 worth
> of high heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines
> like powdercoating, but much safer and easier to work with. find it at
> fireplace stores in colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color, and
> cinnamon. It is also extemely durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
> > Del
> >
> > I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
> > finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
> > Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
> >
> >
> > Del-New Richmond, Wi
> > "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Hello in Ohio. Actually the Sea King is an S-61, same style as the
President's, but way more beat up. We stopped doing any mods or
improvements in the early eighties, as they were scheduled to be
replaced. This did not happen, due to a change in government, and our
current Prime Minister has gotten himself so mired down in the issue,
nothing will be done about it until after he retires this month. We
haven't even given out requests for proposals, the way it's going we are
looking at 2008-2010 before we get new helos.
Unfortunately for us, in this part of the world, there are way too many
people who have a lot of money, and not much common sense. You can buy
any boat less than 65' and go out and be a menace with no license
whatsoever. Of course you don't have to have money to be sutpid, for
example we had a moron that decided to fish constance bank (12 miles
from shore) in a 14' aluminum with a 15hp beat up Johnson.
I talked to Mr simmons, I had passed along his info to a guy in
Australia who wanted some Yellow Cedar. You may wish to contact him
directly, I'm sure he has all the info on what it would cost. Long
lengths are getting tricky, but he can get them in if the demand is
there. If you can get others interested, the more the cheaper it would
be! Mr. Simmons address is 4545 Otter Point Road, Sooke,
British Columbia, Canada, V0S-1N0. His phone number is 250-642-5706,
fax is 250-642-2423. Let me know if I can help out in any way. I'm
doing the 3 piece wing, haven't updated mykitplanes.com for a couple of
weeks, but I have the tail feathers all done, fuse is almost complete,
and I've got most of the wing center section drying as we speak. I do
have to revise my opinion on douglas fir, a pal brought some 3/4 X 3/4
X 12' over to give to me, and they were of very good quality. I'm sure
I will be able to make good use of them!!
I am counting the days til I can fly in my Piet!!
Kip & Beth Gardner wrote:
>
>
>
> Hey Dave,
>
> Just wondering, but are your Sea King helicopters anything like the CH-53's
> our Navy uses? The reason I ask is that you made a comment about
> 'parts-spewing'. My best friend back in Norfolk was a CH-53 pilot until he
> got out of the Navy & went to work for some contractor doing something
> classified with the GPS system. He rarely had a good thing to say about the
> 53 & 'parts-spewing' would have been one of the milder comments.
>
> I will also say that our ship was NEVER went out in weather that might have
> required someone like you to come out after us. Our captain was a Down
> Easter who got his Master's license when he was 16 & his philosophy was
> that science could wait for weather any day.
>
> BTW, I'm still real interested in Yellow Cedar for spar material whenever
> you have the time to figure out if there is a reasonable way to ship it.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Kip Gardner, in NE Ohio, far,far from any Navy town.
>
> North Canton, OH
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:electronic ignition |
Ron, and Pieters
I am the guy interested in electronic ignition. I am using a cont 75 engine
series 9 which has a thick back plate and the mags drive off the crank gear
which means they run the opposite from most mags and the impulse must be the
other direction. Also the spacing from the gear teeth to mounting surface is
different than all other conts. So you ask; why are you using this engine?
Well, I have a 1942 WW2 centrifical starter with a hand crank mounted that
will blow you away if I ever get it done.
The series 9 has a starter pad that takes a starter the drives off the
face of the gear not the edge and was used on old radial engines. I had a PT
23 with a 220 cont that had a starter like this anad what a blast. I'm just
trying to relive the old days.
Ken Conrad in cool Iowa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chris,
I started our chapter #615 in 1975. It is FULL of GREAT aviation
enthusiast. I
was building an RV-3 from plans at the time. It was the first RV to fly in
Alabama. Today there are 15+ RV's flying or under construction in our
chapter. WE do not have any weighing scales.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Alex, from AL. The oint is that you should join your local EAA chapter.
I
> am pretty sure that Florence has a good group.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone
in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chris,
I started our chapter #615 in 1975. It is FULL of GREAT aviation
enthusiast. I
was building an RV-3 from plans at the time. It was the first RV to fly in
Alabama. Today there are 15+ RV's flying or under construction in our
chapter. WE do not have any weighing scales.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Alex, from AL. The oint is that you should join your local EAA chapter.
I
> am pretty sure that Florence has a good group.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > Where is chapter 25?
> > Alex Sloan
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Dick,
> > >
> > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten bucks,
> you
> > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
at
> > your
> > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> EXACT
> > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with someone
in
> > the
> > > front 'pit.
> > >
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> scale
> > I
> > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> agreed
> > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > standing
> > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
each
> > main
> > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG of
> 7.01
> > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of 12.5.
> > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > Dick
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Chris,
If I can make it to Brodhead next year, I will volunteer to be a "GOFER" as
needed to help any way with the W & B.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Franck,
>
> I was thinking the same thing. Maybe see if we could do a "weigh in" at
> Brodhead next year where we can do a "W and B" for anyone whose
experimental
> we can hoist up onto the scales.
>
> We can get someone with a computer program to do the printouts that would
> suffice for the FAA. A couple of us who are A and Ps could sign it off
for
> those who don't have the Repariman Certificate for their aircraft.
>
> We could also weigh the ship with the pilot/passenger on board to
determine
> the exact location of the seats....
>
> Anybody else interested?
>
> chris bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Franck" <franck(at)geneseo.net>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
>
> >
> > Sorry if this is a little off topic but.... After reading some posts
about
> > CG locations, gross weights/empty weights, etc., etc. I started
> wondering....
> > Wouldn't it be a great service to our flying community if, at local,
> > regional, and national Fly-Ins, area EAA chapters would set up a "weight
> > station" by providing a set of certified scales and the manpower for
there
> > use? In all the years of attending various Fly-Ins and the EAA
Convention
> > at Oshkosh I don't know that I've ever seen this service provided. I'm
> > guessing there are a lot of aircraft, after years of equipment changes,
> > paint jobs, etc. that a free CG check might be a real eye opener to
> owners.
> > Or am I just opening another can of worms here? What do you think?
> > Do not Archive
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
CH-53 is a lot bigger, 70000lb gross. Sea King about 21000
Same manufacurer- Sikorsky- sounds like they didn't do any
better on one than the other.
Clif
> Hey Dave,
>
> Just wondering, but are your Sea King helicopters anything like the
CH-53's
> our Navy uses? The reason I ask is that you made a comment about
> 'parts-spewing'. My best friend back in Norfolk was a CH-53 pilot until
he
> got out of the Navy & went to work for some contractor doing something
> classified with the GPS system. He rarely had a good thing to say about
the
> 53 & 'parts-spewing' would have been one of the milder comments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Alex,
Sounds like you need to beat the bushes for an old set of freight scales.
By their nature, as long as the balance weights don't change weight, which
is unlikely, they will never go outof calibration. We have a 50 pound or so
chunk of iron that was measured on a certified scale and its exact weight is
stamped into the piece. We always put this on the scales before weighing
jsut to be sure.
The uprights on the freight scales can be shortened with out anything out of
wack. About a 30 minute job per scale.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
> Chris,
> I started our chapter #615 in 1975. It is FULL of GREAT aviation
> enthusiast. I
> was building an RV-3 from plans at the time. It was the first RV to fly
in
> Alabama. Today there are 15+ RV's flying or under construction in our
> chapter. WE do not have any weighing scales.
> Alex S.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
>
>
>
> >
> > Alex, from AL. The oint is that you should join your local EAA chapter.
> I
> > am pretty sure that Florence has a good group.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> >
> >
>
> > >
> > > Chris,
> > > I will be more than happy to join chapter 25 and pay the fee to get my
> > > Pietenpol weighed accurately.
> > > Where is chapter 25?
> > > Alex Sloan
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > > To:
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Dick,
> > > >
> > > > If you join EAA CHapter 25 for 25 bucks and donate another ten
bucks,
> > you
> > > > can use the chapter certified and calibrated scales when I come look
> at
> > > your
> > > > ship. We could also weight the ship with you in it to determine the
> > EXACT
> > > > location of the cockpit CG. We could also do the same with
someone
> in
> > > the
> > > > front 'pit.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > > > To:
> > > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I did a safety re-weight of piet today and got a big suprise. The
> > scale
> > > I
> > > > originally weighed with was a bathroom type. When I stepped on, it
> > agreed
> > > > with my known weight 200lb. When I held 2- 5gal cans of gas while
> > > standing
> > > > on it the reading was 20 lb off. I had weighed the piet at 265 on
> each
> > > main
> > > > and 30 on the tail with a short fuse that would have been empty CG
of
> > 7.01
> > > > The actual weight turned out to be 297 on each main for a CG of
12.5.
> > > > > That error could have been very dangerous.
> > > > > Now I have to figure out how to deal with this.
> > > > > Dick
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
In a message dated 11/30/03 5:46:24 PM Central Standard Time,
bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
<< I was thinking the same thing. Maybe see if we could do a "weigh in" at
Brodhead next year where we can do a "W and B" for anyone whose experimental
we can hoist up onto the scales. >>
Chris,
I am interested in helping, and participating. They did this in '94 at
Brodhead, and I think it was helpful to builders and flyers alike. Here are the
the '94 results :
(note : if you 'maximize your screen, the columns line up)
Tail # Eng. Fuselage Empty Wt. Empty Wt.
C.G. Gross Weight Gross Weight
C.G. w/170 lb. Pilot 170 lb. Pilot
C.G.
7gal. Fuel Full Fuel
170 lb. Pass.
