Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dr
January 25, 2004 - February 06, 2004
> Jim Markle wrote:
>
>
> Clif Dawson and I are going to the Boeing Museum (I know it's not
> called that but that's where it is and I don't remember the correct
> name and I'm too lazy right now to investigate) next Sunday, Feb 1.
> One of the Concords is there along with the rest of the really cool
> stuff they already have.....excellent aviation museum.
>
> So this is an inviation for anyone in the area so inclined.....to join
> us......
>
> I arrive at SEATAC around 10:45 and will go directly to the museum to
> meet Clif......
>
> Jim in Plano
________________________________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
>............. Does anyone have the C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any
other plane that has an undercambered
> airfoil ?
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG >>
In a message dated 1/25/04 4:08:15 PM Central Standard Time,
phil.humphrey(at)btopenworld.com writes:
<< Hi,
There was a UK homebuilt with a 16% thick gottingen 535 wing section -
heavily undercambered - it's CofG range was 25% - 35% and it needed a
tailplane incidence of +3 degrees. Didn't go very fast!
Phil Humphrey
Thanks Phil !!
That supports my suspicion as to the reason the Pietenpol has an aft C.G.
limit so far back. Bernard Harold Pietenpol called out one third, or 33
1/3% = 20" behind the leading edge, for the aft C.G. limit on the Pietenpol
Airfoil.
Should someone Change the shape of the Airfoil, say flattening out the
bottom of the ribs, and maintain the Pietenpol C.G. range, the aft range will be
VERY DANGEROUS. This is another reason to build the ribs to the plans.
The Pietenpol plans call out to build the horizontal stab with zero
incidence (paralell to the longerons). The wing, however, has 2 of positive
incidence, by making the forward cabane struts one inch longer than the aft ones.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | corvair conversion cost |
Anyone out there willing to share what money they have into their corvair conversion?
Just trying to get a rough idea so I can channel my limetted building
funds appropriately.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
Deon,
I'm going to try the picture thing. This is my first try with this new
fangled digital camera, so let me know if it turns out.
As Max pointed out, the outside perimiter of all the ribs must be
identical. From the looks of your rib jig, it doesn't appear you have these supports
installed yet. Make sure the capstrips contact these blocks, with some type
of blocking from the opposite side. Max used a cam lobe, which is the method
I used when I built the ribs for my Tailwind, and it works really well. It
compensates for variations in the thickness (1/4") of the capstrips. The other
dimension that you have to pay particular attention to, is the dimension
between the spars. The plans call out 27 3/4" between the spars. If you cut a
piece of scrap wood to the dimensions of the spars, (1" X 4 3/4") then install
these blocks where the spars go. Make these blocks about 5/8" or 3/4" long, so
they stick up higher than the capstrips, and you can install the gussets up
against it, and maintain identical placements of the gussets. An actual piece
of the spar itself would be even better, if you already have the spars, and
you can afford to cut a couple of pieces off the end of the spar. Just make
sure your spars are long enough, beforehand.
I think the gussets you have marked out on your paper, between the spars,
could be just a little bit longer. I made mine 1 3/4" X 1". I see you
haven't yet drawn in the one on the top.
A small problem I had when I was building my ribs, was that the 1/2"
dimension varied in the capstrips, and some of the upright sticks wasn't quite
flush with the top & bottom cap strips, where the gussets go. I made small
sanding blocks, with sticky back 100 grit sand paper, and plane down the area where
the gussets go, so it was flush. Be sure to remove all dust, before you glue
the gussets on with T88 adhesive. You could use wax paper, or some type of
package tape on the places you don't want the adhesive to stick.
After the adhesive has thoroughly cured, and you carefully pop the rib
out of the jig, flip it over to install the gussets on the other side. Rough up
the area a little bit because it will be as smooth as the non stick surface,
where the epoxy runs down. Install new pieces in the jig, so you can use the
same batch of adhesive for both opporations. You'll eventually figure out how
big a batch you need. Don't use wax coated cups to mix epoxy. When you
have extra epoxy left over, make a destructive test piece, with scraps.
I numbered (with a pencil, where there wasn't going to be any adhesive),
and cut all the cap strip lengths, and gussets, after I built my second rib.
It's a slow process to complete a ship set of ribs, but it is an enjoyable
opporation. A rib a day.
It's a good idea to build two extra ribs, one for destructive tests, and
one to proudly hang on your wall !! This also gives you the opportunity to
select the best ones for the wing.
When you're all done with the ribs, you've earned the right to do the
dance called the 'Rib Jig' !!!
Chuck Gantzer
Wichita KS
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
If anybody is interested, we started covering last weekend....
I posted a few new pictures to my website\
Bert
http://bconoly.tripod.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
Howdy all from Texas.
Finally got a chance to work some more this weekend on the Piet. Also, added
a few pics to the link below to fill in the progress made in the past few
months.... slow but sure.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=188
Im not sure why, but all the pics have a blue hue to them. Makes us look
like smurfs. Anysay, notice the spring gear re-build job done by my partner Lon
Carr back in October. We are now very happy with a straight and true gear.
The detail design of this gear is part Piet and part Hatz CB1.
Today, I finally swallowed hard and got out that mean old fly-cutter and
bored all the instrument holes in the rear panel. Had to do it on the ship since
it was already permanently glued and nailed in place by the previous builder.
Man that fly-cutter worked GREAT. Keys to a good job...
1) start with a sharp cutter tool.
2) keep a firm grip (used 14V Dewalt cordless drill)
3) keep a square alignment to the workpiece
4) don't cut slow...go ahead and cut fast enough to mell the smoke.
5) use a backing board (clamped) to prevent the farside last ply from tearing
away.
6) Be safe.
Use a removed front bezel from an old instrument as a drill guide for perfect
alignment.
Had a great weekend teaching my 9 yr-old stepson some sheet metal fabrication
techniques. We built some channel stiffeners to bridge between the rear
instrument and the front pit headrest. Also the ones forward of the front
instrument panel. Added #8 nut plates for anchoring the cockpit cowlings.
See also the attached pic. Those instruments really add some life. Since
the original panel has some old stains from nails we have purchased some
sticky-back wood veneer, which we will use to finish out the panel. Its getting
closer...just slow.
All the best.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
What's that instrument right above the tach... the audio engine failure detection
device? hehehe
BTW, blue/yellow hues in digital photos are usually caused by having your camera
set for the wrong kind of lighting... ie, if it's set for flourescent when you're
really under incandescent light, or set for sunlight when you're indoors...
check that and see if it helps.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: [piet] Pietenpol-List: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet
Howdy all from Texas.
Finally got a chance to work some more this weekend on the Piet. Also, added
a few pics to the link below to fill in the progress made in the past few months....
slow but sure.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID188
Im not sure why, but all the pics have a blue hue to them. Makes us look like
smurfs. Anysay, notice the spring gear re-build job done by my partner Lon
Carr back in October. We are now very happy with a straight and true gear. The
detail design of this gear is part Piet and part Hatz CB1.
Today, I finally swallowed hard and got out that mean old fly-cutter and bored
all the instrument holes in the rear panel. Had to do it on the ship since
it was already permanently glued and nailed in place by the previous builder.
Man that fly-cutter worked GREAT. Keys to a good job...
1) start with a sharp cutter tool.
2) keep a firm grip (used 14V Dewalt cordless drill)
3) keep a square alignment to the workpiece
4) don't cut slow...go ahead and cut fast enough to mell the smoke.
5) use a backing board (clamped) to prevent the farside last ply from tearing
away.
6) Be safe.
Use a removed front bezel from an old instrument as a drill guide for perfect
alignment.
Had a great weekend teaching my 9 yr-old stepson some sheet metal fabrication
techniques. We built some channel stiffeners to bridge between the rear instrument
and the front pit headrest. Also the ones forward of the front instrument
panel. Added #8 nut plates for anchoring the cockpit cowlings.
See also the attached pic. Those instruments really add some life. Since the
original panel has some old stains from nails we have purchased some sticky-back
wood veneer, which we will use to finish out the panel. Its getting closer...just
slow.
All the best.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
The blue hue only shows up in the pics I uploaded to the "mykitplanes.com"
site. They don't have that blue overtone when I view them on my picture viewer
here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
That was Hannah's ear. She and her twin sister (age 5) helped me all day
today and their brother Travis too. Its great having so much interest from the
kids. Travis literally put in about 7 hours yesterday and about 4 hours after
church today.
Travis can use the sheet metal shear, the brake, the center punch, the
marking dividers, the rivet cutter, the tin snips, and the air drill. Yesterday
he
helped me make 3 six inch channel supports (for behind the rear panel). So
today, I showed him that we needed 3 more just the same, except seven inches
long (behind the front panel). He had them sheared, centerpunched, marked, and
ready to drill before I could break loose from cutting panel holes and see his
progress.
Here's Travis and Hannah....and another pic of the the 7-inch channel
supports he made today. His papaw (my partner Lon) helped him finish them up
(install nutplates). But Travis did about 80% of the work.
Its all in the family...
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fuselage Table idea |
Most Piet builders build wood fuselages and don't have the tubing storage
problem like the Hatz guys do. But heres a great idea for a fuselage
construction table that my father-in-law (and Piet partner) designed for his Hatz
project. Built like a tressel table, it has handy storage underneath for long
tubing
(or anything else long - like wood longerons). He also made a sheet metal
tray for short stuff. The table is 16 feet long X 3 feet wide. It has a 5/8
inch plywood top. As you can see he's just getting started tacking the fuselage
together. He's having a ball. I may have lost my help on the Piet.
OK...ehough pics for one night.
Terry B. (in Texas - carried away with digital camera technology)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 1/25/2004 10:27:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, bconoly(at)earthlink.net
writes:
> If anybody is interested, we started covering last
> weekend....
Bert,
Intrerested? Nawwww...not here. Ha Those are great pics. Looks like you really went to town this weekend. I am looking forward to glueing fabric hopefully in a few weeks.
Nice website too.
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | more airfoil talk |
| From: | "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com> |
I've poked around a little on the Internet, trying to weasel some
airfoil recommendations from knowledgeable folk. Just to keep us talking
about it, give us some ideas. David Lednicer, who seems to have some
pretty nice aerodynamic bona fides and works for Analytical Methods,
Inc., thinks we should keep it simple with NACA 2412 or 4412. Proven
airfoils with well-known characteristics. Used for years in a variety of
Cessnas and other aircraft.
I haven't had a chance to find the stats for these airfoils so we can
compare them to the Pietenpol FC-10. Anyone know where to find this
information online?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Ken,
Am Interested in further airfoil talk. It has been my plan to build two sets
of wings for 311CC for a little experimentation. I don't really have anything
else to do and am hoping that I have enough time left to carry it out. I have
acquired the stations and ordinates in % of chord for the wing airfoil NACA
2412. Strange you mention that one. It's high lift and less drag than the FC-10.
Won't know for sure until Test Pilot Mr. Edwin Johnson gives me his report
sometimes in 2005. Anyway it makes good conversation on the net and educates a
few of us.
Corky in La trying to give away his almost completed 1927 Dodge Bros Station
Wagon
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
So far I'm at about $6500.
The breakdown is like this:
0 hours rebuilt 110hp 1965 Corvair engine $4000
remote oil cooler,lines, filter, AN hose fittings $600.
Tennesee Prop 48 lamination maple prop 66x29 $550
AeroCarb $400
Aluminum intake pipes/welding $350
misc hardware and other items $600
Not bad for a 0 time 6 cylinder 1800TBO 100hp engine. The rebuild consisted of
all new pistons, cam, lifters, valves, valve guides, valve springs, fuel pump,
oil pump, distributor (dual points), rings and main/rod bearings. The rebuilt
items were rods, cylinders,crankshaft, harmonic balancer, heads.
Other new items were Nissan Sentra starter and ring gear, William Wynne prop hub
& lightweight oil pan, CNC cut top cover.
Once I started assembly it took me approx 3 weeks to have the engine on the test
stand and running.
So far I have 13 hours on it.
DJ Vegh
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair conversion cost
Anyone out there willing to share what money they have into their corvair conversion?
Just trying to get a rough idea so I can channel my limetted building
funds appropriately.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
=
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: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
Tom:
I have it on good authority that starters are for sissy's !!
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Yeah, tall sissies with both arms and both legs, despite flying low-slung
airplanes like Piets.
on 1/26/04 8:36, Andimaxd(at)aol.com at Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
Tom:
I have it on good authority that starters are for sissy's !!
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
===============================
Chuck and Chris,
My research. and then after also consulting with a good friend who is an
aeronautical engineer confirmed my impression that an undercambered airfoil
is not likely to have a downward pitching moment.