N444MH Ford 'A' Short 648 7.49
17.72 1048 18.83
NX13691 Ford 'A' Short 676 11.83
21.04 1088 22.02
NX4662T Ford 'A' Short 671 13.69
20.45 1071 20.7
NX5228 Ford 'A' Long 684 6.69
16.16 1084 17.33
C FCMG 0-200 Long 774 15.25
20.42 1208 19.43
N 396S C-85 Long 820 15.2
18.61 1256 16.57
N 687MB 0-200 Long 705 5.59
14.57 1143 15.79
N 778DD Corvair Long 731 9.08
15.93 1191 14.98
BHP Corvair Long
8.71 9.51
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
Cy,
AC 43 refers to the impariment of 2024 and 2017 alloys if raised above 212
degrees F. This is all I have ever seen on heating aluminum. Cylinders on
an engine are heated way beyond this all the time. I wonder what the case
temperature is at the cylinder hold down studs. If you have other FAA info
on heating aluminum to 400 degrees or so for powdercoating, I would like to
see it.
I wonder if the TSA has weighed in on powdercoating aluminum.
It is rare that a casting will be heat treated.
If anything, the heat will stress relieve.
In the end, Dale did not powdercoat the case.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
> Good, no, Great article except for the A-65 case. FAA doesn't permit
> aluminum to be heated to 400 for powder coating. Don't know if this
> includes casting however.
>
> Cy Galley
> Editor, EAA Safety Programs
> cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
>
>
> >
> > Del,
> >
> > There is more than one type of powder out there and you have to be
careful
> > what is used.
> >
> > There is powder that is "bridging" powder that will stretch when the
> > underlying metal cracks and spreads apart. This is not what we would
want
> > to use but they might use it on lawn furniture. Appropriate powders
will
> > leave a coating that will crack when the underlying metal crack. I have
> > first hand experience in the matter.
> >
> > Nor do you want to use epoxy based powder which will rapidly deteriorate
> in
> > sunlight because, well, it is the nature of epoxy to chaulk in the sun.
> >
> > Some powders leave a coating that is as fragile as glass. This is no
good
> > because a swinging wrench will chip it bad.
> >
> > For more very worthwhile reading on powder coating, go to the following
> link
> > for the article I wrote on the old BPA website:
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/bpabpabpa/powder.html
> >
> > Once you powdercoat, you will never go back....
> >
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a
> bear
> > to do any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16
worth
> > of high heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines
> > like powdercoating, but much safer and easier to work with. find it at
> > fireplace stores in colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color,
and
> > cinnamon. It is also extemely durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
> > > Del
> > >
> > > I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
> > > finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
> > > Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
> > >
> > >
> > > Del-New Richmond, Wi
> > > "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
In a message dated 11/30/03 10:35:30 PM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< (note : if you 'maximize your screen, the columns line up) >>
I just opened my own e-mail, and tried 'maximising' the screen, and it didn't
work.
If you click / paste to a word program, maybe then with some editing, you can
get the columns to line up.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Dave Rowe and Kip,
Sounds like you do the kind of flying like in "The Perfect Storm"...
Anyway, I would be interested in some yellow cedar and doug fir although
lengths about ten feet or so are good enough for me. Rough sawn to a
3/4" -1" thickness is fine and widths greater than 4". Just a few boards of
fir, and maybe 15 or so of YC. Is this possible?
If the pieters that go to brodhead could get a big order together, you could
ship to me in MN as one order and then I could get it to Brodhead for the
flyin to be picked up. This might work for Kip.
Chris bobka
Minneapolis, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG Check Station?
>
> Hello in Ohio. Actually the Sea King is an S-61, same style as the
> President's, but way more beat up. We stopped doing any mods or
> improvements in the early eighties, as they were scheduled to be
> replaced. This did not happen, due to a change in government, and our
> current Prime Minister has gotten himself so mired down in the issue,
> nothing will be done about it until after he retires this month. We
> haven't even given out requests for proposals, the way it's going we are
> looking at 2008-2010 before we get new helos.
>
> Unfortunately for us, in this part of the world, there are way too many
> people who have a lot of money, and not much common sense. You can buy
> any boat less than 65' and go out and be a menace with no license
> whatsoever. Of course you don't have to have money to be sutpid, for
> example we had a moron that decided to fish constance bank (12 miles
> from shore) in a 14' aluminum with a 15hp beat up Johnson.
>
> I talked to Mr simmons, I had passed along his info to a guy in
> Australia who wanted some Yellow Cedar. You may wish to contact him
> directly, I'm sure he has all the info on what it would cost. Long
> lengths are getting tricky, but he can get them in if the demand is
> there. If you can get others interested, the more the cheaper it would
> be! Mr. Simmons address is 4545 Otter Point Road, Sooke,
> British Columbia, Canada, V0S-1N0. His phone number is 250-642-5706,
> fax is 250-642-2423. Let me know if I can help out in any way. I'm
> doing the 3 piece wing, haven't updated mykitplanes.com for a couple of
> weeks, but I have the tail feathers all done, fuse is almost complete,
> and I've got most of the wing center section drying as we speak. I do
> have to revise my opinion on douglas fir, a pal brought some 3/4 X 3/4
> X 12' over to give to me, and they were of very good quality. I'm sure
> I will be able to make good use of them!!
>
> I am counting the days til I can fly in my Piet!!
>
> Kip & Beth Gardner wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Hey Dave,
> >
> > Just wondering, but are your Sea King helicopters anything like the
CH-53's
> > our Navy uses? The reason I ask is that you made a comment about
> > 'parts-spewing'. My best friend back in Norfolk was a CH-53 pilot until
he
> > got out of the Navy & went to work for some contractor doing something
> > classified with the GPS system. He rarely had a good thing to say about
the
> > 53 & 'parts-spewing' would have been one of the milder comments.
> >
> > I will also say that our ship was NEVER went out in weather that might
have
> > required someone like you to come out after us. Our captain was a Down
> > Easter who got his Master's license when he was 16 & his philosophy was
> > that science could wait for weather any day.
> >
> > BTW, I'm still real interested in Yellow Cedar for spar material
whenever
> > you have the time to figure out if there is a reasonable way to ship it.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Kip Gardner, in NE Ohio, far,far from any Navy town.
> >
> > North Canton, OH
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
hmmm.... my aluminum heads on my Corvair redline at 575 degrees and I
typically run them at 350-400. I don't know what alloy they are though.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka"
> AC 43 refers to the impariment of 2024 and 2017 alloys if raised above 212
> degrees F. This is all I have ever seen on heating aluminum. Cylinders
on
> an engine are heated way beyond this all the time. I wonder what the case
> temperature is at the cylinder hold down studs. If you have other FAA
info
> on heating aluminum to 400 degrees or so for powdercoating, I would like
to
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | GN-1 near Danville, Indiana ? |
Group--do any of you know this gentleman or his plane at all ? Thanks
! Mike C.
N-number : N104WC Aircraft Serial Number : 1893 Aircraft Manufacturer :
TIMMERMAN WARREN H Model : GN-1 AIRCAMPER Engine Manufacturer : CONT MOTOR
Model : A&C65 SERIES Aircraft Year : 1998 Owner Name : TIMMERMAN WARREN H
Owner Address : 2214 W 350 S DANVILLE, IN, 46122 Type of Owner : Individual
Registration Date : 04-Mar-1997 Airworthiness Certificate Type :
Experimental Approved Operations : Amateur Built
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip & Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG Check Station? |
Chris,
That could work out for me very well, although I guess it would mean having
to drive instead of hopping a ride in Gene Rambo's airborne hot rod :)
I need 4 good pieces for spars (3/4" finished - I don't want to bother with
routing), so I'm probably pushing the length limit in terms of what's
available.
Maybe we can pull this all together over the winter.
Thanks!
Kip
>
>Dave Rowe and Kip,
>
>Sounds like you do the kind of flying like in "The Perfect Storm"...
>
>Anyway, I would be interested in some yellow cedar and doug fir although
>lengths about ten feet or so are good enough for me. Rough sawn to a
>3/4" -1" thickness is fine and widths greater than 4". Just a few boards of
>fir, and maybe 15 or so of YC. Is this possible?
>
>If the pieters that go to brodhead could get a big order together, you could
>ship to me in MN as one order and then I could get it to Brodhead for the
>flyin to be picked up. This might work for Kip.
>
>Chris bobka
>Minneapolis, MN
>> I talked to Mr simmons, I had passed along his info to a guy in
>> Australia who wanted some Yellow Cedar. You may wish to contact him
>> directly, I'm sure he has all the info on what it would cost. Long
>> lengths are getting tricky, but he can get them in if the demand is
>> there. If you can get others interested, the more the cheaper it would
>> be! Mr. Simmons address is 4545 Otter Point Road, Sooke,
>> British Columbia, Canada, V0S-1N0. His phone number is 250-642-5706,
>> fax is 250-642-2423. Let me know if I can help out in any way. I'm
>> doing the 3 piece wing, haven't updated mykitplanes.com for a couple of
>> weeks, but I have the tail feathers all done, fuse is almost complete,
>> and I've got most of the wing center section drying as we speak. I do
>> have to revise my opinion on douglas fir, a pal brought some 3/4 X 3/4
>> X 12' over to give to me, and they were of very good quality. I'm sure
>> I will be able to make good use of them!!
>>
>> I am counting the days til I can fly in my Piet!!
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | steel fuse piet on ebay |
Anyone interested in steel fuselage? Probably go to someone in CA who can check
it out.
item #2446124582
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
Chris,
Will powder coating solve the problem of bolts knocking off the coating on
bolt holes in metal fittings and then rusting? A big problem down here in
Florida.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
> Del,
>
> There is more than one type of powder out there and you have to be careful
> what is used.