As defined in the books, a negative pitching moment is a moment which forces
the leading edge of an airfoil UPWARD with increasing angles of attack not
down as you imply.
This then, doesn't appear to be the answer for the rearward CG that the
Pietenpol uses.
Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to correct a misconception of
terms.
John
====================================
> Chuck,
>
> Excellent observation. I have no data on the Navion but will look later.
> The Type Certificate Data Sheets are available on the FAA website.
>
> Chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
>
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> > bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
> >
> > << So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common
today
> and
> > a zero pitching moment airfoil.
> > >>
> >
> > The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of
negative
> > pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is somewhat
> > tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious
about,
> is why
> > Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P called
out
> 1/3
> > (33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard of
any
> other
> > plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out no
> more
> > than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not undercambered.
> > (Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is
because
> an
> > undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that it
is
> more
> > forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft C.G.
> limit of
> > planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare.
> Another
> > design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does
anyone
> have the
> > C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an
> undercambered
> > airfoil ?
> >
> > Chuck Gantzer
> > NX770CG
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
are you implying that a Corvair must have a starter?
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: corvair conversion cost
Tom:
I have it on good authority that starters are for sissy's !!
Max
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<001601c3e430$4ce2c900$0c290005@dilatush>
John,
From "Simple Aerodynamics" by Charles Monteith, April 1924, a text book used
at West Point, page 72 says,
"When an airfoil is at the angle of attack of zero lift, there is a download
on the front part of the airfoil and an up load on the rear portion, which
manifests itself as a negative or diving moment."
On the undercambered RAF-15 airfoil, the CP in % of chord plot is as
follows:
AOA CP
0 49
2 38
4 34
6 31
8 30
10 29
12 30
14 34
This is a very shallow CP plot meaning that there is small shift in the CP
with changes in AOA
As long as the CG is forward of the CP, ignoring a few other unimportant to
this discussion factors, it is obvious that the lifting forces are summed
behind the CG. This would couse the nose to go down "which manifests itself
as a negative or diving moment."
The RAF 15 displays the characteristic movement of the CP forward as the a
higher and higher AOA is achieved getting as far forward as 29% of chord at
10 degrees AOA.
In comparison, the USA-35B, which is used on the J-3 Cub, has the following
CP v AOA plot:
AOA CP in % of chord
-4 120
-3 70
-2 60
0 45
2 40
4 36
6 34
8 33
10 32
12 31
14 30
16 30.5
This is a very steep plot at the beginning meaing that as AOA decreases, the
CP moves way aft. As a matter of fact the plot I looked at shows the CP to
be 20% behind the wing trailing edge at a -4 degree AOA! That is a negative
pitching moment for you!
I partially agree with your buddy. The pitching moment appears to be less
traveled with the undercambered airfoil. But nose down is negative!
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
>
>
> ===============================
> Chuck and Chris,
>
> My research. and then after also consulting with a good friend who is an
> aeronautical engineer confirmed my impression that an undercambered
airfoil
> is not likely to have a downward pitching moment.
>
> As defined in the books, a negative pitching moment is a moment which
forces
> the leading edge of an airfoil UPWARD with increasing angles of attack not
> down as you imply.
>
> This then, doesn't appear to be the answer for the rearward CG that the
> Pietenpol uses.
>
> Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to correct a misconception of
> terms.
>
> John
> ====================================
> > Chuck,
> >
> > Excellent observation. I have no data on the Navion but will look
later.
> > The Type Certificate Data Sheets are available on the FAA website.
> >
> > Chris
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> > > bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
> > >
> > > << So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common
> today
> > and
> > > a zero pitching moment airfoil.
> > > >>
> > >
> > > The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of
> negative
> > > pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is
somewhat
> > > tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious
> about,
> > is why
> > > Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P called
> out
> > 1/3
> > > (33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard of
> any
> > other
> > > plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out no
> > more
> > > than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not
undercambered.
> > > (Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is
> because
> > an
> > > undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that
it
> is
> > more
> > > forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft
C.G.
> > limit of
> > > planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare.
> > Another
> > > design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does
> anyone
> > have the
> > > C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an
> > undercambered
> > > airfoil ?
> > >
> > > Chuck Gantzer
> > > NX770CG
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | dead soft stainless and aluminum |
Alex & group,
I think the designation for dead soft is 000, but am not positive. I made
my cooling eyebrow/baffles like Frank P. did using .025" dead soft aluminum
and the firewall from the same but in stainless. Got both from Dillsburg
Aeroplane Works, in PA. 717-432-4589.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
<001601c3e430$4ce2c900$0c290005@dilatush> <003f01c3e43d$0684a480$0101a8c0@domain>
Chris,
I just read your post about the need to add more tail volume if you extend the
engine forward. A good point, but also consider when you move the wing aft
you do two things... decrease tail moment and increase the distance ahead of the
CG. A double edged sword. Moving the engine forward is the lesser of the
two evils IMO.
DJ
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
Hi
I looked, I listened and hopefully I learned.
I took your advice in supporting the outside of the cap strips and
rebuild the jig. Here are some updated pics.
Comments?
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
Wow, looks good to me!
I found the thin clear plastic stuff that comes in rolls (sort of like clear plastic
wrap) that's sticky on one side is great for keeping the epoxy from sticking
to the jig. I think we got the stuff at the local home improvement center
and it's typically used to stick on carpet while you're remodeling. Protects
carpet very well...we used a LOT of it to cover the area under our kid's high
chair when they were in the initial "learning to eat" process. My wife has
even threatened to put it under my chair a time or two.....
I've attached a picture that will give a bit of an idea of how it works. Really
thin stuff and cheap....
One more thing...rather than having small blocks along the outside of the top and
bottom (like the two shown in your picture), I would suggest making one long
continuous piece along the top and one along the bottom. Wood won't follow
the airfoil line perfectly in between those blocks but will stay a lot closer
if it's held up against a solid curving surface. It's probably not enough to
notice in flight, but it's easy enough to keep it close....
Deon, your jig/layout is really looking good!
Jim in Plano.....
-----Original Message-----
From: Deon Engelmann <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rib jig
Hi
I looked, I listened and hopefully I learned.
I took your advice in supporting the outside of the cap strips and
rebuild the jig. Here are some updated pics.
Comments?
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
The blue hue is usually from fluorescent lights. Incandescent lights will make
the pictures a little yellow. Most people don't even notice, you must be picky
or have really good color perception. By the way why is there an ear in the
top right instrument hole? Is that the audio control?
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet
Howdy all from Texas.
Finally got a chance to work some more this weekend on the Piet. Also, added
a few pics to the link below to fill in the progress made in the past few months....
slow but sure.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID188
Im not sure why, but all the pics have a blue hue to them. Makes us look like
smurfs. Anysay, notice the spring gear re-build job done by my partner Lon
Carr back in October. We are now very happy with a straight and true gear. The
detail design of this gear is part Piet and part Hatz CB1.
Today, I finally swallowed hard and got out that mean old fly-cutter and bored
all the instrument holes in the rear panel. Had to do it on the ship since
it was already permanently glued and nailed in place by the previous builder.
Man that fly-cutter worked GREAT. Keys to a good job...
1) start with a sharp cutter tool.
2) keep a firm grip (used 14V Dewalt cordless drill)
3) keep a square alignment to the workpiece
4) don't cut slow...go ahead and cut fast enough to mell the smoke.
5) use a backing board (clamped) to prevent the farside last ply from tearing
away.
6) Be safe.
Use a removed front bezel from an old instrument as a drill guide for perfect
alignment.
Had a great weekend teaching my 9 yr-old stepson some sheet metal fabrication
techniques. We built some channel stiffeners to bridge between the rear instrument
and the front pit headrest. Also the ones forward of the front instrument
panel. Added #8 nut plates for anchoring the cockpit cowlings.
See also the attached pic. Those instruments really add some life. Since the
original panel has some old stains from nails we have purchased some sticky-back
wood veneer, which we will use to finish out the panel. Its getting closer...just
slow.
All the best.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Information on the NACA airfoils is pretty easy to get. Good luck finding anything
on BPs. That was why I suggested some wind tunnel testing by an Aero student.
You can't do a comparison if you don't have data on all the airfoils.
Best book to learn about aero theory I have found is by Abbott and Von Doenhoff.
Gets a little deep every once in a while but fun to plow through.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
I've poked around a little on the Internet, trying to weasel some airfoil recommendations
from knowledgeable folk. Just to keep us talking about it, give us
some ideas. David Lednicer, who seems to have some pretty nice aerodynamic bona
fides and works for Analytical Methods, Inc., thinks we should keep it simple
with NACA 2412 or 4412. Proven airfoils with well-known characteristics. Used
for years in a variety of Cessnas and other aircraft.
I haven't had a chance to find the stats for these airfoils so we can compare
them to the Pietenpol FC-10. Anyone know where to find this information online?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet |
Got to start looking at the whole stack of messages before I reply.
Cute kid. Can he fly yet?
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: hjarrett
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet
The blue hue is usually from fluorescent lights. Incandescent lights will make
the pictures a little yellow. Most people don't even notice, you must be picky
or have really good color perception. By the way why is there an ear in
the top right instrument hole? Is that the audio control?
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 11:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: More new pictures from 40-yr-old Piet
Howdy all from Texas.
Finally got a chance to work some more this weekend on the Piet. Also, added
a few pics to the link below to fill in the progress made in the past few months....
slow but sure.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID188
Im not sure why, but all the pics have a blue hue to them. Makes us look like
smurfs. Anysay, notice the spring gear re-build job done by my partner Lon
Carr back in October. We are now very happy with a straight and true gear.
The detail design of this gear is part Piet and part Hatz CB1.
Today, I finally swallowed hard and got out that mean old fly-cutter and bored
all the instrument holes in the rear panel. Had to do it on the ship since
it was already permanently glued and nailed in place by the previous builder.
Man that fly-cutter worked GREAT. Keys to a good job...
1) start with a sharp cutter tool.
2) keep a firm grip (used 14V Dewalt cordless drill)
3) keep a square alignment to the workpiece
4) don't cut slow...go ahead and cut fast enough to mell the smoke.
5) use a backing board (clamped) to prevent the farside last ply from tearing
away.
6) Be safe.
Use a removed front bezel from an old instrument as a drill guide for perfect
alignment.
Had a great weekend teaching my 9 yr-old stepson some sheet metal fabrication
techniques. We built some channel stiffeners to bridge between the rear instrument
and the front pit headrest. Also the ones forward of the front instrument
panel. Added #8 nut plates for anchoring the cockpit cowlings.
See also the attached pic. Those instruments really add some life. Since
the original panel has some old stains from nails we have purchased some sticky-back
wood veneer, which we will use to finish out the panel. Its getting closer...just
slow.
All the best.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
| Subject: | Front Seat Support |
List,
Does the V shaped brace serve any purpose other than supporting the back of
the front seat? For those of us with long legs that "brace" is in the way....and
the plywood too. I would like to eliminate the V shape and just install
vertical wood or metal seat back supports. A narrow seat back for the front
passenger shouldn't be any big deal....right? My knees go practically all the
way to the top of the fuse so I would like to find a way to delete the V.
Thanks,
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Greg Cardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
The seat backs act as BIG gussets to keep the fuselage square. The V-shaped brackets
brace the plywood and prevent it from buckling.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
List,
Does the V shaped brace serve any purpose other than supporting the back
of the front seat? For those of us with long legs that "brace" is in the way....and
the plywood too. I would like to eliminate the V shape and just install
vertical wood or metal seat back supports. A narrow seat back for the front
passenger shouldn't be any big deal....right? My knees go practically all the
way to the top of the fuse so I would like to find a way to delete the V.
Thanks,
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
Tom,
I have a minimum in my Corvair. I paid about $40.00 for it. I bought forged pistons,
about $350.00, had crank ground and pistons honed, about $150.00, New
rings, from Clark's, you can call them at 413-625-9776 and order their catalog
and check all their prices. New oil pump, from Clark's, Exhaust valves, valve
springs & valve seals , all from Clark's, larger oil cooler from Clark's, New
John Deere alternator and regulator, $345.00, new rod bolts, do not remember
what they were but not from Clark's, welded up the engine mount my self, and
most importantly, William Wynn's Corvair overhaul manual as well as Richard Finks
book on Corvair engines. I can not give you a total, as I have done it piecemeal
and I promise you, it is a lot less than a Lycoming or Continental.