>
> There is powder that is "bridging" powder that will stretch when the
> underlying metal cracks and spreads apart. This is not what we would want
> to use but they might use it on lawn furniture. Appropriate powders will
> leave a coating that will crack when the underlying metal crack. I have
> first hand experience in the matter.
>
> Nor do you want to use epoxy based powder which will rapidly deteriorate
in
> sunlight because, well, it is the nature of epoxy to chaulk in the sun.
>
> Some powders leave a coating that is as fragile as glass. This is no good
> because a swinging wrench will chip it bad.
>
> For more very worthwhile reading on powder coating, go to the following
link
> for the article I wrote on the old BPA website:
>
> http://members.aol.com/bpabpabpa/powder.html
>
> Once you powdercoat, you will never go back....
>
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
>
>
>
> >
> > I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a
bear
> to do any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16 worth
> of high heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines
> like powdercoating, but much safer and easier to work with. find it at
> fireplace stores in colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color, and
> cinnamon. It is also extemely durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
> > Del
> >
> > I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
> > finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
> > Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
> >
> >
> > Del-New Richmond, Wi
> > "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corky in the SAA mag |
Piet-ers,
Found a steel tube fuse on ebay,
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=26439&item=2446124582
Greg Menoche
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
Ted, I would say if you used the powder sold by Eastwood, which is a good ,
general purpose, polyurethane based powder, it would be tough enough. I
infer that you mean the paint scraped by a bolt turning in it hole while
almost tight?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
> Chris,
>
> Will powder coating solve the problem of bolts knocking off the coating on
> bolt holes in metal fittings and then rusting? A big problem down here in
> Florida.
>
> Ted
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
>
>
> >
> > Del,
> >
> > There is more than one type of powder out there and you have to be
careful
> > what is used.
> >
> > There is powder that is "bridging" powder that will stretch when the
> > underlying metal cracks and spreads apart. This is not what we would
want
> > to use but they might use it on lawn furniture. Appropriate powders
will
> > leave a coating that will crack when the underlying metal crack. I have
> > first hand experience in the matter.
> >
> > Nor do you want to use epoxy based powder which will rapidly deteriorate
> in
> > sunlight because, well, it is the nature of epoxy to chaulk in the sun.
> >
> > Some powders leave a coating that is as fragile as glass. This is no
good
> > because a swinging wrench will chip it bad.
> >
> > For more very worthwhile reading on powder coating, go to the following
> link
> > for the article I wrote on the old BPA website:
> >
> > http://members.aol.com/bpabpabpa/powder.html
> >
> > Once you powdercoat, you will never go back....
> >
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "del magsam" <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com>
> > To:
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Yo DJ
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I wouldn't use powdercoating if it was free, It hides cracks and is a
> bear
> > to do any further work on the part. I did my whole airplane with $16
worth
> > of high heat stove paint with a glossy top coat ( also high heat) shines
> > like powdercoating, but much safer and easier to work with. find it at
> > fireplace stores in colors of shiny black, forest green, cream color,
and
> > cinnamon. It is also extemely durable to chips. It is one tough paint.
> > > Del
> > >
> > > I powdercoated mine white... I LOVE powdercoat! VERY VERY VERY durable
> > > finish. you can smack it with a hammer and it'll hold up. (to a point)
> > > Powdercoating is cheap too.... I had my whole gear done for about $65.
> > >
> > >
> > > Del-New Richmond, Wi
> > > "farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------
> > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mike Burr <piet(at)pointdx.com> |
| Subject: | Piets in central NC? |
Hi all, I'm new to the list. Unfortunately I'm still in the
"contemplating" stage of building my Pietenpol. I have many, many
questions, but I'll try to show some restraint and not be a list hog.
Here goes the first:
Are there any Aircamper owners/builders within a couple hours drive of
Winston-Salem or Greensboro North Carolina? I'd love the opportunity to
see a real-live Piet and perhaps combine efforts with a local builder.
Thanks,
Mike.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piets in central NC? |
Hi Mike,
I'm in New Hill, NC, about 20 miles SW of Raleigh. My Pietenpol is in the final
stages of fabric covering and should fly this spring. You're welcome to come
look it over, but might better wait until after Christmas. What with the holiday
snad going to Kity Hawk for a week right before Christmas, this is a busy
time of year. Send me an email at pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
>
> From: Mike Burr <piet(at)pointdx.com>
> Date: 2003/12/01 Mon PM 11:21:30 EST
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piets in central NC?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | piet(at)pointdx.com |
| Subject: | Re: Piets in central NC? |
Hi, jack. That's a "fir piece" for me to drive, but I just might be willing.
Thanks!
I'll be in Kitty Hawk too. I'll look for the guy with the huge grin on his face
(because he's building a Piet.)
-Mike.
Quoting pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net:
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I'm in New Hill, NC, about 20 miles SW of Raleigh. My Pietenpol is in the
> final stages of fabric covering and should fly this spring. You're welcome
> to come look it over, but might better wait until after Christmas. What with
> the holiday snad going to Kity Hawk for a week right before Christmas, this
> is a busy time of year. Send me an email at pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net.
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
> >
> > From: Mike Burr <piet(at)pointdx.com>
> > Date: 2003/12/01 Mon PM 11:21:30 EST
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piets in central NC?
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike B." <piet(at)pointdx.com> |
| Subject: | Building efficiently |
Having not lifted a finger toward building an airplane yet, I thought
I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
I understand that a certain number of mistakes and a certain amount of
backpedaling will be inevitable, but I'd like to do everything possible
to prevent this.
Has anyone gone to the trouble of compiling this type of information
formally? I'd love to be able to say that I made some kind of
contribution to the Pietenpol community.
Here are some high-level decisions that I think may make a big
difference in build time (forgetting all other factors for now.) Any
advice? Things to add?
* One-piece wing vs. There piece. (Seems like one-piece would build faster.)
* Jenny-style gear vs. Cub style. (Seems like Cub style would be faster.)
* Prebuilt ribs (I haven't' figured out for sure whether these are
reliably available, but it does seem like making ribs ends up being a
big time-killer.)
* Covering processes...
* Engine choice...
* Wing tank vs. belly tank...
* Premade metal fittings...
Additionally, can anyone suggest a tool that ended up being a real time
saver? A jointer? A Planer?...
Understand that I'm not out to make a shoddy airplane, I just see this
as a way to keep things interesting.
-Mike B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Mike,
This is one of those strange things that go thru your mind when
contimplating building , or any other project.
If you were going to take a car apart, you could plan for weeks on what you
would do, and how to do it. But until you know whats inside a car, planning
beforehand is silly,,,cause you don't know what you're up against.
The iodea of building efficiently and building to a schedule doesn't work
for me..
Thats called "building to fly" and that's a no-no.
Any builder will tell you to "build to build, not build to fly" If you're
in a hurry, buy something.
I never had a builders log, never punched in and out of my shop. Just
enjoyed building, and building till it was done. Now it was four years
later.
If you calculate all your hours, you'll be making about $2.00 per hour to
build. Like a fisherman keeping track of his hours on the lake, to find out
how much his fish is worth per pound.
For every project flying there are probably 3 more in a dusty basement
abandoned cause the project took "way too long".
Don't know about anyone else, but I looked forward to my time in the shop(
well, my 10x20ft basement, that produced 2 airplanes)
Tools??? A 10" bandsaw, a drillpress, and a Dremmel tool. :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike B." <piet(at)pointdx.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building efficiently
>
> Having not lifted a finger toward building an airplane yet, I thought
> I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
> possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
>
> I understand that a certain number of mistakes and a certain amount of
> backpedaling will be inevitable, but I'd like to do everything possible
> to prevent this.
>
> Has anyone gone to the trouble of compiling this type of information
> formally? I'd love to be able to say that I made some kind of
> contribution to the Pietenpol community.
>
> Here are some high-level decisions that I think may make a big
> difference in build time (forgetting all other factors for now.) Any
> advice? Things to add?
>
> * One-piece wing vs. There piece. (Seems like one-piece would build
faster.)
> * Jenny-style gear vs. Cub style. (Seems like Cub style would be faster.)
> * Prebuilt ribs (I haven't' figured out for sure whether these are
> reliably available, but it does seem like making ribs ends up being a
> big time-killer.)
> * Covering processes...
> * Engine choice...
> * Wing tank vs. belly tank...
> * Premade metal fittings...
>
> Additionally, can anyone suggest a tool that ended up being a real time
> saver? A jointer? A Planer?...
>
> Understand that I'm not out to make a shoddy airplane, I just see this
> as a way to keep things interesting.
>
> -Mike B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Building efficiently |
Mike,
A lot of these questions can be answered by going through the archives of
this list, but I will try to answer your questions FROM MY EXPERIENCE. Your
mileage my vary.
If anyone tried to compile a list of all the possible mistakes that could be
made while building a Pietenpol, it would be a long list indeed. My
advice - don't worry about the mistakes, just don't let them fly on your
plane. I've learned a lot from building my Pietenpol, mostly from the
mistakes I've made. If I built another Piet, I know I could build a better
plane in half the time for 2/3 the cost of this one. But I wouldn't learn
as much.
One Piece versus three piece wing? Build what you like - there are
advantages and disadvantages either way. When I started my project, I
didn't have room for a one-piece wing so it was a moot point. Now, I have
plenty of room and if I had the house I have now when I started, I would
have built the one piece wing, because it is lighter. Lightness is
EVERYTHING in these birds. I've read estimates of up to 15 lbs for the
difference in weight between the one piece and three piece wings. I believe
it - those fittings and extra hardware required are heavy and add exactly
nothing to the flying qualities of the airplane. The three piece version is
certainly easier to handle during construction, but if you want something
easy to handle during construction, build a model airplane.
Jenny Style vs. Cub style gear (actually "Cub Style is a misnomer, since the
"improved"" Air Camper predates the J-3 by 5 years and even predates the E-2
Taylor Cub slightly). Build what you like. Cub style is probably easier to
build (I dunno, but it can't be much harder than the Jenny Style I built),
and probably has better ground handling characteristics. It certainly is
the more popular of the two. I built the Jenny style because I like the
look of it. Either will work well, if properly constructed. Once the basic
undercarriage is done with the Jenny style, it is easier to align than the
Cub Style, because toe-in and camber problems simply cannot exist with the
straight axle.
Prebuilt ribs. Building ribs is good practice for the rest of the project.
If you don't have the discipline to spend 2 to 3 hours building each rib
(and there are only 30 of them) how do you think you'll make yourself do the
tens of hundreds of hours of often not very fun work building this airplane?
I built one rib a night and in a month had all the ribs built. I wish
everything else on this project had gone so smoothly. I recommend you build
a couple of extra ribs and then break them to see how good your joints are.
Good for peace of mind.
Covering choices. Good way to start an argument, because every builder on
this list KNOWS the process he chose is the best, and everyone else is an
idiot. I've covered planes before, with cotton and butyrate dope. This one
I covered with the PolyFiber process and love it. I would never consider
using anything else, particularly after seeing Stit's video showing how
fireproof their system is. I've seen dope finishes on a plane burn up
before, and they go up mighty quick! the only thing I don't like about
PolyFiber is their prices, but I've got to admit that the quality is there,
and I think justifies the price.
Engine choice. Obviously, the only logical choice is a 65 hp Continental
(what I'm using). Again, whatever you want, just think it through. Don't
make a choice based solely on price, or you're likely to be disappointed.
Don't worry about the "purists". Bernard H Pietenpol built many different
Air Campers, no two of which were alike. He used every engine from a Ford
to a Continental to a Lycoming to a LeBlond radial to a Corvair. All were
Pietenpols. Whatever you choose, get advice from the people who have
SUCCESSFULLY used such an engine in an airplane before. Unless you are a
real expert on a particular engine, an untested homebuilt airplane tends to
be a pretty poor test bed for an untested auto engine conversion.
Wing Tank versus Belly Tank. Again, as most of these questions are - it's a
tradeoff. The wing tank offers superior gravity feed, since it is not
likely you'd ever put the plane in an attitude where the carburetor is
higher than the tank outlet. The wing tank also is a pain to refuel,
requiring a ladder. Putting the tank in the wing frees up some space in the
fuselage for a baggage compartment, but requires more plumbing. The wing
tank makes CG control much easier. I don't think either offers much safety
advantage in a crash.
Premade metal fittings. Depends on how good you are, or how good you can
become at making metal fittings. The problem with premade fittings is that
you might be making some modifications to the design that will preclude
those fittings from even fitting on your craft. Many of the fittings (such
as the landing gear fittings) really need to be custom made to fit your
particular aircraft. May advice, before starting to build this plane, buy
the first two Tony Bingelis books "The Sportplane Builder" and "Sportplane
Construction Techniques". They will tell you everything you need to know
about making fittings, and everything else you will need to know or learn
during this project.
What tool is indispensable? I guess all the metal and wood parts can be cut
out with hand tools and made just about any old way. Power tools make it
easier and faster. The only tool that I simply couldn't have built this
plane without is my oxyacetylene welding rig. Started building a wooden
airplane because I didn't know how to weld. Pretty soon you'll realize
there is a hell of a lot of welding required on this airplane, and you'll
either learn how to do it, or have to find someone to do it for you. I'd
recommend learning how yourself. It's a useful skill, it's not hard to
learn, and there's a lot of satisfaction in completing a difficult welded
assembly.
In other words, get the Bingelis books, and then start making mistakes.
Pretty soon you will be making good parts, whether ribs or fittings or
airframe structure. Just remember that while Pietenpols are a lot of fun to
fly, the building process is also fun in and of itself. If it weren't, we
would all be assembling cookie-cutter, look-alike kit planes.
Just my opinion, remember.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Mike B.
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building efficiently
Having not lifted a finger toward building an airplane yet, I thought
I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
I understand that a certain number of mistakes and a certain amount of
backpedaling will be inevitable, but I'd like to do everything possible
to prevent this.
Has anyone gone to the trouble of compiling this type of information
formally? I'd love to be able to say that I made some kind of
contribution to the Pietenpol community.
Here are some high-level decisions that I think may make a big
difference in build time (forgetting all other factors for now.) Any
advice? Things to add?
* One-piece wing vs. There piece. (Seems like one-piece would build faster.)
* Jenny-style gear vs. Cub style. (Seems like Cub style would be faster.)
* Prebuilt ribs (I haven't' figured out for sure whether these are
reliably available, but it does seem like making ribs ends up being a
big time-killer.)
* Covering processes...
* Engine choice...
* Wing tank vs. belly tank...
* Premade metal fittings...
Additionally, can anyone suggest a tool that ended up being a real time
saver? A jointer? A Planer?...
Understand that I'm not out to make a shoddy airplane, I just see this
as a way to keep things interesting.
-Mike B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Piets in central NC? |
In a message dated 12/1/03 11:23:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
piet(at)pointdx.com writes:
> Are there any Aircamper owners/builders within a couple hours drive of
> Winston-Salem or Greensboro North Carolina? I'd love the opportunity to
> see a real-live Piet and perhaps combine efforts with a local builder.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike.
>
http://www.skytamer.com/photos/gallery05/g0521.htm
Says there is one in the Virginia Aviaton Museum, Sandston (Richmond) Virginia
Also I believe Gene Rambo has one in Culpepper, VA
probably others around too
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike B." <piet(at)pointdx.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Thanks Jack. I'll be digesting all that for a while. Hope to start
making mistakes soon.
>
> Mike,
>
> A lot of these questions can be answered by going through the archives of
> this list, but I will try to answer your questions FROM MY EXPERIENCE. Your
> mileage my vary.
[ Excelent, thorough reply. ]
>
>
> Having not lifted a finger toward building an airplane yet, I thought
> I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
> possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
>
> I understand that a certain number of mistakes and a certain amount of
> backpedaling will be inevitable, but I'd like to do everything possible
> to prevent this.
>
> Has anyone gone to the trouble of compiling this type of information
> formally? I'd love to be able to say that I made some kind of
> contribution to the Pietenpol community.
>
> Here are some high-level decisions that I think may make a big
> difference in build time (forgetting all other factors for now.) Any
> advice? Things to add?
>
> * One-piece wing vs. There piece. (Seems like one-piece would build faster.)
> * Jenny-style gear vs. Cub style. (Seems like Cub style would be faster.)
> * Prebuilt ribs (I haven't' figured out for sure whether these are
> reliably available, but it does seem like making ribs ends up being a
> big time-killer.)
> * Covering processes...
> * Engine choice...
> * Wing tank vs. belly tank...
> * Premade metal fittings...
>
> Additionally, can anyone suggest a tool that ended up being a real time
> saver? A jointer? A Planer?...
>
> Understand that I'm not out to make a shoddy airplane, I just see this
> as a way to keep things interesting.
>
> -Mike B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
my favorite shop tools are my 2 speed bandsaw and my 12" Grizzly disc
sander. I have basically built my entire airframe with just those tools
(not counting all the basic hand tools of course)..... ohhh another
thing... buy LOTS of spring clamps! I got mine at Home Depot for 98 cents
each. I must have 40 or 50 of them. There will be times when you will be
using all 40 of them at one time!
unless you are planning on buyng raw planks.... a jointer and planer are not
needed. I got all my wood from AS&S and Wicks and it was machined to size
ready for use.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "david kowell" <dkowell(at)cstone.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Piets in central NC? |
i know of a builder in clarksville va
----- Original Message -----
From: <Dmott9(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piets in central NC?
>
> In a message dated 12/1/03 11:23:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> piet(at)pointdx.com writes:
>
> > Are there any Aircamper owners/builders within a couple hours drive of
> > Winston-Salem or Greensboro North Carolina? I'd love the opportunity to
> > see a real-live Piet and perhaps combine efforts with a local builder.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Mike.
> >
> http://www.skytamer.com/photos/gallery05/g0521.htm
>
> Says there is one in the Virginia Aviaton Museum, Sandston (Richmond)
Virginia
>
> Also I believe Gene Rambo has one in Culpepper, VA
> probably others around too
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Piet-ers,
Since we are on the subject of tools, I'm receiving a Rotorzip with
the metal grinder and sander attachment, and a 9 inch band saw for Christmas.
I
had seen a sheet metal nibbler that can cut from 22 to 19g at Habor Freight.
Should I invest in this nibbler too?
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Sir:
May I suggest that you not try to digest the entire building process in one
meal.
Building a Piet IS nothing more than completing one little task after
another. The entire airplane is the sum of many, many completed small tasks. Try
not
to think too far ahead. Be patient and complete the small jobs with precision
and the big jobs will fall in place.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
I learned an awful lot by going to websites, mykitplanes.com for ex, and
DJ Vegh's excellent site. A little research shows what works and what
doesn't, and how others deal with similar problems. The ribs are no
biggy, I did mine in a week with one jig, but I spent two days just
building one test rib, and then mass-producing all the parts. You can
check out my stuff at mykitplanes.com to see how I did it. I spent a
couple of weeks before I got the plans checking out everyone elses
stuff, and then deciding on what I needed to do. I am doing the
three-piece wing, because I work at an airport, and our Squadron has a
storage facility where I can park the plane at no cost, but I have to
wheel it through a vehicle gate. I'm going with a Subaru or Geo Metro,
because I have rebuilt a Soob for another aircraft, and am very familiar
with both. I think the single most valuable tool for me has been this
group, and the builder's sites. Second to that would be my japanese saw
and my spokeshaves. Most important is to have fun, and have a comfy
chair in the shop to just sit in and contemplate zen and airplane
construction, and imagine the completion of a dream.