Oh yes, bought the prop hub and puck from William Wynn. You can go to his web
link and check his prices. Bearings for the crank, about $350.00. J.C. Whitney
would have been less but I had the man who did the crank and cylinders order
them so I would be sure to get the correct size. Oh yes, a new OT-10 cam shaft
from Clark's. Ordered 6061-T6 1/8 inch piece of aluminum from Aircraft Spruce
to make the top cover for the engine. New valve rockers from Corvair underground,
I think.
You can take the Clark's catalog and price list and piece together about what you
can spend. I spent a lot less than some but probably about average for most.
Alex Sloan
Florence, Alabama.
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair conversion cost
Anyone out there willing to share what money they have into their corvair conversion?
Just trying to get a rough idea so I can channel my limetted building
funds appropriately.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
Tom,
I also had the man who ground the crank thread the crank for the safety shaft and
I bought the safety shaft from William Wynne. Was not that much and you can
check William's price on his web site.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 8:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: corvair conversion cost
Anyone out there willing to share what money they have into their corvair conversion?
Just trying to get a rough idea so I can channel my limetted building
funds appropriately.
Thanks,
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
<001601c3e430$4ce2c900$0c290005@dilatush> <003f01c3e43d$0684a480$0101a8c0@domain>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
==================================
Chris,
I am wrong and you are right!
When I checked my references I wasn't careful enough, and thought that in an
undercambered airfoil the CP was actually ahead of the AC. When I called my
friend, I evidently didn't phrase my question clearly and asked if it could
be possible that the CP on a heavily undercambered airfoil could move with
increasing angle of attack foward of the AC. I wasn't listening when he
agreed that under some circumstances this could happen, so I just jumped to
the conclusion that this was a normal pattern.
Sorry for the confusion.
John
===============================
>
> John,
>
> From "Simple Aerodynamics" by Charles Monteith, April 1924, a text book
used
> at West Point, page 72 says,
>
> "When an airfoil is at the angle of attack of zero lift, there is a
download
> on the front part of the airfoil and an up load on the rear portion, which
> manifests itself as a negative or diving moment."
>
> On the undercambered RAF-15 airfoil, the CP in % of chord plot is as
> follows:
>
> AOA CP
> 0 49
> 2 38
> 4 34
> 6 31
> 8 30
> 10 29
> 12 30
> 14 34
>
> This is a very shallow CP plot meaning that there is small shift in the CP
> with changes in AOA
>
> As long as the CG is forward of the CP, ignoring a few other unimportant
to
> this discussion factors, it is obvious that the lifting forces are summed
> behind the CG. This would couse the nose to go down "which manifests
itself
> as a negative or diving moment."
>
> The RAF 15 displays the characteristic movement of the CP forward as the a
> higher and higher AOA is achieved getting as far forward as 29% of chord
at
> 10 degrees AOA.
>
> In comparison, the USA-35B, which is used on the J-3 Cub, has the
following
> CP v AOA plot:
>
> AOA CP in % of chord
> -4 120
> -3 70
> -2 60
> 0 45
> 2 40
> 4 36
> 6 34
> 8 33
> 10 32
> 12 31
> 14 30
> 16 30.5
>
> This is a very steep plot at the beginning meaing that as AOA decreases,
the
> CP moves way aft. As a matter of fact the plot I looked at shows the CP
to
> be 20% behind the wing trailing edge at a -4 degree AOA! That is a
negative
> pitching moment for you!
>
> I partially agree with your buddy. The pitching moment appears to be less
> traveled with the undercambered airfoil. But nose down is negative!
>
> Chris
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 11:17 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 3:35 PM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
> >
> >
> >
> > ===============================
> > Chuck and Chris,
> >
> > My research. and then after also consulting with a good friend who is an
> > aeronautical engineer confirmed my impression that an undercambered
> airfoil
> > is not likely to have a downward pitching moment.
> >
> > As defined in the books, a negative pitching moment is a moment which
> forces
> > the leading edge of an airfoil UPWARD with increasing angles of attack
not
> > down as you imply.
> >
> > This then, doesn't appear to be the answer for the rearward CG that the
> > Pietenpol uses.
> >
> > Not trying to be a smart ass, just trying to correct a misconception of
> > terms.
> >
> > John
> > ====================================
> > > Chuck,
> > >
> > > Excellent observation. I have no data on the Navion but will look
> later.
> > > The Type Certificate Data Sheets are available on the FAA website.
> > >
> > > Chris
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:03 PM
> > > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Volume
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a message dated 1/24/04 11:22:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> > > > bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
> > > >
> > > > << So the piet's airfoil must fall somewhere between what is common
> > today
> > > and
> > > > a zero pitching moment airfoil.
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > The Pietenpol, as well as any undercambered airfoil, has a lot of
> > negative
> > > > pitching moment (nose down). I believe this is why the Piet is
> somewhat
> > > > tolorant of an aft C.G. That's the thing I've always been curious
> > about,
> > > is why
> > > > Pietenpols are more forgiving for an aft C.G. condition. B.H.P
called
> > out
> > > 1/3
> > > > (33.3%) of the chord, as the aft limit. I've never seen, or heard
of
> > any
> > > other
> > > > plane with the aft C.G. limit that far back. Most designs call out
no
> > > more
> > > > than 30% of the chord for the aft limit, but they are not
> undercambered.
> > > > (Tailwind calls out 28% as the aft C.G. limit). I think this is
> > because
> > > an
> > > > undercambered airfoil has such a high negative pitching moment, that
> it
> > is
> > > more
> > > > forgiving of an aft C.G. I've tried unsuccessfully to find the aft
> C.G.
> > > limit of
> > > > planes like the Jenny, but it is a Biplane - difficult to compare.
> > > Another
> > > > design that has an undercambered airfoil is the Ryan Navion. Does
> > anyone
> > > have the
> > > > C.G. range of the Ryan Navion, or any other plane that has an
> > > undercambered
> > > > airfoil ?
> > > >
> > > > Chuck Gantzer
> > > > NX770CG
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: dead soft stainless and aluminum |
Mike,
Thanks a lot. I will call mr Vogelsong.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: dead soft stainless and aluminum
>
> Alex & group,
>
> I think the designation for dead soft is 000, but am not positive. I
made
> my cooling eyebrow/baffles like Frank P. did using .025" dead soft
aluminum
> and the firewall from the same but in stainless. Got both from Dillsburg
> Aeroplane Works, in PA. 717-432-4589.
>
> Mike
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
In a message dated 1/26/04 9:09:36 AM Central Standard Time,
kchambers(at)winternals.com writes:
<< I haven't had a chance to find the stats for these airfoils so we can
compare them to the Pietenpol FC-10. Anyone know where to find this
information online? >>
Ken,
Where did you come up with the 'Pietenpol FC-10 ? The story goes...B.H.P.
drew up the airfoil on the hanger floor. Original design.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Chuck,
Thanks for the rib building description. Great ideas for us first time wood
builders. Great info.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rib jig
> Deon,
> I'm going to try the picture thing. This is my first try with this
new
> fangled digital camera, so let me know if it turns out.
> As Max pointed out, the outside perimiter of all the ribs must be
> identical. From the looks of your rib jig, it doesn't appear you have
these supports
> installed yet. Make sure the capstrips contact these blocks, with some
type
> of blocking from the opposite side. Max used a cam lobe, which is the
method
> I used when I built the ribs for my Tailwind, and it works really well.
It
> compensates for variations in the thickness (1/4") of the capstrips. The
other
> dimension that you have to pay particular attention to, is the dimension
> between the spars. The plans call out 27 3/4" between the spars. If you
cut a
> piece of scrap wood to the dimensions of the spars, (1" X 4 3/4") then
install
> these blocks where the spars go. Make these blocks about 5/8" or 3/4"
long, so
> they stick up higher than the capstrips, and you can install the gussets
up
> against it, and maintain identical placements of the gussets. An actual
piece
> of the spar itself would be even better, if you already have the spars,
and
> you can afford to cut a couple of pieces off the end of the spar. Just
make
> sure your spars are long enough, beforehand.
> I think the gussets you have marked out on your paper, between the
spars,
> could be just a little bit longer. I made mine 1 3/4" X 1". I see you
> haven't yet drawn in the one on the top.
> A small problem I had when I was building my ribs, was that the 1/2"
> dimension varied in the capstrips, and some of the upright sticks wasn't
quite
> flush with the top & bottom cap strips, where the gussets go. I made
small
> sanding blocks, with sticky back 100 grit sand paper, and plane down the
area where
> the gussets go, so it was flush. Be sure to remove all dust, before you
glue
> the gussets on with T88 adhesive. You could use wax paper, or some type
of
> package tape on the places you don't want the adhesive to stick.
> After the adhesive has thoroughly cured, and you carefully pop the rib
> out of the jig, flip it over to install the gussets on the other side.
Rough up
> the area a little bit because it will be as smooth as the non stick
surface,
> where the epoxy runs down. Install new pieces in the jig, so you can use
the
> same batch of adhesive for both opporations. You'll eventually figure out
how
> big a batch you need. Don't use wax coated cups to mix epoxy. When you
> have extra epoxy left over, make a destructive test piece, with scraps.
> I numbered (with a pencil, where there wasn't going to be any
adhesive),
> and cut all the cap strip lengths, and gussets, after I built my second
rib.
> It's a slow process to complete a ship set of ribs, but it is an enjoyable
> opporation. A rib a day.
> It's a good idea to build two extra ribs, one for destructive tests,
and
> one to proudly hang on your wall !! This also gives you the opportunity
to
> select the best ones for the wing.
> When you're all done with the ribs, you've earned the right to do the
> dance called the 'Rib Jig' !!!
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> Wichita KS
> NX770CG
>
----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
In a message dated 1/26/04 10:01:51 AM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< It's high lift and less drag than the FC-10. >>
Corky,
Do you know where the FC-10 came from ?
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | maybe where the FC-10 came from........ |
Chuck asked:
> Corky,
> Do you know where the FC-10 came from ?
>
> Chuck G.
>
Here's one possibility:
-----Original Message-----
From: DJ Vegh [mailto:aircamper(at)imagedv.com]
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Airfoil
ummm... not true... the GN-1 has the same airfoil as the Piet, with the
exception of a slightly more blunt leading edge.
The GN-1 and Piet's are not Clark Y. Bernie called it a FC-10. why?? he
used a French Curve to draw it and it took him about 10 minutes.... I
forget where I read that but thought it comical....
DJ Vegh
N74DV
www.raptoronline.com
Mesa, AZ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
DJ,
I've added that to your 'Infomation List'.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Richard Schreiber <schreib(at)netnitco.net> |
(ax)
| Subject: | PLYWOOD REQUIREMENTS |
I'm getting ready to start building my fuselage (long version) and I was
wondering if anyone remembers what size sheets of plywood they had to buy?
Thanks,
Rick Schreiber
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/26/04 11:19:25 AM Central Standard Time,
dilatush(at)amigo.net writes:
<< My research. and then after also consulting with a good friend who is an
aeronautical engineer confirmed my impression that an undercambered airfoil
is not likely to have a downward pitching moment.
As defined in the books, a negative pitching moment is a moment which forces
the leading edge of an airfoil UPWARD with increasing angles of attack not
down as you imply. >>
John et all,
I got a lot of my info from a friend that has done lots of research on
airfoils, and has all the expensive software to design his own, which he has
done. His name is Mike Schuck. He's not a Piet builder, but has lots of
interest and experience in evaluating airfoils. He explained to me that a negative
pitching moment, is a nose down condition.
Let's look at the wing by itself in a wind tunnel. Think about it...at
zero degrees angle of attack (AOA) and undercambered airfoil will certainly
pitch nose down. Flat bottom airfoil will pitch down some, and a symmetrical
airfoil has NO pitching moment. Some laminar flow airfoils, that are somewhat
semi-symmetrical, have the trailing edge reflexed up a little, to counteract
the negative pitching moment, therefore using a smaller horizontal stab. I'm
still maintaining the opinion that the undercambered airfoil of the Piet is the
reason it is somewhat tolerant of an aft C.G. condition.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
Hi
Got my own message back and found that I attached the wrong pics. Here
are the correct ones.
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
Hi,
I would like to ask (OK, shamelessly beg, plead, and whine...) for a ride in
a Piet at Sun 'N Fun, if anyone out there is interested. I plan to build one
(Corvair, 3-pc. wing, long fuse, rocket launchers...) starting sometime this
year. Gotta find a house with a garage first, you know the story... anyway,
I'm not yet a pilot but will be working on that soon as well. I've been
slowly amassing Piet and Corvair knowledge for a while but haven't yet had
the chance to actually fly in one, so would love a "formal" introduction to
the type. There would be a hamburger in it for you or something along those
lines, so long as that wouldn't upset the FAA (I guess so long as it didn't
cost more than the fuel and oil then it's OK, right? ) I'll be in the
Steen Aero Lab tent during SNF, you all please stop in and say hi.