"Mike B." wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Jack. I'll be digesting all that for a while. Hope to start
> making mistakes soon.
>
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > A lot of these questions can be answered by going through the archives of
> > this list, but I will try to answer your questions FROM MY EXPERIENCE. Your
> > mileage my vary.
>
> [ Excelent, thorough reply. ]
>
> >
> >
> > Having not lifted a finger toward building an airplane yet, I thought
> > I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
> > possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
> >
> > I understand that a certain number of mistakes and a certain amount of
> > backpedaling will be inevitable, but I'd like to do everything possible
> > to prevent this.
> >
> > Has anyone gone to the trouble of compiling this type of information
> > formally? I'd love to be able to say that I made some kind of
> > contribution to the Pietenpol community.
> >
> > Here are some high-level decisions that I think may make a big
> > difference in build time (forgetting all other factors for now.) Any
> > advice? Things to add?
> >
> > * One-piece wing vs. There piece. (Seems like one-piece would build faster.)
> > * Jenny-style gear vs. Cub style. (Seems like Cub style would be faster.)
> > * Prebuilt ribs (I haven't' figured out for sure whether these are
> > reliably available, but it does seem like making ribs ends up being a
> > big time-killer.)
> > * Covering processes...
> > * Engine choice...
> > * Wing tank vs. belly tank...
> > * Premade metal fittings...
> >
> > Additionally, can anyone suggest a tool that ended up being a real time
> > saver? A jointer? A Planer?...
> >
> > Understand that I'm not out to make a shoddy airplane, I just see this
> > as a way to keep things interesting.
> >
> > -Mike B.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | building efficiently |
I like all your answers to this question.
For myself, when a project is finished my hands itch until I
have a tool ( No! not that one, you dirty minded devils! ) and
some wood in my hands. Then life is good.
And DJ, what are you doing buying clamps when there's
so much 4" black drain pipe out there!
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=IMG_0563.jpg&PhotoID=1294
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
An expert was teaching a class of business students.
In front of him was a gallon, wide mouth jar. He proceeded
to fill it with fist size rocks. When no more would go in he
asked, " Is it full? " All said yes! He then poured in gravel,
shaking it down between the rocks. " Is it full?" he asked.
This time they said probably not. He then dumped as much
sand in as it would hold. Again " Is it full?" No they shouted.
Good! he said, pouring water in the jar, filling it. " What's the
point of this?" he asked. One said that no matter how full your
schedule you can always fit more in. " NO!" the expert replied.
The point is, take care of the big rocks first or you'll never
get them in at all. What are your "Big Rocks" ?
Clif
The only thing I have to add is this, Don't wait until you "have
> time" or "have the money" to start building. You will never have enough
time
> or money so you might as well get on with it. Like my grandpa always told
me,
> if you have the time your probably wasting it in a pine box and if you
have
> the money you've probably collect on your life insurance.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike B." <piet(at)pointdx.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Thanks to everyone for great suggestions, help, input. I'm sure that I
do have a naive outlook on the build process, having not started yet.
Let me emphasize that I *do* look forward to the build process, and am
not looking to cut any corners. I just wanted to identify a few things
that I could do to make the build process go faster. I don't think
anyone sets out to take as long as possible.
My objective will continue to be to build an airplane as quickly as
practical (because I'm interested in the "science" of it, not because
I'm lazy, sloppy, unsafe or impatient), but I'll try not to return to
this theme until I have some sawdust on the floor of my new shop and
lots of T-88 in the webs of my fingers.
-Mike B.
> I said:
...
> I'd try to use my current free time by giving as much thought as
> possible to how to build efficiently (time wise.)
...
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Dave wrote-
>Here in Canada all we need is a spotlight and a whistle.
Truly the spirit of simple homebuilding, eh?
>We have twice the land and 1/10th the population
>we figure hey, what are the chances of hitting one another.
C'mon; you expect us to believe those numbers? Canada actually has only
1.073 times the total area (3,855,103 sq. mi. versus 3,593,765 sq. mi. for
the U.S.) and much of that is water, which you guys fly over as readily as
you do over land. And as far as population, you actually only have nearly
1/11th the population (2001 figures... 31,021,000 Canadians versus
284,797,000 U.S. citizens). But you've gotta figure that a good fraction of
those Canadians are Quebecois and you know they're much more likely to hit
one another ;o)
>I suppose you guys don't use hand-carved props held together with
>Moose Glue!
Um... don't rule it out. We used to have this guy called "The Fisherman"
here on the list. Check the archives for some interesting reading ;o) Now
I guess the next thing you'll start with is that you're going to tan some
beaver hides to make the leather for the coaming around your cockpits, eh?
Holiday greetings to our flying friends up north!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Cell phone switch rules are taking effect find out more here.
http://special.msn.com/msnbc/consumeradvocate.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Ft. Lauderdale- off topic- help needed |
Hello, Piet friends-
We're going on a cruise out of Ft. Lauderdale, sailing Monday 12/8, but we
arrive at the airport on Sunday 12/7 and need a recommendation on a hotel
for the night. Any of you Pieters familiar with the airport and dock area
of Ft. Lauderdale that could help out with a good hotel? Think clean,
reasonable, and not too remote.
And since we don't sail till the afternoon Monday, we're thinking of
grabbing a taxi or shuttle into Miami on Monday morning to find some of that
Cuban coffee for breakfast on Calle Ocho in Little Havana. If the fare is
too expensive, we might consider renting a car for the day but worry that
it'll get stolen while we're in having breakfast. Even though we aren't
elderly German tourists ;o)
Thanks, friends.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Shop online for kids toys by age group, price range, and toy category at
MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! http://shopping.msn.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | craigwilcox(at)peoplepc.com |
| Subject: | Re: Ft. Lauderdale- off topic- help needed |
wrote:
OSCAR -
Try the marriott, just north of the harbor. Stayed
there last month, very nice, very clean. Just a bit on
the fancy side, enjoyable. Less than 10 min from Port
Everglades.
If you were going to be here longer, you could visit my
Duce project in Jupiter, about 50 miles north.
Craig
>
>
> Hello, Piet friends-
>
> We're going on a cruise out of Ft. Lauderdale, sailing
> Monday 12/8, but we
> arrive at the airport on Sunday 12/7 and need a
> recommendation on a hotel
> for the night. Any of you Pieters familiar with the
> airport and dock area
> of Ft. Lauderdale that could help out with a good
> hotel?
PeoplePC: It's for people. And it's just smart.
http://www.peoplepc.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dean Pacetti <gpacetti(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Ft. Lauderdale- off topic- help needed |
If the Merriot is to much money, try the Sleep Inn on Sheridan St. I stay there
all the time and I'm in Ft. Laud. quite often. For good breakfast and bakery
try Grandpa's Resturant in Daina.
Dean in Auburndale, Fl.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
Hello, Piet friends-
We're going on a cruise out of Ft. Lauderdale, sailing Monday 12/8, but we
arrive at the airport on Sunday 12/7 and need a recommendation on a hotel
for the night. Any of you Pieters familiar with the airport and dock area
of Ft. Lauderdale that could help out with a good hotel? Think clean,
reasonable, and not too remote.
And since we don't sail till the afternoon Monday, we're thinking of
grabbing a taxi or shuttle into Miami on Monday morning to find some of that
Cuban coffee for breakfast on Calle Ocho in Little Havana. If the fare is
too expensive, we might consider renting a car for the day but worry that
it'll get stolen while we're in having breakfast. Even though we aren't
elderly German tourists ;o)
Thanks, friends.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Shop online for kids toys by age group, price range, and toy category at
MSN Shopping. No waiting for a clerk to help you! http://shopping.msn.com
---------------------------------
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
Chris
Have you read the book "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance?". About a father
and his son and their motorcycle. When you get done with your Piet (if ever)
you can write a new book about you and your son's experience called "Zen and
the art of Pietenpol building". Or maybe you can start it now, its cheap, it
only requires some pencil and paper.
Rick Holland
|> Basically, I have no time or money. If I can get one hour
|> of building/zen time in the garage a day I feel lucky.
|> Fortunately I have a
|> very limited building fund.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
I bought one of their nibblers and it was a POS. worked for about 8" and
just stopped. When I would put it to a small piece of metal it wouldn't move
at all.
What they do have that is worth the money is a "vice brake" it comes in
sizes from 4" to 8" and uses a vice to provide the power to bend metal.
Works great ! and they are cheap, about $ 14-$ 19 depending on size. It has
a wedge on one side and a V side on the other and the parts have heavy
magnets which attach to the vice jaws, just crank down and bent the metal to
90 degrees or more with a wedge. With a large vice and by grinding the
radius on the wedge you can bend 1/8 " 4130, but not to 90 degrees.
Dennis Engelkenjohn
ps..Harbor Freight welding helmets work well too. Bought an auto darkening
for $ 59 last week and it is great.
----- Original Message -----
From: <Gnwac(at)cs.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Building efficiently
>
> Piet-ers,
> Since we are on the subject of tools, I'm receiving a Rotorzip with
> the metal grinder and sander attachment, and a 9 inch band saw for
Christmas. I
> had seen a sheet metal nibbler that can cut from 22 to 19g at Habor
Freight.
> Should I invest in this nibbler too?