Anyway, if anyone out there would like to get together and show off their
pride and joy, please email me privately. Thanks!
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PLYWOOD REQUIREMENTS |
One 4'x8' sheet for the sides and one 2'x8' (half sheet) of 1/4" for the
floor. If you build the fuselage sides very carefully you can get the sides
out of one sheet and still have some extra to trim off flush with the bottom
ply. Don't just cut it down the middle and hope it works. Try to trace the
outline of your fuselage on the full sheet before cutting. Also make sure
your fuse is just slightly under 24" wide, the ply is usually cut 1/2 blade
width shy of 24".
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Schreiber" <schreib(at)netnitco.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: PLYWOOD REQUIREMENTS
>
> I'm getting ready to start building my fuselage (long version) and I was
> wondering if anyone remembers what size sheets of plywood they had to buy?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rick Schreiber
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
Dave just how tall are you? I am 6'-1" and I fit fine. I cut the knee holes a bit
higher and have no problem with the "V" braces. I also put the seat in as
low as it could go. I would not leave out the braces. If it really is a problem
maybe you could laminate up some curved braces or something.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
List,
Does the V shaped brace serve any purpose other than supporting the back
of the front seat? For those of us with long legs that "brace" is in the way....and
the plywood too. I would like to eliminate the V shape and just install
vertical wood or metal seat back supports. A narrow seat back for the front
passenger shouldn't be any big deal....right? My knees go practically all the
way to the top of the fuse so I would like to find a way to delete the V.
Thanks,
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
Deon,
Your rib jig is lookin' good !! Triple check the dimensions between the
spars, and make sure they are parallel to each other, before you install the
spar blocks. Triple check all the dimensions up from the datum line, and all
along the outside dimension lines, while you have your first capstrip in the
jig, and adjust accordingly. Sometimes ya just gotta split the difference.
On my Pietenpol rib jig, when installing the gussets, I used weight to
hold them till cured, after the epoxy was spread. Instead of using stables or
nails, I used every 1/2" socket I had, as well as anything that weighed about
10 ounces, on top of each gusset. That was quit a bit of weight on the table,
with two ribs (one flipped over). On my Tailwind rib jig, I made clamps and
wing nuts to hold the gussets during cure. It took a bit longer to build,
though.
Spread a thin coat of epoxy to the entire side of the gusset where it
contacts, as well as on the surfaces of the cap strips where it is between the
gussets. This will eliminate the necessity of the tedious job of using a small
brush to dab varnish up in there between the gussets, when you are to the
varnish stage (after the wing is 100% complete).
Leave the forward, and aft ends of the capstrips hang over, and cut them
off after the rib has gussets on both sides. It's best to cut them off after
you have a ship set of ribs built, so you can do that operation at the same
time. Then slide and stack all of ribs together on to the spars, and sand and
plane the forward and aft ends of the ribs all the same final length.
Max used a method of popping the rib out of the jib, after epoxy cure,
that uses a dowel pin, up through a hole, located under each gusset location.
I
used a thin blade to carefully pop each location out. If you have some
problem popping the rib out of the jig, after you've built a few ribs, you could
always drill a hole in the rib jig at the gusset locations, and use Max's method.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
NorEaster blew in today...Cold day in Kansas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Great minds think alike( I won't mention the other half of this old
saw, Chuck! )
I made two 1/2" ply blocks 1" X 1 3/4" and screwed them into the
spar locations. This way all the ribs will fit the spars.
Glue was dabbed on the ends of all cross braces to take up any gaps
in that area. Remember, it's the gussets that hold everything together.
I made up a fancy clamping system and never used it. Weights
were used instead. Where Chuck has used sockets I used lead
fishing weights, the triangular, pyrimid ones. You don't want to
squeeze epoxies like T-88. They depend on a film of glue in there,
unlike the white or marine glues that you may be used to.
Leave the nose cap strip ends a few inches long as Chuck says and
put an outside block at the end. This way the strip will take a better
curve more easily past the nose. Wherever there is an end to a bent
piece of wood, the first few inches will be in a straighter line and harder
to force outwards to properly fit crossbracing.
You are planning on steaming or soaking the top strips and bending
them over a form to dry aren't you? I prefer steaming myself as the
heat softens the lignin allowing the wood cells to slide over each other..
A steamer is easy to make from an electric kettle and metal vacuum
cleaner tubes, all from second hand places for next to nothing.
A good sharp chisel, flat side up, can be slid under the strips to lift
the finished rib past the blocking. Go around the rib prying a little at
a time until it pops free.
Clif
You saw it here. Zen and the art of rib making. :-)
>
> Deon,
> Your rib jig is lookin' good !! Triple check the dimensions between
the
> spars, and make sure they are parallel to each other, before you install
the
> spar blocks. Triple check all the dimensions up from the datum line, and
all
> along the outside dimension lines, while you have your first capstrip in
the
> jig, and adjust accordingly. Sometimes ya just gotta split the
difference.
> On my Pietenpol rib jig, when installing the gussets, I used weight to
> hold them till cured, after the epoxy was spread. Instead of using
stables or
> nails, I used every 1/2" socket I had, as well as anything that weighed
about
> 10 ounces, on top of each gusset. That was quit a bit of weight on the
table,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
Hey Mike:
Good luck on that ride...I went to Broadhead last year and still have never
had an opportunity to ride in one of these great little ships. Although I must
admit it was extremely windy for most of the event. I will get to ride in
one eventually though, as my Dad and I are optimistic about having ours flying
by this summer. I would still like to ride in one before I mount ours, but I'm
not going to attend Sun and Fun until I can fly my own Piet there. I will
give you a ride next year though, if you are still interested and the Good Lord
is willing !!
Right now I am limited to getting the tail leveled off, with a tall bucket of
course, and making aeroplane noises while flying over the shop floor. It
looks a lot like the Texas Panhandle under the right lighting conditions, if you
squint just a little.
Ninety percent done, and about ninety percent left. Like Chuck Gantzer
says,"Building a Piet is slow, but the sky is patient." Or something like that,
sorry Chuck.
Max Davis
Arlington, Texas USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
-----Original Message-----
From: Catdesign <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
Thanks Greg and Chris. I guess I will just stick with the plans and learn
to fit my knees under those braces one way or another. I'm just 6'2" but pretty
long in the legs. Chris, like you, I made the seat as low as possible. It
does help a lot. I like your idea about laminating in some curved pieces. That's
the way the fuse stations in the Flybaby are built up. Something to think
about anyway.
Dave
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
Dave,
I'm only 5'10" and had difficulty getting my legs through those holes. You
can cut as high up on that V brace as you want. We cut up an extra couple of
inches and it made a lot more of a difference than I thought possible. Have
you already done this?
Max
Arlington, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Material strengths |
Pieters,
Ran across a couple pieces of streamline tubing left over from front struts
of 41CC. 2 1/2X7/8X.049. Have some smaller pieces also. What my question is,
Could I sub this streamline tubing for the round in the fabing of the split
gear? Would it be strong enough for some of Nathan Moss's landings ( I question
his depth perception sometimes)
Corky in cold La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
I had the same problem.... it was fixed by moving the rear seat back 2.5". Due
to W&B issues I had to compensate for that by moving the firewall forward 1.5".
This allowed my legs a shallower angle so thay could get through those cross
braces with room to spare.
Now when I sit in the plane I have TONS of room. Keep in mind I have a GN-1 should
work for a Piet though.
BTW I'm 6'4" 190lb.
DJ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
-----Original Message-----
From: Catdesign <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Monday, January 26, 2004 10:45 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
Thanks Greg and Chris. I guess I will just stick with the plans and learn to
fit my knees under those braces one way or another. I'm just 6'2" but pretty
long in the legs. Chris, like you, I made the seat as low as possible. It does
help a lot. I like your idea about laminating in some curved pieces. That's
the way the fuse stations in the Flybaby are built up. Something to think
about anyway.
Dave
Dave
=
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: more airfoil talk |
If you need information about the 2412 or the 4412 airfoil, download report
number 824 from the NACA server (Google "NACA Server", should be the first
choice). It's a pretty big file so start the download and go get a sandwich
and some coffee.
By general notation, a positive pitching moment is one that rotates the
leading edge up. As a reference point, the 25% cord point is used as the
point of rotation. You will notice on the airfoil sectional graphs, the
moments are given as negitive and therefore are rotating the wing section
leading edge down. This does not necessarily rotate the aircraft nose down,
this simply means that the center of lift is aft of the 25% cord point.
Rotating the aircraft nose down has to do with the relationship of the
center of lift to the CG of the aircraft. On conventional aircraft (wings
in front, tail in back pushing down to keep the nose up) the CG is located
ahead of the center of lift (for stability purposes) and therefore the
center of lift will rotate the nose down. On a carnard aircraft or a
conventional aircraft that is loaded incorrectly, the CG will be behind the
center of lift and the opposite will be true.
Also noted from those wing sectional graphs, they range from -6 degrees AOA
or less to 18 degrees or greater. A wing on an aircraft won't see those
extremes in normal flight, so for design purposes, you need to use something
like 1 to 2 degrees in straight and level cruise to 14 degrees at the stall
point to develop tail volume requirements.
Also note that the center of lift does move along the wing at different
AOAs. Generally speaking, the center of lift is at the center to rear of
the wing during straight and level and approaches the 25% cord point at
stall. Determining where it is at stall (28% cord? 30% cord?) determines
the aft CG limit.
Although I am just another engineer puking information (that's what we do)
and as interesting experimenting with the design would be, it must be noted
that this design AS IS has proved itself to be a wonderful combination and
it has a flying personality all its own (I must admit that this is take from
the opinions of others having not yet experienced it myself). If one wants
something that flys like a Cessna... rent a Cessna. But then again, it is
an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.
Sorry for the long winded lesson.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
Thanks Max. No, I haven't. Looks like I'll be ripping out my front seat and
reconstructing it your way. Knee pads may be part of my future flight apparel.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com <Andimaxd(at)aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
Dave,
I'm only 5'10" and had difficulty getting my legs through those holes. You
can cut as high up on that V brace as you want. We cut up an extra couple of
inches and it made a lot more of a difference than I thought possible. Have
you already done this?
Max
Arlington, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
You guys have GOT to get real about attaching photos to these
e-mails!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Once again, it took over an hour to download this email, and my computer
timed out twice!
PLEASE THINK before you attach so many photos, not all of us have DSL lines.
While I am complaining, I am sure that Matt will join me in asking that
replys be kept meaningful, or be directed to the original sender only. I
get between 50 and 100 e-mails a day from this list, and the vast majority
of them are only "attaboys" or "way cool".
OK, off the box now.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rib jig
> Hi
>
> I looked, I listened and hopefully I learned.
>
> I took your advice in supporting the outside of the cap strips and
> rebuild the jig. Here are some updated pics.
>
> Comments?
>
> Deon Engelmann
> EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
> Pretoria
> South Africa
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | package and postage |
Hi
Got some cap strip from wicks today.
$86 for the cap strip, $165 for package and postage to SA
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
I am still a not-building-one-yet person. Last summer at Brodhead I
spent most of the weekend shyly admiring airplanes and not speaking to
builders because surely they had more important/interesting people to
talk to. I narrowly managed to hitch Saturday's last ride of the day in
someone's lovely orange Model A powered Piet. I am convinced that you'd
be successful actively engaging these kind folk very early on and
establishing relationships with them and their lovely airplanes, and
probably get rides offered to you. I intend to not be nearly so shy
this year (we'll see) and actually speak to some of the owners and
cultivate some relationships. Maybe I can get someone to take my lovely
wife up for a spin (poor choice of words?), since I will need her full
support to build one.. The point I guess I'm trying to make is that
like you, I really want to become a member of this Pietenpol family and
to do that I think the key is to be involved with its members. And of
course you'll be giving rides in your Piet when it's finished as well,
too? ;-) I bet gladly...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> Andimaxd(at)aol.com Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:04:33 AM >>>
Hey Mike:
Good luck on that ride...I went to Broadhead last year and still have
never
had an opportunity to ride in one of these great little ships.
Although I must
admit it was extremely windy for most of the event. I will get to ride
in
one eventually though, as my Dad and I are optimistic about having ours
flying
by this summer. I would still like to ride in one before I mount ours,
but I'm
not going to attend Sun and Fun until I can fly my own Piet there. I
will
give you a ride next year though, if you are still interested and the
Good Lord
is willing !!
Right now I am limited to getting the tail leveled off, with a tall
bucket of
course, and making aeroplane noises while flying over the shop floor.
It
looks a lot like the Texas Panhandle under the right lighting
conditions, if you
squint just a little.
Ninety percent done, and about ninety percent left. Like Chuck Gantzer
says,"Building a Piet is slow, but the sky is patient." Or something
like that,
sorry Chuck.
Max Davis
Arlington, Texas USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
| From: | "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com> |
Chuck
I think I read it on this list that Mr. Pietenpol named it that because
it took 10 minutes to draw with a French Curve.
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
John-- I won't be at Sun-N-Fun but hopefully you'll be able to get a
ride. I know Ted Brousseau has been very active in giving rides in his
plane based out of the Naples, Florida area and I think he goes to SNF most
years. Don't ever hesitate to ask questions of Piet builders at Brodhead
or elsewhere----it's like asking Grandma if she has any grandchildren
photos--we LOVE to talk about these planes. I think that anyone who is
willing to build a plane like this from six sheets of plans from the 1930's
that leave some things to the imagination needs all the amo he can get
wether it be from this list, Tony Bingelis' book series on Sportplane
construction and firewall forward, to in-person photos, notes,
measurements, rides, and talk at fly-in's. Every little bit helps. I
took notes, video and still photos for 3 years at Brodhead before I started
my project. Took the best of what I liked in various Piets and started
work. I'd have gladly given some rides at Brodhead but that incessant
wind kept us all on the ground til nearly sunset so there wasn't much time
unfortunately.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth
metroplex. I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size
bolts will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade
8
or grade 5 would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any
suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike King" <mike(at)mking.us> |
There is a source of aircraft nuts and bolts located just off Harry Hines
south of Regal Row.
If this sounds good, then I will research the proper name, phone
number, etc..
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.
I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size bolts
will
fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade 8 or grade
5
would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any suggestions?
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Let me know if you can't find anything, being in Canada, I may have more
luck, Dave Rowe, Victoria, BC
Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Hello all:
>
> I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft.
> Worth metroplex. I will order though if anyone has a good source...
>
> I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
> -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8"
> shank
>
> We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two
> size bolts will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts,
> although grade 8 or grade 5 would be nice.
>
> Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships --
> any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn & Doris Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Try McMaster-Carr Supply Co. at www.mcmaster.com
Lynn Knoll
Wichita
Vair/Piet in the works
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike King
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
There is a source of aircraft nuts and bolts located just off Harry Hines
south of Regal Row.
If this sounds good, then I will research the proper name, phone
number, etc=85..
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:45 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.
I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size bolts
will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade 8
or grade 5 would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Mike King
It is Aircraft Supply Company, 7204 Parwelk, Dallas, Texas 75235 214 637 3598.
They have everything. I mean everything.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike King
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:16 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
There is a source of aircraft nuts and bolts located just off Harry Hines
south of Regal Row.
If this sounds good, then I will research the proper name, phone
number, etc=85..
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:45 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.
I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size bolts
will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade 8
or grade 5 would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Max... Try
B&B Aircraft Supplies
P.O. Box 37
202 South Center
Gardner KS 66030
(913) 884-5930 ph
(913) 884-6533
They aren't close, but are the most reasonable I have found for aircraft
hardware and excellent service. If you can wait until the Alliance Fly-in/Air
Show...or the SWRFI in New Braunfels....they will have a booth there.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike King" <mike(at)mking.us> |
Chris,
You are so right. I bought a bunch of parts from them for
my GN-1. It is only five minutes from my Dallas office and
they are the best folks to deal with. VERY reasonable.
Thanks for supplying the info Chris. I had their name and
number at my Addison office and could not post it earlier.
Give em a call guys.
Mike King
GN-1
Dallas, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Mike King
It is Aircraft Supply Company, 7204 Parwelk, Dallas, Texas 75235 214 637 3598.
They
have everything. I mean everything.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike King <mailto:mike(at)mking.us>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
There is a source of aircraft nuts and bolts located just off Harry Hines
south of Regal Row.
If this sounds good, then I will research the proper name, phone
number, etc..
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas, Texas
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.
I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size bolts
will
fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade 8 or grade
5
would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any suggestions?
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
In a message dated 1/27/2004 8:12:07 PM Central Standard Time,
bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
> Mike King
>
> It is Aircraft Supply Company, 7204 Parwelk, Dallas, Texas 75235 214 637
> 3598. They have everything. I mean everything.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
Thanks everyone for helping, Mike I will call Aircraft Supply Co. tomorrow
first thing;
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
> Don't ever hesitate to ask questions of Piet builders at Brodhead
> or elsewhere----it's like asking Grandma if she has any grandchildren
> photos--we LOVE to talk about these planes.
> Mike C.
I've never been bashful about asking folks about their planes... anyone who
builds any kind of airplane (even models)usually is quite proud to show it
off and they really do appreciate others taking an interest in their bird.
Everyone was at the "just asking questions" stage at some point, I think the
majority of folks like to help others move through that stage into the
building phase.
A big part of why I like the Piet is this community itself. I managed to
break free from the tent and went to a Piet forum at SNF last year, then
hung out at the woodworking forum for a while, and talked to a gentleman
with a Piet (it was made to look a bit like a Curtiss Jenny.) Then I caught
up with William and saw the Corvair run, which really cemented things for
me. I'm not rich and don't ever expect to be, which lead me to start
thinking of the Piet in the first place. But now that I know more about it,
the main attraction isn't so much the low cost of the Piet anymore, it's the
great network of down-to-earth folks that build and fly them... you all seem
to do so because it's just plain fun, not to be a snob with the best plane
that money can buy. Someday I'm sure I'll be giving as many rides as
possible - in fact, I already have plans to "borrow" my nephew for a few
Pietenpol adventures of our own... he's 3 now and really loves
"lello-lopters" and "jet air-panes"!
Max, great quote about the patient sky... hope to see you at SNF soon with
your Piet!
-Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
In a message dated 1/27/04 6:45:44 PM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size
bolts will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although
grade 8
or grade 5 would be nice. >>
Max,
You're givin' me the Hiebie Jiebie's !! All the hardware should be aircraft
grade. The main difference is that aircraft grade bolts have rolled
threads, and if it is painted with a translucent color, it has been through NDI
(Non
Destructive Test). What are these bolts for ?
Max, I'm still trying to come up with a way to e-mail you the method I use to
tie the ends of the bunji chords, too.
Gene R. made a good point about pictures & stuff. You guys with high speed
DSL go zipping along like a LanceAir. Us folks with dial up go putt putt
putting along like a Pietenpol in a 30 kt headwind.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Material strengths |
In a message dated 1/27/04 9:21:55 AM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< Ran across a couple pieces of streamline tubing left over from front
struts
of 41CC. 2 1/2X7/8X.049. Have some smaller pieces also. What my question is,
Could I sub this streamline tubing for the round in the fabing of the split
gear? Would it be strong enough for some of Nathan Moss's landings ( I
question
his depth perception sometimes) >>
Corky,
The plans call for 1 3/8" 14ga. (.074") 1020 steel tube for the Vee gear
struts. As tempting as it may be to use the 2 1/2" X7/8" X.049", I just don't
think it would be adequate for a gross weigh, drop it in type landing.
Chuck G.
4 F outside, calm winds - Hearty individuals like Shawn Wolk and Graham
Hansen, call this 'Pietenpol Weather' !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Material strengths |
In a message dated 1/27/2004 10:48:21 PM Central Standard Time,
Rcaprd(at)aol.com writes:
> Chuck G.
> 4=BA F outside, calm winds - Hearty individuals like Shawn Wolk and Graham
> Hansen, call this 'Pietenpol Weather' !!!
Chuck,
Its good weather to be inside making Pietenparts.
Terry Bowden
(making some rudder cable extensions getting ready to move the non-plans
rudder pedals 6 inches forward for more legroom)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Material strengths |
Thanks Chuck,
I have the plans tubing on hand and will use it accordingly. Would like to
hear of your/our
Post Brodhead tour and what plans you may have finalized.
Corky in La trying to keep his feet warm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | annual Piet Low-n-slow flyin at Benton KS |
Chuck,
Whats the date for the 2004 Benton KS Piet flyin? If I push, I might be able
to make it in the Piet by late summer.
Terry Bowden
(need a tangible date goal to keep me going)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
| Subject: | Front seat-back support question |
Please tell me if I am missing anything here. Just finishing my Piet
cockpit mockup and have realized that the top of the 1/8" ply front seat
back is only supported by a 1 x 1/2" horizontal strip which doesn't
contact the top longerons since the metal cabane mount brackets go
against the longerons just behind the seat back. The 1/8" ply stiffener
is glued across the top to the top of the seat back and the 1 x 1/2
piece. This is all thats needed to support the top of the front
seatback correct?
Rick H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
<006801c3e4eb$cfb4b580$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com>
I've just been fiddling with some sketches. It seems
to me that you don't need those center sticks V'd.
They don't add stiffness to the panel or fuselage in
the cross-fuse direction. The ply panel does that
quite nicely. The prime function of those braces is
to keep the ply from bowing backwards under the
weight of the front seater's back. You can run them
vertically up the sides of the cutouts and they will do
exactly the same job. Just leave some depth to the
ply at the top above the cutouts for gusseting effect.
Gusset the back side of those sticks at the top for
some added strength just in case you get some
rowdy front seater someday.
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
I had the same problem.... it was fixed by moving the rear seat back 2.5".
Due to W&B issues I had to compensate for that by moving the firewall forward
1.5". This allowed my legs a shallower angle so thay could get through those
cross braces with room to spare.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Maybe they need to be sent with lower DPI,
like 150 or even 75.
Clif
Gene R. made a good point about pictures & stuff. You guys with high speed
> DSL go zipping along like a LanceAir. Us folks with dial up go putt putt
> putting along like a Pietenpol in a 30 kt headwind.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Front Seat Support |
<006801c3e4eb$cfb4b580$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com>
<008e01c3e563$00945530$96715118@dawsonaviation>
Re Rick's message. I forgot about the interference
with the strut attachment at the top. What about
placing a crosspiece below the level of the strut
fittings and running a 2 or 3" wide gusset across
from side to side to strengthen the joints?
Clif Brainfart
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 9:53 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Front Seat Support
I've just been fiddling with some sketches. It seems
to me that you don't need those center sticks V'd.
They don't add stiffness to the panel or fuselage in
the cross-fuse direction. The ply panel does that
quite nicely. The prime function of those braces is
to keep the ply from bowing backwards under the
weight of the front seater's back. You can run them
vertically up the sides of the cutouts and they will do
exactly the same job. Just leave some depth to the
ply at the top above the cutouts for gusseting effect.
Gusset the back side of those sticks at the top for
some added strength just in case you get some
rowdy front seater someday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | the Piet network |
Wasn't always so pleasant. Our first few trips to Brodhead in the late
80's early 90's made us not ever want to go back. For new guys on the
block, my wife and I were treated pretty nice by most but pretty lousy by
the rest. They were a pretty snobby group and you'd think they had just
got off of a Lear jet from the left seat instead of a Pietenpol. We were
really turned off by that I didn't care to go back for quite a few
years. Since Steve Eldredge started this e-mail list in Utah (and Grant
MacLaren poured his volunteer time into putting together a great
newsletter---which some still bad mouth because they lost a measly $10 or
$15 bucks over !!!!) the group has really come together. There might
have been the good old boy click thing going when we first got there, I
dunno. Anyway, what was super about the last meeting is that I got to
meet people from the list in person. Really neat and you feel like you
know them already. The new blood in the group over the past 10 years has
really improved the quality of the planes we are producing and the
willingness to share as much info as possible to get more of these in the
air as time goes on.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
In a message dated 1/27/2004 10:18:17 PM Central Standard Time,
Rcaprd(at)aol.com writes:
> Max,
> You're givin' me the Hiebie Jiebie's !! All the hardware should be
> aircraft
> grade. The main difference is that aircraft grade bolts have rolled
> threads, and if it is painted with a translucent color, it has been through
> NDI (Non
> Destructive Test). What are these bolts for ?