> Greg Menoche
> Delaware
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more on powdercoating |
Chris,
Yes, that is it. The bolt knocks of the inside coating of the hole and then
starts to breed corrosion. Sure would like to come up with something
flexible that would protect that metal.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
> Ted, I would say if you used the powder sold by Eastwood, which is a good
,
> general purpose, polyurethane based powder, it would be tough enough. I
> infer that you mean the paint scraped by a bolt turning in it hole while
> almost tight?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net>
> To:
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more on powdercoating
>
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > Will powder coating solve the problem of bolts knocking off the coating
on
> > bolt holes in metal fittings and then rusting? A big problem down here
in
> > Florida.
> >
> > Ted
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building efficiently |
(if it isn't spam),
"see
the administrator of that system for details.
Content preview": Thanks.Jim.for.saving.me.some.bucks.I.was.hoping.they.could.save.time.with.the.other.parts.as.well.Greg.Menoche.Thanks.Jim.for.saving.me.some.bucks.I.was.hoping.they.could.save.time.wi
Thanks Jim for saving me some bucks. I was hoping they could save time with
the other parts as well.
Greg Menoche
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Canadian myths |
Oh No! Who told him about the hides?
Wasn't me Dave! Honest!
Clif
>
> Dave wrote-
>
> >Here in Canada all we need is a spotlight and a whistle.>
> I guess the next thing you'll start with is that you're going to tan some
> beaver hides to make the leather for the coaming around your cockpits, eh?
>
> Holiday greetings to our flying friends up north!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | building efficiently |
Hello, Pieters;
Before I add my two cents to the building discussion, my thanks to those who
responded on the Ft. Lauderdale help. I've got a room booked and will be in
sunny Florida this Sunday afternoon.
As far as building, I had sets of building plans, magazines, articles,
details, books, catalogs, and ideas in my stash of airplane stuff from the
time I actively started flying in 1970-71 until I actually first cut wood on
my first project in 1998 (my little "Flying Squirrel"). What a fool I was!
I thought I had to have thousands of dollars, a hangar, complete set of shop
tools, complete set of building skills, good lighting, an engine, and
unlimited time in order to build an airplane. After I finally quit waiting
for perfect conditions and just jumped into it, I found out that you can
start someplace -anyplace- and build a part at a time or an assembly at a
time. You can learn skills as you go. You can acquire or borrow tools as
needed. You can grow into spaces as you need them. But that first whiff of
wood through the table saw or planer (or that first fiberglass layup) will
change your life forever, if you're destined to be a homebuilder. I greatly
regret having wasted all those years sitting in my reading chair all those
evenings, looking at drawings and building tips and details and catalogs...
instead of just going ahead and doing it!
There is no schedule you have to follow. There is no cost of admission.
There are no prerequisites... except a love of airplanes and a desire to
fly.
Don't wait... don't wait... get started-!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Dont worry if your Inbox will max out while you are enjoying the holidays.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hi, does anyone have plans for a primary glider from the 50's or 60's ?
Thanks,
Howdy
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Hannan" <isp.inc(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: primary glider |
I think the 1931 Flying and Glider Manual has it available from www.eaa.org
or I think my mom's site has it www.hrunway.com
Ken
----- Original Message -----
From: <VAHOWDY(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: primary glider
>
> Hi, does anyone have plans for a primary glider from the 50's or 60's
?
> Thanks,
> Howdy
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Green" <mmml(at)bigpond.com> |
Hi All,
I've finally finnished off the tail feathers and I'm about to start on the fuselage.
I was just wondering if the spruce wedges that are to be fitted at the side
bay struts are only in the cockpit area or the entire length of the fuse?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
Australia
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Mike,
The wedges are only shown in the position of the undercarriage mounting
points. You can fit them only there or all over if you wish.
Cheers
Peter.
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://cpc-world.cable.nu
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
Green
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges
Hi All,
I've finally finnished off the tail feathers and I'm about to start on the
fuselage. I was just wondering if the spruce wedges that are to be fitted at
the side bay struts are only in the cockpit area or the entire length of the
fuse?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
Australia
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Budgell" <wbudgell8965(at)rogers.com> |
Hi: All
Could some one tell me how you attach the rear seatbelt to the fuselage?. My fusel
age is built and the tail is completed and all ribs and center section is
completed at this time. So it wold be nice if I could get some feed back thank
for your time. My pietenpol is the short fuselage and thinking of a Model A or
Corvair.
Regards: Bill Budgell
Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Changing rear seat-back angle |
Am building a cockpit mockup and have read in the archives were serveral
people have changed the seat-back angle to 10-15 degrees. I assume when you have
done that you changed the angle of the fuselage strut/brace the set-back glues
to? (Number 7 on the 33 fuselage plans).
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "catdesign(at)intergate.com" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
I change the angled of my seat but I don't know by how much. This is what I
did, I measured out the spacing per the plans then I moved the top of the brace
(the edge facing to the front) behind the measurement mark and then the bottom
(the edge facing to the back)in front of the measurement mark. Don't know how
much of an angle change it was but it feels good to me. Also, notice the head
rest is shown attached behind the top seat brace/fuselage cross brace. I am
6'1" and when I sat in the seat I could feel the top of the seat across my
back. It was not comfortable to me. So I installed the headrest on the front
of the brace and angled it back in line with the seat. Much more comfortable
for me. The only problem I see with this is if you want to put padding all
around the cockpit the padding will now stick out behind your neck or back and
might be a problem. I'm not going to go all the way around with mine so it's
not a problem with me.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
Quoting At7000ft(at)aol.com:
>
> Am building a cockpit mockup and have read in the archives were serveral
> people have changed the seat-back angle to 10-15 degrees. I assume when you
> have
> done that you changed the angle of the fuselage strut/brace the set-back
> glues
> to? (Number 7 on the 33 fuselage plans).
>
> Rick Holland
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Green" <mmml(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spruce Wedges |
Peter,
Thanks. I should have seen that shouldn't I.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges
>
> Mike,
>
> The wedges are only shown in the position of the undercarriage mounting
> points. You can fit them only there or all over if you wish.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter.
> Wonthaggi, Australia
> http://cpc-world.cable.nu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
> Green
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spruce Wedges
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've finally finnished off the tail feathers and I'm about to start on the
> fuselage. I was just wondering if the spruce wedges that are to be fitted
at
> the side bay struts are only in the cockpit area or the entire length of
the
> fuse?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Mike Green
> Romsey,
> Victoria,
> Australia
>
>
> advertising on the Matronics Forums.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
Thanks Chris
I will try it on the mockup. Other small modifications in the rear seat area I
am looking at to accomidate us taller people (I am 6') is raising the rear turtle
deck an inch or two (as Mike Cuy mentioned on his video), and lowering the
seat an inch or two as John Dilatush did.
Rick Holland
>
> I change the angled of my seat but I don't know by how much. This is what I
> did, I measured out the spacing per the plans then I moved the top of the brace
> (the edge facing to the front) behind the measurement mark and then the bottom
> (the edge facing to the back)in front of the measurement mark. Don't know how
> much of an angle change it was but it feels good to me. Also, notice the head
> rest is shown attached behind the top seat brace/fuselage
> cross brace. I am
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christopher Smith" <fly1m1(at)comcast.net> |
I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about
choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1.
I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that
include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings?
Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price
difference of about $300. What are the main
differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those
prices?
Thanks for all the help,
Christopher W. E. Smith
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | "Bill Budgell" <wbudgell8965(at)rogers.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help me decide |
Hi: Chris
I cant help you on all your requests but can on some things. The best wood I
have seen and used is from wicks aircraft or western aircraft in Canada. As
far as the difference between pietenpol and GN1 I can only say about the
pietenpol is truly a very nice plane to fly I have 450hrs in a pietenpol
with 65 cont and enjoyed every bit of it even in the snow on skies. And now
I'm building my own.
Bill Budgell
----- Original Message -----
From: Christopher Smith <fly1m1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
>
> I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about
> choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1.
> I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that
> include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings?
> Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price
> difference of about $300. What are the main
> differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those
> prices?
> Thanks for all the help,
> Christopher W. E. Smith
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Help me decide |
yes the price includes plans for the wing. You may use clipped J-3 wings if
you choose but there are no plans for that particular conversion (that I
know of)
I bought my wood kit from AS&S and I too saw the price difference between
the GN1 kit and the Piet. I'm not exactly sure why there is a difference
other than the GN-1 requires a few more board feet?? not really sure.
The AS&S kit is not complete. You can plan on spending about another $300
or so on more wood that for some reason they left out. I contacted them
about it 2 years ago but as of now they still have not corrected the missing
pieces. I don't recall off hand exactly which pieces they are but I think
they were pieces used in the tail section and the wing rib cap strips.
You will also need to get some plywood as this is not included in the kit. I
used BS1088 Okoume marine ply used for making canoes. I got it here:
http://www.noahsmarine.com/United_States/Plywoods-us/plywoods-us.html
I got all my 1/4" and 1/8" from there and the bill was like $220 shipped to
my door.
It's about 500% cheaper than real MS aircraft ply and the quality is damn
near as good. In fact, it's got a Lloyd's approval#.
In all honesty I would highly suggest getting your Spruce from Wick's.
I've had it with AS&S. They have finally done it for me by "losing" my
refund for a defective CHT gauge I returned many many weeks ago. There's a
list of ways they have done me wrong but that was the straw that broke the
camels back for me.
anyways... don't mean to ramble on about AS&S.. use them if you like. There
quality of wood is excellent. If you go with AS&S be prepared to wait about
8-10 weeks to get your wood. Wicks wood will get to you MUCH MUCH quicker.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <fly1m1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
>
> I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about
> choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1.
> I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that
> include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings?
> Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price
> difference of about $300. What are the main
> differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those
> prices?