Chuck:
I was wondering how long it would be before the Hiebie Jiebie Emails would
start rolling in. I'm also very concerned about safety. These bolts are what
holds the control sticks to the torque tube. Dad used the wrong size ID tubing
(to build the bushing/tube inside the torque tube at the stick pivot point)
for a bolt to fit in and it rattles a little. A 1/4" bolt is too small and if
he bores it out, to a 5/16"? The bushing that's welded inside the torque tube
will be paper thin. I don't think the treads in this application are going to
be an issue. I will use aircraft bolts, even here, if I can find a 7mm with
a shank instead of threaded all the way up.
The alternative, according to my builder (Dad), is to rebuild the entire
control system. I can't see it, so I kinda have to take his word on it for now.
We have several week to address the problem, I just like to resolve things
ASAP.
I appreciate your concerns and constructive criticisms, please let me know if
you think this is still a safety issue.
Thanks in advance,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 35 Msgs - 01/27/04 |
Max,
Patience is the word. One thing worse than " 90%" completed is 100%
completed, hangared, insured and full tank while watching Mr Johnson and Nathan
Moss
fly and have fun in your our creation. Let's imagine a little scenario," suppose
Teddy Kennedy had flown several hours in his youth and a little along the way
then he decides to get his physical renewed so he can fly Bobbie III's 150
some weekend in Palm Beach. The Fed Drs say you will have to have the
cardiologist perform all those tests plus a max stress test, the neuro Dr perform
all
those MRara Is etc. Cost in excess of 13K. Teddy pleads that all he wants to fly
is Ted Brousseau's Piet. No way says Mr Fed Dr. Question: How long after the
final No from the Feds would it be before some action MIGHT develop on the
Sport Pilot issue. Not that ole Corky is implying that politics COULD play a part
in the passing of this loooooooong awaited priveledge.
Sorry I got off the subject Max, what I really meant to say in this little
note that you are mighty welcome to choggie east on I-20 and visit us anytime.
You might check with Mr. Edwin Johnson, who likes fine Scotch, and try to
arrange a little hop with him. He and Nathan Moss keep the keys. That's personal
so
I can't speak for him but he is a great guy.
Corky in La waiting for those idiots in Washington to get off of it and pass
the Sport Pilot issue while I can still walk to my plane even though it's now
with a cane.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
List,
I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of used
motorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out my Piet
wheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.
Dave Paulsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Dave-- I'd go with aluminum alloy rims vs. steel for weight savings and 40
spoke if they have them over the much more common 32 spokes per wheel. 18
thru 21" diameters would work fine.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
you'll want something like an 18-20" wheel. try to get one with the widest hub
you can.... if you can't find one with at least a 6" hub (and I doubt you will)
then you'll have to have some of your own hubs turned. Essentially your
just buying the rim ring.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
List,
I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of used
motorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out my Piet
wheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.
Dave Paulsen
=
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: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Dave,
Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get the
widest hubs you can as the angle of the holes will line up better if you
build 5 1/2 or 6" hubs.
Be sure you check the weld real close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked at
the weld when I took the spokes out.
Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims, the
tires I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on the
narrow rims.
Skip
Motorcycle shops, here in Atlanta get $32.00 plus cost of a tube to fix a
flat.
Message
Dave,
Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get the
widest hubs you can as the angle of theholes will line up better if you
build 5 1/2 or 6" hubs.
Be
sure you check the weldreal close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked at
the weld whenI took the spokes out.
Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims,
the tires I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on the
narrow rims.
Skip
Motorcycle shops, here in Atlantaget $32.00 plus cost of a tube to
fix a flat.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | corvair conversion cost |
Thought I'd add my bit in.
Also what pitch and dia should I be using(currently 72X48) and only
getting 2000RPM
Regards
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
FASI
Also push botton starter motorcycles :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
Enfield 350 Bullet
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "catdesign(at)intergate.com" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
One of my rims broke at the weld too. Anyone know if it's ok to reweld (tig)
the rim.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
Quoting "Gadd, Skip" :
> Dave,
> Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get the
> widest hubs you can as the angle of the holes will line up better if you
> build 5 1/2 or 6" hubs.
> Be sure you check the weld real close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked at
> the weld when I took the spokes out.
> Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims, the
> tires I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on the
> narrow rims.
> Skip
> Motorcycle shops, here in Atlanta get $32.00 plus cost of a tube to fix a
> flat.
>
>
-------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
Hi
I would like to know what the weight penalty is for wooden cabanes and
struts.
Have anybody made a comparison between wood and steel yet?
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Model A Piets & aerial of Brodhead-- go here: |
<005c01c3e0a2$3e7848e0$0101a8c0@domain>
<4010208B.1000503(at)speedtrail.net>
Group-- some VERY nice photos
here: http://webpages.charter.net/gmaclaren/brod03/index.html
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Chris,
I asked this question several months ago on this list and didn't get any
response. Asked around locally and decided it would be ok. The guy who did
my welding said I should not put any stress on the rim for 6 months, no
problem for me, to give the weld time to harden.
Also I think that once the wheel is re-laced, there will be a lot less
pressure on the weld.
Anyway I have one on my Piet project.
Skip
One of my rims broke at the weld too. Anyone know if it's ok to reweld
(tig)
the rim.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
that's too large for a Corvair if you want to take advantage of the full horsepower.
at 2,000 rpm you're getting maybe 55hp at most. You need to spin it up
to at least 2600 static. It will unload to about 2800 or so on the rollout
giving you almost the full 100hp.
You'll need something like a 62x34 through a 66x29. I have a 66x29 on mine and
it gets 2700 static.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Stapelberg
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: corvair conversion cost
Thought I'd add my bit in.
Also what pitch and dia should I be using(currently 72X48) and only
getting 2000RPM
Regards
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (115Hrs)
FASI
Also push botton starter motorcycles :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
Enfield 350 Bullet
=
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: | "Hearty individuals" and cold weather open cockpit flying. |
To Chuck G., who said it was 4 degrees F outside, and:
"Hearty individuals like Shawn Wolk and Graham Hansen, call this
'Pietenpol weather"!!!"
Well, I can't speak for Shawn, but this old geezer never flew his Pietenpol
when it was THAT cold! I guess the coldest was around 18 degrees F.,
but that was when I was young and stupid. Now I am old and stupid, but
not nearly so tough as I used to be.
On November 15, 2000 I flew my Pietenpol to commemorate the thirtieth
anniversary of its first flight. The temperature was -6 degrees C (or about
22 degrees F). The flight is well-documented by photographs and, if I get
a scanner, I'll post a couple. This anniversary flight was made on wheels;
there wasn't much snow. The very first flight was made using Federal
A1500A aluminum skis similar to the ones in Shawn's photos. Since then
I have used home-made skis made from ash and currently have a set of
old Federal SC-1 aluminum skis rigged for the Pietenpol. In recent years
snow conditions here have not been favorable for ski flying, but this winter
seems to be shaping up to be better. Usually February and March are best
because the days get longer, the temperatures moderate, and the chances
of getting a sunny day improve. My Pietenpol is an excellent skiplane. How-
ever the open cockpit is a serious limiting factor. A nice canopy for the
pilot
and a cover on the front pit would be great for solo ski flying. Installing
a
canopy in the front would be more difficult to accomplish.
A HISTORICAL NOTE:
75 years ago, in early January, two brave men took off from Edmonton,
Alberta in an Avro Avian two-seater biplane, on wheels, to deliver diph-
theria antitoxin to Fort Vermilion, about 500 miles to the north. The tem-
perature on the ground was -33 degrees F when they left. It was a night-
marish adventure and the round trip took several days. After landing at
various places along the way, they literally had to be lifted from the cock-
pits because they were practically "frozen stiff". This remains one of the
greatest feats in the history of bush flying. Their names: W.R."Wop" May
and Vic Horner.(The Avro Avian they flew was a wood-and-fabric open
cockpit biplane powered by an in-line 4 cylinder Cirrus engine. It was a
bit larger and heavier than a Pietenpol Air Camper, having a longer fuse-
lage and an extra wing.)
NOTE: Wop May was set up to be the 81st victim of Manfred Von
Richthofen on an April day in 1918, but the "Red Baron" was
shot down while chasing him at a very low altitude.Wop May
became a WW I "ace" with 7 victories.
Graham Hansen [Pietenpol CF-AUN is in the hangar at Camrose,
Alberta, where the current temperature is now
only -28 C (-21 F), and I think it will stay
there
for the time being!]
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John" <sjficklen(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
MessageHi Skip ; My name is John Ficklen, I live on St George Island, Fl down in
the panhandle. I'm on the Piet list but don't send much time on it. My Aircamper
is nearly finished. Hope to have it at S&F. I come to Atlanta quite often
to see friends and family and would love to see your project. please. PLease
send me your phone number and maybe we can make some arangements. Thanks John
----- Original Message -----
From: Gadd, Skip
To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:43 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
Dave,
Aluminum, 21" and 36 spokes(72 spokes are lighter than 80), also get the widest
hubs you can as the angle of the holes will line up better if you build 5 1/2
or 6" hubs.
Be sure you check the weld real close, I got 3 rims and 2 of them cracked at
the weld when I took the spokes out.
Another thing, when you get the tires, make sure they go with the rims, the tires
I got have real fat or wide beads and are a REAL pain to seat on the narrow
rims.
Skip
Motorcycle shops, here in Atlanta get $32.00 plus cost of a tube to fix a flat.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/27/04 10:58:45 PM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
<< Would like to hear of your/our Post Brodhead tour and what plans you may
have finalized. >>
Corky,
It's good to hear you're back at it. Gonna have to make a bracket or
something in your front pit, to carry your cane. I put in a request for vacation
several months ago (7/16/04 to 8/16/04) but two weeks will be unpaid. They
have to get everyone's request in, before they hand out the OK...I'm still
waiting.
Assuming everything is GO, Fri./Sat 16/17th I'll be heading 180 to
check out some of our 'Texas' Pietenpols. Sun / Mon I'll head 090 to
Shreveport, La. I've got a sectional out here, and Shreveport has a double big
#8
shaped Class 3 Airspace. Those Magenta circles give me the Hiebie Jiebie's.
Where is your airport ?? The Sport Pilot will be passed by then, and from there,
We Will Fly 005 direct to Brodhead. Looks like about a 4 day trip. After
Oshkosh, I'd like to continue 360, up around Lake Michigan, and then 170 back
down thru the state of Michigan, to Columbus OH (big sister lives there),
then 090 to Wheeling W V (my hometown). From there, it will be 270 back to
Wichita KS. I'm sure there will be other 'Low & Slow' flyers that will join us
on some of the legs. Does it sound like a pretty good cross country trip ???
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: annual Piet Low-n-slow flyin at Benton KS |
In a message dated 1/27/04 11:14:46 PM Central Standard Time,
BARNSTMR(at)aol.com writes:
<< Whats the date for the 2004 Benton KS Piet flyin? >>
How does October 3 sound ? How can I check to see what weekend is
traditionally pretty good 'Pietenpol' weather ?
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
In a message dated 1/28/04 8:15:27 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Dad used the wrong size ID tubing
(to build the bushing/tube inside the torque tube at the stick pivot point)
for a bolt to fit in and it rattles a little. A 1/4" bolt is too small and
if
he bores it out, to a 5/16"? >>
Max,
Doug Bryant did the same thing when he built the controls for my plane. Flew
it that way for about 15 or 20 hours, and couldn't feel the slack at all
during flight. About 80 hours ago, I used a piece of brass shim stock rolled in
a
tube shape, with the 1/4" bolt, to take up the slack. Grease both sides of
the shim. This application is in shear, so it's important to have the shank
all the way through the bushing, and use a caslte nut / cotter pin, because you
don't really tighten up the nut. I carefully check it on every pre-flight.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: corvair conversion cost |
In a message dated 1/28/04 1:02:35 PM Central Standard Time,
norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
<< Also what pitch and dia should I be using(currently 72X48) and only
getting 2000RPM >>
Norman,
Most of the Continental A65's that I've seen, including mine, has a 72 X
42 wooden prop. Sounds like you have too much prop.
Is that you on the business end, or in the driver's seat ?
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Best way to resolve the problem is buy a bolt that fits and run a static test on
it to prove it is stronger than needed by the standard safety margin for the
location. You will need to calculate the highest load the bolt will ever see
(pretty easy, just find the part that will break first in its load path) and
double it just to be safe. Test load the bolt to the double load and you know
the weak link will fail LONG before the bolt. I am a FIRM believer in using
aircraft grade hardware but it is just silly to rebuild the whole control system
when the load the bolt will see in the WORST case is probably 10% of its yield
strength. We don't use certified wood, engines, paint, fuel, props or even
the design. Safety can come from proper design and testing just as well as
from a "certified part" bin. If you show proper analysis of the load and a test
of the part to show it is up to the task the FAA won't give you a problem.
THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU CAN GO AROUND PUTTING IN HARDWARE STORE BOLTS WHEREVER
YOU WANT!! (Yes I know I'm yelling) But in this case a little analysis and testing
would be a lot easier than rebuilding the whole control system.
Hank (Don't forget to corrosion treat the bolt) J
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
In a message dated 1/27/2004 10:18:17 PM Central Standard Time, Rcaprd(at)aol.com
writes:
Max,
You're givin' me the Hiebie Jiebie's !! All the hardware should be aircraft
grade. The main difference is that aircraft grade bolts have rolled
threads, and if it is painted with a translucent color, it has been through
NDI (Non
Destructive Test). What are these bolts for ?
Chuck:
I was wondering how long it would be before the Hiebie Jiebie Emails would start
rolling in. I'm also very concerned about safety. These bolts are what holds
the control sticks to the torque tube. Dad used the wrong size ID tubing
(to build the bushing/tube inside the torque tube at the stick pivot point) for
a bolt to fit in and it rattles a little. A 1/4" bolt is too small and if
he bores it out, to a 5/16"? The bushing that's welded inside the torque tube
will be paper thin. I don't think the treads in this application are going to
be an issue. I will use aircraft bolts, even here, if I can find a 7mm with
a shank instead of threaded all the way up.
The alternative, according to my builder (Dad), is to rebuild the entire control
system. I can't see it, so I kinda have to take his word on it for now.
We have several week to address the problem, I just like to resolve things ASAP.
I appreciate your concerns and constructive criticisms, please let me know if
you think this is still a safety issue.
Thanks in advance,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Dave,
Dale Johnson and I went through this a couple of years ago.
We made the mistake of building our hubs before locating rims. The hubs were built
to Howard Henderson's plans calling for 40 spokes.
We spent about three hours in a mosquito infested motorcycle boneyard looking for
a
matching set of 40 spoke, aluminum rims.
We found LOTS of 36 spoke rims. Many were new and still in the protective wrap.
We would occasionally find 40 spoke rims. Finally, we found a matching set in
usable condition. They were 19" rims from older Honda Goldwings.
Some of the bigger Kawasaki's also had 40 spoke rims.
The weight difference between aluminum rims and steel rims is minimal.
I would recommend that you find your rims BEFORE you build the hubs.
If I were to do another pair I wouldn't hesitate to use 36 spoke steel rims.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
PS. As Dale and I were walking out of the boneyard with our hard fought prize
we noticed a pair of rims leaning against the building. The rims were, you guessed
it,
a matched set of 40 spoke, 19 inch, aluminum rims marked $20.00 ea. !!!!!
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
List,
I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of used
motorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out my
Piet wheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.
Dave Paulsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
Hank and Chuck:
I found a 7mm bolt with a 40mm shank at Metric and Multistandard in Irving
today. It is an 8.8 which is apparently equivalent to a grade 5 American bolt.
Your average hardware bolt is about a grade 2. I think this will be more
than adequate for this application. Hank, for curiosity more than anything else,
I will take your suggestion/advise and rig up a test. Chuck, a castle nut
would probably be a good idea. We were planning on using a lock nut, but a
cotter pin sounds good.
Mike and Chris
Thanks for the info on Aircraft Supply Co., I will make an effort to get by
there and visit with them sometime. They do not have everything; I called them
first thing this morning and was informed they don't have metric. I told him
Mike King said they had everything. I mean everything, haha. They are very
nice however and referred me to Metric & Multistandard.
I sincerely appreciate your help and concern for my safety.
Thanks again guys,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
That sounds even easier than the bolt test method. I would pull the bolt at
least every annual and re-lube and inspect.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
>
> In a message dated 1/28/04 8:15:27 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com
> writes:
>
> << Dad used the wrong size ID tubing
> (to build the bushing/tube inside the torque tube at the stick pivot
point)
> for a bolt to fit in and it rattles a little. A 1/4" bolt is too small
and
> if
> he bores it out, to a 5/16"? >>
>
> Max,
> Doug Bryant did the same thing when he built the controls for my plane.
Flew
> it that way for about 15 or 20 hours, and couldn't feel the slack at all
> during flight. About 80 hours ago, I used a piece of brass shim stock
rolled in a
> tube shape, with the 1/4" bolt, to take up the slack. Grease both sides
of
> the shim. This application is in shear, so it's important to have the
shank
> all the way through the bushing, and use a caslte nut / cotter pin,
because you
> don't really tighten up the nut. I carefully check it on every
pre-flight.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
Thanks to all who gave advise about the wheels. I've noticed from various
Piet photos that where the metal bracket (that attaches a wooden landing
gear to the fuse) - some have two bolts and some four bolts. The plans
(which are for a metal gear) show a bolt going through the bottom of one of
the struts, just above where it is glued to the bottom longeron. So....I'm
wondering if I should bolt through the struts, or through the wedges that
are in between the struts or both. Perhaps it doesn't make any difference
since the wood is just the stuff between two steel plates. I don't know.
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
>
> Dave-- I'd go with aluminum alloy rims vs. steel for weight savings and 40
> spoke if they have them over the much more common 32 spokes per wheel.
18
> thru 21" diameters would work fine.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
If we don't have the Piet going by then, I'll at least escort for a leg or 2
in the Taylorcraft. Perhaps, I'll bring the digital camera.
Terry Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/28/04 7:55:56 PM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Chuck, a castle nut would probably be a good idea. >>
Max,
A castle nun / cotter pin is standard practice in a rotational application.
Hank,
How could a homebuilder set up, and do a destructive test, and come up with
an accurate reading ? The ol' Sledge Hammer doesn't offer up any numbers !!
Everyone,
Keep in mind that these e-mails will go into archive, and for future
reference the 'Subject Line' should pertain to the text.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/28/04 9:06:24 PM Central Standard Time, BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
writes:
<< If we don't have the Piet going by then, I'll at least escort for a leg or
2
in the Taylorcraft. Perhaps, I'll bring the digital camera. >>
That would be Great !!!
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Hearty individuals" and cold weather open cockpit flying. |
I just wanted to defend myself. I flew the Piet when it was about -10C (14F).
I think that I would fly to about -15C (5F). Any cooler and I don't think the
oil will get warm enough to find its way threw the passages. And I don't want
to buy another engine. What I liked about the Piet for dcold use is that I can
point the nose down, keep about 1800rpm on the A65, and the speed doesn't go
over 75 mph on final. There is an advantage to such a draggy design. A little
fast but it slows down so quickly that I hardly notice. I think 1800 rpm should
be enough to prevent shock cooling. I have a 'tiger moth' style sliding canopy
that I flew the piet with the previous year with in late fall. But I found
it made me feel restricted, and for winter use the potential for the windscreen
to fog up (with the Piets poor heating system) made me decide to go open.
Unfortunately a deep freeze has decended here and nobodys flying anything small.
-40C and feels like -53C with the windchill factor. (remember -40C and -40F
are the same.....#@%$#$ COLD!!!)
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
I just wanted to defend myself. I flew the Piet when it was
about -10C (14F). I think that I would fly to about -15C (5F). Any cooler and I
don't think the oil will get warm enough to find its way threw the passages. And
I don't want to buy another engine. What I liked about the Piet for dcold use is
that I can point the nose down, keep about 1800rpm on the A65, and the speed
doesn't go over 75 mph on final. There is an advantage to such a draggy design.
A little fast but it slows down so quickly that I hardly notice. I think 1800
rpm should be enough to prevent shock cooling. I have a 'tiger moth' style
sliding canopy that I flew the piet with the previous year with in late fall.
But I found it made me feel restricted, and for winter use the potential for the
windscreen to fog up (with the Piets poor heating system) made me decide to go
open.
Unfortunately a deep freeze has decended here and nobodys
flying anything small. -40C and feels like -53C with the windchill factor.
(remember -40C and -40F are the .....#@%$#$">same.....#@%$#$ COLD!!!)
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Hi Guys,
Do I need a seperate fuel vent pipe built into the fuel tank if I use a
vented fuel cap?
Just about ready to make the front tank.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Vic. Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Aluminum rims if you can......... |
Group--- in searching for motorcycle rims I found the chromed or unchromed
steel rims to be way heavier than the aluminum rims. See the facts below:
Aluminum is approximately 1/3 the density of steel, 2.72 Mg/m3 versus
steel's 7.85 Mg/m3.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Vented or unvented nose tanks |
Peter-- I have a nose tank with a vented cap and during flow tests I found
that it did not require a separate vent.
The Tony Bingelis books show you how to set your plane up on an
incline (or your tank and carburetor level) as if in a climb attitude and
calculate how much flow you need for the horsepower of your engine at full
throttle to determine useable/unusable fuel quantities.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Daniel Bailey" <dbceltic(at)micoks.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum rims if you can......... |
Ah, but remember, steel is stronger, and less is used to come up with the same
strength.
Dan Bailey,
Paola, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aluminum rims if you can.........
Group--- in searching for motorcycle rims I found the chromed or unchromed steel
rims to be way heavier than the aluminum rims. See the facts below:
Aluminum is approximately 1/3 the density of steel, 2.72 Mg/m3 versus steel's
7.85 Mg/m3.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum rims if you can......... |
<5.1.1.5.2.20040129092215.017a5c00(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
Dan-- that is correct so the only way to compare them is to get equal
diameter rims and weigh each of them. I would bet you that the steel rims,
though less material might be used, will still carry a weight
penalty. Also-- the aluminum rims can be polished to look like chrome if
you take your time.
Mike C.
>Ah, but remember, steel is stronger, and less is used to come up with the
>same strength.
>
>Dan Bailey,
>Paola, KS
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>Michael D Cuy
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:23 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aluminum rims if you can.........
>
>Group--- in searching for motorcycle rims I found the chromed or unchromed
>steel rims to be way heavier than the aluminum rims. See the facts below:
>
>Aluminum is approximately 1/3 the density of steel, 2.72 Mg/m3 versus
>steel's 7.85 Mg/m3.
>
>
>Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
Since the subject of Brodhead has come up, I am going to try to get there
this year and commercial into Madison, rent a car and stay somewhere. I've got
my wife and kids talked into going and hang out for the couple of days.
Any suggestions of places to stay for a young family with two boys, 9 & 11.
Thanks,
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | places to stay around Brodhead |
Greg-- The nearest motels to Brodhead are in Monroe about 11 miles
west. There are no motels that I know of in Brodhead. You'd have to tent
camp if you wanted to stay on the airport---which is free with a donation
of your choice. My search below didn't show phone numbers.
Mike C.
Monroe Super 8 Motel
500 6th Street
Monroe, WI, 53566, US
Room rates from $44.68 to $48.91
Americinn Lodge & Suites
424 4TH AVENUE
Monroe, WI 53566
Room rates from $55.95 to $75.95
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
A bit farther away than Monroe but Isabelle and I have been very comfortable
on two trips at the Baymont in Janesville and found the rates quite
reasonable, and many places for food.
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | Fuselage length and CG |
Hi
I have been listening to the pros and cons of adding say 3" to the front
of the fuselage to get the CG right.
It was said that the fuselage would be to long in front of the wing and
could have an adverse effect on the flight characteristics.
Rather move the wing back to get the CG correct seems to be the way to
go.
Now I want to throw a cat among the pigeons.
If I add 3" to the front that would well, make the fuselage 3" longer at
the front. If I move the wing 3" back that would also make the fuselage
3" longer in front of the wing AND would make the rear 3" shorter
relative to the wing.
This would reduce the tail volume even further.
Would that not be even worse than just adding the 3" at the front?
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Chuck,
By August 2004 we should be living at Hales Landing, an airpark 12 miles SE
of Parkersburg WV, right on your way home from Wheeling WV, or between
Columbus and Wheeling.
You, and your entourage would be welcome to stop in for a place to set up
your tent and some hot food, may even be able to find you a place to
shower. We will be building our hanger at that point and living in the
motorhome so, "come on down".
If you are interested let me know, I will send you the Lat and Long, it is
not on the sectional yet.
Skip, in Atlanta for another 125 days
> Columbus OH (big sister lives there),
>then 090 to Wheeling W V (my hometown). From there, it will be 270
back to
>Wichita KS. I'm sure there will be other 'Low & Slow' flyers that will
join us
>on some of the legs. Does it sound like a pretty good cross country trip
???
>Chuck Gantzer
>NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
Messagenope.... as long as the tank is vented in some form you're fine. just
use the vented cap. Some folks will put a tube in the cap and put an angle cut
on it facing forward. This provides a small amount of positive pressure in
the tank because of the forced air into it..