> Thanks for all the help,
> Christopher W. E. Smith
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
If you're not already, put everything together with screws
so you can move those braces around. I have angled mine
back a bit but don't have your problem at 5'8". After sitting
in it and playing with a false stick and rudder bar wearing
the heaviest clothing I would fly with it became apparent
that my right elbow was having awkward meetings with the
slanted brace on that side so I widened the cockpit to 24"
at the seat back. Much better. Since I felt it would be a
little stressfull on the structure to go straight back to this
point then bend the sides in I made it 25" to the front seat
back then tapered it from there making sure it was 24" at
the rear seat back. Then I began fiddling with those fancy
throttle quads of mine and moved them nine times to get the
right feel for me. If your going to lower the seat make sure
that the elevator cables are accounted for. I think my top one
will pass the seat/back junction just barely at the top surface
of the seat at that point. I suppose it could be a little higher,
after all, there is some space between the buns, Zzzz, Zzzz.
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle
>
> Thanks Chris
>
> I will try it on the mockup. Other small modifications in the rear seat
area I am looking at to accomidate us taller people (I am 6') is raising the
rear turtle deck an inch or two (as Mike Cuy mentioned on his video), and
lowering the seat an inch or two as John Dilatush did.
>
> Rick Holland
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | piet(at)pointdx.com |
Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well go for
shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
extend the wings just a bit.
Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
-Mike B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Help me decide |
Hi Chris and other Piet-ers,
For those that are wishing to start a GN 1, I have a partal built for sale. You
can call me at 302 462 5251 (c). I don't want to waste list time. I personally
wanted to build a Piet. I have come by this one and need to sell.
Thanks,
Greg Menoche Delaware
"Bill Budgell" wrote:
>
>Hi: Chris
>
>I cant help you on all your requests but can on some things. The best wood I
>have seen and used is from wicks aircraft or western aircraft in Canada. As
>far as the difference between pietenpol and GN1 I can only say about the
>pietenpol is truly a very nice plane to fly I have 450hrs in a pietenpol
>with 65 cont and enjoyed every bit of it even in the snow on skies. And now
>I'm building my own.
>
> Bill Budgell
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Christopher Smith <fly1m1(at)comcast.net>
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
>
>
>
>>
>> I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about
>> choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1.
>> I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that
>> include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings?
>> Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price
>> difference of about $300. What are the main
>> differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those
>> prices?
>> Thanks for all the help,
>> Christopher W. E. Smith
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
The biggest reason I would move the seat back is to get my eyes a little
farther away from the instrument panel. Maybe I am getting far sighted in my
old age.
Ken Conrad in cool Iowa.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger & Kathy Green <rgreen(at)libby.org> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol List/Matronics Contributions |
Oscar,
I see you made it on the Matronics contributors list, just barely, that
is! The very bottom of the list - but you are TOPs with us! Thanks for
being around.
Random ROG
Libby, Montana
First rib in the jig.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/6/03 2:16:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, piet(at)pointdx.com
writes:
> Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
> wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
go
> for
> shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
> extend the wings just a bit.
>
> Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
>
> -Mike B.
I have and idea you might try.
If you have access to an RC Flight Simulator, like RealFlight G2, one you
can make changes to the aircraft with, you could do just that. Lengthen the
wings, change the cord, reposition the tail surfaces, as well as enlarge or
change the shape of the tail surfaces. Then you can fly these changes to see how
they fly.
I think FMS is another Simulator, one that already has a Pietenpol data file
for it.
The structural changes you'd have to take on yourself however. Changing one
thing at a time would be the best thing to do.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike B." <piet(at)pointdx.com> |
Hmm. X-Plane has a piet available too, I think. Good idea. Might take a
while, but I'll certainly report my results if I do so.
Dmott9(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/6/03 2:16:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, piet(at)pointdx.com
> writes:
>
>
>>Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
>> wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
>
> go
>
>>for
>> shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
>> extend the wings just a bit.
>>
>> Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
>>
>> -Mike B.
>
>
> I have and idea you might try.
>
> If you have access to an RC Flight Simulator, like RealFlight G2, one you
> can make changes to the aircraft with, you could do just that. Lengthen the
> wings, change the cord, reposition the tail surfaces, as well as enlarge or
> change the shape of the tail surfaces. Then you can fly these changes to see
how
> they fly.
> I think FMS is another Simulator, one that already has a Pietenpol data file
> for it.
>
> The structural changes you'd have to take on yourself however. Changing one
> thing at a time would be the best thing to do.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/6/03 1:16:32 PM Central Standard Time, piet(at)pointdx.com
writes:
<< Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well go
for
shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
extend the wings just a bit.
Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces? >>
Mike,
Anytime you change anything on an airplane, it has a ripple effect.
ESPECIALLY, something like the wing !! The required engineering involved would
be in
depth. The Pietenpol is a well proven design, and if you change the wingspan,
you change stress points, the size of the empenage, trim drag, inertia
effects, component size, bending moments, and a host of other things. Don't change
the wing !! Build it to the proven plans. You will live much longer !!
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
Pietenpols Forever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Walt E. - ya got your skis mounted ? I see the North East got their
first big snow storm.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
Chuck,
Yeah, we're getting wholloped way too early.
Had built skis for a U/L years ago, they're a real kick to fly on. New
things to learn too. Like think ahead when it comes to taxiing in to stop
before the next ride. If a plane with conventional gear has skis, you
CAN'T pick up the tail and walk it around. It will twist the gear off.
Also getting started by working the rudder from side to break the skis loose
from the snow.
They are fairly easy to make. Pull a wheel off and slide on a ski!
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ski
>
> Hey Walt E. - ya got your skis mounted ? I see the North East got their
> first big snow storm.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Changing wingspan |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Mike,
Bill Rewey made his center section 3-feet wide instead of 2-feet. His
wing panels are built as to plans. This gives him 1-foot more wingspan
than standard. He made no other changes because of the increased
wingspan. I am building my wings the same way. His plane has a Cont.
A-65 and has been flying for several years and has hundreds of hours
logged with passengers (many of them Young Eagles.) Bill weighs close to
200# and has flown passengers in the 235# range (on warm days!) Bill
does not have e-mail, but if you contact me at rhartwig11(at)juno.com I can
put you in touch with him. Bill is well known for his Pietenpol forums
at AirVenture and Sun n' Fun.
Dick Hartwig
Original message
Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with
varying
wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
go for
shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore
maybe
extend the wings just a bit.
Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
-Mike B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Mike,
Bill Rewey made his center section 3-feet wide instead of 2-feet. His
wing panels are built as to plans. This gives him 1-foot more wingspan
than standard. He made no other changes because of the increased
wingspan. I am building my wings the same way. His plane has a Cont.
A-65 and has been flying for several years and has hundreds of hours
logged with passengers (many of them Young Eagles.) Bill weighs close to
200# and has flown passengers in the 235# range (on warm days!) Bill
does not have e-mail, but if you contact me at rhartwig11(at)juno.com I can
put you in touch with him. Bill is well known for his Pietenpol forums
at AirVenture and Sun n' Fun.
Dick Hartwig
Original message
Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with
varying
wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
go for
shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore
maybe
extend the wings just a bit.
Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
-Mike B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
My back headrest is 3" taller and my seat is as low as I could go and still
have room for the cables to fit under it. I also cut the knee holes in the
front seat back higher (like mike). Instrument boards are 11" high.
Chris T.
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: <At7000ft(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing rear seat-back angle
>
> Thanks Chris
>
> I will try it on the mockup. Other small modifications in the rear seat
area I am looking at to accomidate us taller people (I am 6') is raising the
rear turtle deck an inch or two (as Mike Cuy mentioned on his video), and
lowering the seat an inch or two as John Dilatush did.
>
> Rick Holland
>
> >
> > I change the angled of my seat but I don't know by how much. This is
what I
> > did, I measured out the spacing per the plans then I moved the top of
the brace
> > (the edge facing to the front) behind the measurement mark and then the
bottom
> > (the edge facing to the back)in front of the measurement mark. Don't
know how
> > much of an angle change it was but it feels good to me. Also, notice
the head
> > rest is shown attached behind the top seat brace/fuselage
> > cross brace. I am
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
You can find an article about Mark Anderson's Pietenpol here,
http://members.aol.com/bpabpa7315/mark.html. It says his wing are 2 feet
longer.
Chris T.
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: <piet(at)pointdx.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wingspan
>
> Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with
varying
> wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
go for
> shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore
maybe
> extend the wings just a bit.
>
> Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
>
> -Mike B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
There's someone over on the west coast of Florida who stretched the wings on
his Piet. Can't remember his name and I can't find my notes right now but I
sat in his plane at SNF 2003. It was stretched 4 feet (not sure if that was
total, or per side) and the plane has been modified to look a bit like a
Curtiss Jenny. Said it flew just like a Pietenpol... not sure the reason for
the change though.
-Mike
> << Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with
varying
> wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
go
> for
> shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore
maybe
> extend the wings just a bit.
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 12/7/03 5:26:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,
catdesign(at)intergate.com writes:
> You can find an article about Mark Anderson's Pietenpol here,
> http://members.aol.com/bpabpa7315/mark.html. It says his wing are 2 feet
> longer.
>
> Chris T.
> Sacramento, CA
That URL is actually http://users.aol.com/bpabpa7315
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
"chilton" ,
"Flitzer"
| Subject: | A good trivia question |
We have all heard of Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. Is Wright Field named after
both of the Wright Brothers or is it named for only one and, if so, which one
of the Wright Brothers is Wright Field named after?
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: A good trivia question |
http://www.ascho.wpafb.af.mil/wpinfo/wrightfieldlegacy.htm
This should help.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net>
; "Flitzer"
Subject: Pietenpol-List: A good trivia question
>
> We have all heard of Wright Field in Dayton, Ohio. Is Wright Field named
after both of the Wright Brothers or is it named for only one and, if so,
which one of the Wright Brothers is Wright Field named after?
>
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Wright Field |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Chris,
Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
So, what is the correct answer?
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed Grentzer" <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
There was a fellow on this list from South Africa who used to fly a piet
with the wings extended quite abit because of an extra wide center section (
six feet if I remember right). He came to the list trying to figure out why
the tail would stall before the wing making landing a very exciting manuver.
He finally ended up crashing it. I believe he wasn't hurt too bad but we
haven't heard from him since. And remember....when you tilt the seat back
back you are moving the C/G of the pilots head and shoulders aft, something
we need to be careful of. Bernie did all of the calculations and
experimentation for us so that every thing works together....When you change
something it almost always affects something else. And besides...it's so
much faster and easier to follow the plans. Ed G. in chilly Florida
>From: piet(at)pointdx.com
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wingspan
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 14:14:19 -0500
>
>
>Does anyone have any experience/knowledge about building Piets with varying
>wingspans? Seems to me that if one isn't going for speed, one may as well
>go for
>shorter takeoff rolls(?), shallower glide path(?), etc, and therefore maybe
>extend the wings just a bit.
>
>Would this require any changes to the tail surfaces?
>
>-Mike B.
>
>
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home.
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | At7000ft(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing rear seat-back angle |
Thanks Clif
Great idea to use screws on the mockup. So you increased the width of the
front end of your fuselage 1" so you could keep the outside width at the rear
seatback 24" correct? Has anyone tried tried keeping the 24" outside width back
to the rear seatback and bending the longerons a little more back to the tail?
Rick Holland
If you're not already, put everything together with screws
so you can move those braces around. I have angled mine
back a bit but don't have your problem at 5'8". After sitting
in it and playing with a false stick and rudder bar wearing
the heaviest clothing I would fly with it became apparent
that my right elbow was having awkward meetings with the
slanted brace on that side so I widened the cockpit to 24"
at the seat back.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Naming of Mitchel Field |
Dick,
Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
after?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
I think Bill Rewey's wing is a foot or three longer than plans. (he's got
a wider center section from what I recall) I wouldn't think there would
be anything wrong with adding a foot or three to a Piet wing. It would
still be shorter than a Cub or Champ wing and would give you more lift for
those fat people who want to fly. I know for a fact that I can carry way
heavier people with more wing in a Champ or Cub than I can with that short
29 foot Pietenpol wing. I say go for it.
Mike C. who has no aeronautical engineering bones in his body, but my gut
says why not--add some wing if you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
I think it was named after Mitchel Pietenpol, Bernard's illegitimate son.
He was a great aviator but it gets REAL quiet when they bring the subject up around
Cherry Grove.....
(Hey, if we can get "off topic"....I can get silly.....)
-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Bobka <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
Dick,
Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
after?
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
> Chris,
> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for Wright
> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> So, what is the correct answer?
> Dick Hartwig
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
It sounds like the tail surfaces on the Piet are on the small side to
begin with, though, so I would wonder by what factor you would want to
enlarge them as well? I figured I would enlarge my vertical fin when I
build, because it seems most people find that the plane tends to hunt
quite a bit in even light turbulence. While I believe BHP did quite a
bit of engineering to arrive at the good airplane the Piet is, I also
think that a lot of it was pure guesswork and trial-and-error on his
part. I for one am also considering the prospect of a marginally longer
wing, if there isn't too much trickle-down compensation to be done. I
guess it's time to hit the aeronautical design manuals for me...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov Monday, December 08, 2003 1:14:19 PM
>>>
I think Bill Rewey's wing is a foot or three longer than plans. (he's
got
a wider center section from what I recall) I wouldn't think there
would
be anything wrong with adding a foot or three to a Piet wing. It would
still be shorter than a Cub or Champ wing and would give you more lift
for
those fat people who want to fly. I know for a fact that I can carry
way
heavier people with more wing in a Champ or Cub than I can with that
short
29 foot Pietenpol wing. I say go for it.
Mike C. who has no aeronautical engineering bones in his body, but my
gut
says why not--add some wing if you want.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
| From: | Fred Weaver <mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
ATTA WAY JIM!! hahahahhahha.... I loved it.....
Weav
On Monday, December 8, 2003, at 10:33 AM, Jim Markle wrote:
>
>
> I think it was named after Mitchel Pietenpol, Bernard's illegitimate
> son.
>
> He was a great aviator but it gets REAL quiet when they bring the
> subject up around Cherry Grove.....
>
> (Hey, if we can get "off topic"....I can get silly.....)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christian Bobka <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
>
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
>>
>> Chris,
>> Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but
>> it
>> may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
>> confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
>> adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
>> Wright
>> Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then
>> the
>> whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
>> It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
>> AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the
>> above,
>> where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
>> Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
>> So, what is the correct answer?
>> Dick Hartwig
>>
>>
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> _-
> =======================================================================
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | while we're off the subject..... |
Has anyone ever seen a photo of either of the Wright brothers with a smile
on thier faces ????
My point is that neither of them ever married, they tinkered their whole
lives making a decent living and
travelling the world without being hen pecked or pushed around by some
whining woman and you never
see a smile on their faces. I don't get it.
Oh yeah, and how did Punksatawny Phil get his name ?
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hubbard, Eugene" <ehubbard(at)titan.com> |
DJ,
I did not find the quality of the AS&S wood to be excellent--there were too
many capstrips that I couldn't use because of the grain angle. I'm not
talking about boarderline 1:12 here--more like 1:4. I was much happier with
Wicks' wood, and had it shipped across country for spars and longerons.
OTHO, I've found their service pretty good for everything else (except that
they always seem to have tubing backordered.
Gene
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Vegh [mailto:djv(at)imagedv.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
yes the price includes plans for the wing. You may use clipped J-3 wings if
you choose but there are no plans for that particular conversion (that I
know of)
I bought my wood kit from AS&S and I too saw the price difference between
the GN1 kit and the Piet. I'm not exactly sure why there is a difference
other than the GN-1 requires a few more board feet?? not really sure.
The AS&S kit is not complete. You can plan on spending about another $300
or so on more wood that for some reason they left out. I contacted them
about it 2 years ago but as of now they still have not corrected the missing
pieces. I don't recall off hand exactly which pieces they are but I think
they were pieces used in the tail section and the wing rib cap strips.
You will also need to get some plywood as this is not included in the kit. I
used BS1088 Okoume marine ply used for making canoes. I got it here:
http://www.noahsmarine.com/United_States/Plywoods-us/plywoods-us.html
I got all my 1/4" and 1/8" from there and the bill was like $220 shipped to
my door.
It's about 500% cheaper than real MS aircraft ply and the quality is damn
near as good. In fact, it's got a Lloyd's approval#.
In all honesty I would highly suggest getting your Spruce from Wick's.
I've had it with AS&S. They have finally done it for me by "losing" my
refund for a defective CHT gauge I returned many many weeks ago. There's a
list of ways they have done me wrong but that was the straw that broke the
camels back for me.
anyways... don't mean to ramble on about AS&S.. use them if you like. There
quality of wood is excellent. If you go with AS&S be prepared to wait about
8-10 weeks to get your wood. Wicks wood will get to you MUCH MUCH quicker.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Smith" <fly1m1(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Help me decide
>
> I am new to the list and am looking for as much info as possible about
> choosing between the Pietenpol and the GN-1.
> I have noticed that the plans for the GN-1 are only $50. Does that
> include the wing or do you have to use J-3 wings?
> Also, a look at the wood kits for the Piet & GN-1 in AS&S has a price
> difference of about $300. What are the main
> differences in the in the two designs that are reflected in those
> prices?
> Thanks for all the help,
> Christopher W. E. Smith
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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> |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
Used to hear it called Billy Mitchel field, and think it was the one that
the first blind flight was made from by Jimmy Dolittle.
(My Dad worked at the place that made the instruments, in NJ)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: while we're off the subject..... |
Mike,
Well, at least you're not jumping around.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: while we're off the subject.....
>
> Has anyone ever seen a photo of either of the Wright brothers with a smile
> on thier faces ????
> My point is that neither of them ever married, they tinkered their whole
> lives making a decent living and
> travelling the world without being hen pecked or pushed around by some
> whining woman and you never
> see a smile on their faces. I don't get it.
>
> Oh yeah, and how did Punksatawny Phil get his name ?
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
OOPS forgot. He was a WWl ACE, I think.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | "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: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Naming of Mitchel Field |
Billy Mitchell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Naming of Mitchel Field
>
> Dick,
>
> Here is another one for you. How is Mitchel Field on Long Island named
> after?
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
> To:
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Naming of Wright Field
>
>
> >
> > Chris,
> > Cliff's source says that the field was named after the brothers, but it
> > may be a little more involved than that. The history is a little
> > confusing to me. One source says--First there was McCook Field, next,
> > adjacent to it was Wilbur Wright Field. Then land was donated for
Wright
> > Field. Then Wilbur Wright Field was renamed Patterson Field. Then the
> > whole works became Wright-Patterson AFB.
> > It seems that 2 fields with a total of three names became the
> > AFB.......then there is the story of the field that predated the above,
> > where the brothers did their testing after the first flight--Huffman
> > Prairie Flying Field which also is on W-P AFB.
> > So, what is the correct answer?
> > Dick Hartwig
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Gene, aren't you getting a little tired of sending the same old email?
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hubbard,
Eugene
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Good Fuselage??
Eric,
November 24, 2003 - December 08, 2003
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dn