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter W Johnson
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks
Hi Guys,
Do I need a seperate fuel vent pipe built into the fuel tank if I use a vented
fuel cap?
Just about ready to make the front tank.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Vic. Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
=
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information on an anti-virus email solution, visit <http://www.halfpricehosting.com/av.asp>.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
<5.1.1.5.2.20040129095529.017a5be8(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum rims if you can......... |
Mike,
I've held comparable steel and aluminum rims, one in each hand, to compare the
weight. No scale was available but the weight difference
was far less than I expected. If you can find aluminum rims use them but don't
let steel rims be a show stopper.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:56 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aluminum rims if you can.........
Dan-- that is correct so the only way to compare them is to get equal diameter
rims and weigh each of them. I would bet you that the steel rims, though less
material might be used, will still carry a weight penalty. Also-- the aluminum
rims can be polished to look like chrome if you take your time.
Mike C.
Ah, but remember, steel is stronger, and less is used to come up with the same
strength.
Dan Bailey,
Paola, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aluminum rims if you can.........
Group--- in searching for motorcycle rims I found the chromed or unchromed
steel rims to be way heavier than the aluminum rims. See the facts below:
Aluminum is approximately 1/3 the density of steel, 2.72 Mg/m3 versus steel's
7.85 Mg/m3.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Material strengths |
Check the Aircraft Spruce Catalog; there is an equivalent round tube vs
streamlined tube comparison for tensile and compresssive strength.
Lou larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Material strengths
>
> In a message dated 1/27/04 9:21:55 AM Central Standard Time,
> Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
>
> << Ran across a couple pieces of streamline tubing left over from front
> struts
> of 41CC. 2 1/2X7/8X.049. Have some smaller pieces also. What my question
is,
> Could I sub this streamline tubing for the round in the fabing of the
split
> gear? Would it be strong enough for some of Nathan Moss's landings ( I
> question
> his depth perception sometimes) >>
>
> Corky,
> The plans call for 1 3/8" 14ga. (.074") 1020 steel tube for the Vee gear
> struts. As tempting as it may be to use the 2 1/2" X7/8" X.049", I just
don't
> think it would be adequate for a gross weigh, drop it in type landing.
>
> Chuck G.
> 4 F outside, calm winds - Hearty individuals like Shawn Wolk and Graham
> Hansen, call this 'Pietenpol Weather' !!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | more airfoil talk |
Just my $0.02 worth, I believe the NACA 2412 was the airfoil Cessna used on
the Cessna 120/140. From personal experience with my 1947 140 I can attest
to the fact that it is a fast, clean airfoil with a good glide (I measured
close to a 20:1 glide ratio solo in my 140). It also was a dismal performer
climbing out with a load on a hot summer day. Every takeoff from a 2,000'
grass trip in the summertime was a botany study, and I became intimately
familiar with the trees at the end of the runway. I don't think I would
call it a high-lift airfoil. I think I'll stick with BHP's airfoil. Even
if you could greatly reduce the induced drag from the airfoil, there is so
much parasite drag on this airplane that I doubt you would get much more
speed out of it, and you would likely lose the good qualities. If you want
more performance, build an RV.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of hjarrett
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
Information on the NACA airfoils is pretty easy to get. Good luck finding
anything on BPs. That was why I suggested some wind tunnel testing by an
Aero student. You can't do a comparison if you don't have data on all the
airfoils. Best book to learn about aero theory I have found is by Abbott
and Von Doenhoff. Gets a little deep every once in a while but fun to plow
through.
Hank J
----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Chambers <mailto:kchambers(at)winternals.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
Ive poked around a little on the Internet, trying to weasel some airfoil
recommendations from knowledgeable folk. Just to keep us talking about it,
give us some ideas. David Lednicer, who seems to have some pretty nice
aerodynamic bona fides and works for Analytical Methods, Inc., thinks we
should keep it simple with NACA 2412 or 4412. Proven airfoils with
well-known characteristics. Used for years in a variety of Cessnas and other
aircraft.
I havent had a chance to find the stats for these airfoils so we can
compare them to the Pietenpol FC-10. Anyone know where to find this
information online?
Ken
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage length and CG |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==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Thanks Jack, I'm thinking along the same lines. Nothing wrong with the Piet
FC-10 as proven over the years. It was/ is my desire to do a bit of
experimenting with the possibility of maybe, if not accidentally, finding something
a
skosh more aerodynamically better. Has anyone ever tried a different airfoil?
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage length and CG |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
It isn't moving the wing that affects yaw stability. It is having a CG that
is too far aft which you then have to accommodate by moving the wing back.
It is, as almost everyone agrees, far better to do what ever it takes to
keep the CG forward, where it belongs.
Moving the wing should be a last resort to achieve a flyable airplane out of
a project. Moving the wing incurs, as this discussion shows, penalties in
yaw stability, possibly insufficient horizontal tail volume (i.e., pitch
stability) and in airplane esthetics (it don't look good...IMOHO).
Mike Hardaway
on 1/29/04 16:52, DJ Vegh at djv(at)imagedv.com wrote:
thats exactly what I said about 3 days ago. In my opinion the better of two
evils would be to move the engine forward rather than move the wing back.
you are correct moving the wing affects the yaw stability problem in two
ways. reduced tail moment and increased nose moment.
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper <http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper>
----- Original Message -----
From: Deon Engelmann <mailto:engelmannd(at)icon.co.za>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length and CG
Hi
I have been listening to the pros and cons of adding say 3=94 to the front of
the fuselage to get the CG right.
It was said that the fuselage would be to long in front of the wing and
could have an adverse effect on the flight characteristics.
Rather move the wing back to get the CG correct seems to be the way to go.
Now I want to throw a cat among the pigeons.
If I add 3=94 to the front that would well, make the fuselage 3=94 longer at the
front. If I move the wing 3=94 back that would also make the fuselage 3=94
longer in front of the wing AND would make the rear 3=94 shorter relative to
the wing.
This would reduce the tail volume even further.
Would that not be even worse than just adding the 3=94 at the front?
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
| From: | Mike <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
MIME_QP_LONG_LINE
on 1/29/04 16:58, Isablcorky(at)aol.com at Isablcorky(at)aol.com wrote:
Thanks Jack, I'm thinking along the same lines. Nothing wrong with the Piet
FC-10 as proven over the years. It was/ is my desire to do a bit of
experimenting with the possibility of maybe, if not accidentally, finding
something a skosh more aerodynamically better. Has anyone ever tried a
different airfoil?
Corky
Corky et al,
Isn't that what John Grega did?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hardware test and evaluation of |
I started to lay out a test procedure but it got totally out of hand in
short order when I tried to cover every possible eventuality. The process
isn't really all that complicated but there are a BUNCH of details that
could cause the test to include or exclude certain loading conditions. Do
you guys have a picture (to start) of the parts the bolt holds and where it
is in the control system. Once I have that I can figure out exactly what
loading conditions are needed to demonstrate a positive safety margin. The
test itself should only involve some levers and a scale applied to some
steel plates to load the bolt and simulate the loading conditions in the
plane. Every test is a little different, but not complicated. The test
should be able to apply a 200% load without even making the bolt break a
sweat (at least everything else BP designed seems overbuilt that way).
Hank
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hardware
>
> In a message dated 1/28/04 7:55:56 PM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com
> writes:
>
> << Chuck, a castle nut would probably be a good idea. >>
>
> Max,
> A castle nun / cotter pin is standard practice in a rotational
application.
>
> Hank,
> How could a homebuilder set up, and do a destructive test, and come up
with
> an accurate reading ? The ol' Sledge Hammer doesn't offer up any numbers
!!
>
> Everyone,
> Keep in mind that these e-mails will go into archive, and for future
> reference the 'Subject Line' should pertain to the text.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet for sale (built from GN-1 Plans) |
In early November, I purchased a "Pietenpol" from a builder in Mineral
Bluffs, Georgia. The builder completed the project from GN-1 plans in June of 1998
and as soon as the Atlanta FSDO signed the papers and assigned the Phase 1
flight restrictions, the builder had a heart attack and lost his medical. The
plane sat under cover at his home until I picked it up in November. About a week
after I returned home, the builder entered a coma and was admitted to a
hospital in Atlanta, where at last I heard, he remains comotose. (His ad is still
posted on Grant McLauren's website... look for Bob Linton as the person who
posted the original ad...)
I originally had planned on traveling to Georgia with my dad (retired jet
jockey and A&P license) to inspect the plane prior to purchase, but he became ill
and was hospitalized and unable to travel. I went alone and brought the
airplane home. After my dad got out of the hospital, he found a few details that
needed immdieate attention. One of the things that needed fixing was the carb.
I
purchased a yellow-tag carb (Marvel) to fix one problem and I installed a new
gascolator, There are a few other descrepancies that I am willing to disclose
that my dad determined needed TLC.
I am not able to devote any time to getting the airplane ready for a new FSDO
inspection here in Texas, because my dad was re-admitted to the hospital for
surgery due to colon cancer, To compound matters, my mother was diagnosed with
lung cancer about the time my dad had his surgery. I was advised today that
my mom has 6 months left and I have very little personal time to devote to my
"hanger queen" that is sitting the hanger here on my farm in central Texas.
I'd like to keep this bird and "tweak" the discrepancies, but I am now a
caregiver and devoting a lot of time to taking care of my parents. I don't have
any spare time for the airplane, nor do I have the mechanical skills of my dad
or the A&P license in order to annual the airplane. (There isn't an A&P
mechanic for 50 miles... and I am not spending much time on the farm for a mechanic
to come out and make some fixes anyway.)
I will sell the airplane for less than I have in it and will include the
newly overhauled, yellow tagged Marvel carb.
For details, please contact me at KRSBTV(at)AOL.COM. I can send a couple of
pictures on-line but for anyone who is seriously interested, I'll have to send
a
CD containing more info, I have dial-up connection and it is painfully slow.
Anyone who is interested in purchasing this airplane will need to haul it off
on a trailer. I have a trailer specifically suited for hauling this (or
other) airplanes that is basically new, that I can sell if someone needs a great
airplane trailer.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
Knot-2-Shabby Airport, 5TA6, San Antonio Sectional - Central Texas
(KRSBTV(at)AOL.COM)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Hi Dave:
If you don't find them there try Fog Hollow motorcycle salvage. They have a
location in Wellston, a St.Louis suburb and in Eureka, Mo on hwy 44. They also
have a website.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
List,
I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of used
motorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out my
Piet wheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.
Dave Paulsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PAT HOEVELMANN <hoevelmann(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Tail section dimensions |
I am starting the tail section for my piet. I am having trouble reading the dimensions
on the horizontal. The cap strips that run from the leading edge back
to the main beam on the top and bottom are they 1/8x3/4? How many plies should
the The 1/8 plywood gussets be? I have a lot of questions, I hope you all
can help me. Thanks
James
J. Hoevelmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
| Subject: | Re: Fuselage length and CG |
Someone posted a quote from Bernie made I believe a few years after he
built the Corvair/long fuselage Piet suggesting adding 6 inches to the
front of the fuselage. If you are using a lighter engine and need to
make the engine mount 3" longer to balance why not just make the
fueslage 3" longer instead and gain some interior fuselage volume? After
adding the cowling the fuselage length forward of the leading edge will
be the same.
RickH
Deon Engelmann wrote:
> Hi
>
>
>
> I have been listening to the pros and cons of adding say 3" to the
> front of the fuselage to get the CG right.
>
> It was said that the fuselage would be to long in front of the wing
> and could have an adverse effect on the flight characteristics.
>
> Rather move the wing back to get the CG correct seems to be the way to go.
>
>
>
> Now I want to throw a cat among the pigeons.
>
>
>
> If I add 3" to the front that would well, make the fuselage 3" longer
> at the front. If I move the wing 3" back that would also make the
> fuselage 3" longer in front of the wing AND would make the rear 3"
> shorter relative to the wing.
>
> This would reduce the tail volume even further.
>
>
>
> Would that not be even worse than just adding the 3" at the front?
>
>
>
>
>
> Deon Engelmann
>
> EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
>
> Pretoria
>
> South Africa
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
Thanks Dennis! Eureka sounds great. Question: Did you attach your landing gear
to the fuse by drilling and bolting through struts, the wedges between the
struts or doesn't it make any difference?
Another question if you don't mind. On "Sky Gypsy," do you think those wheels
are covered with fabric or metal. I'm wondering if that would be a good way to
strengthen a spoked wheel or if it's just cosmetic.
Hope you're making good progress on the Piet.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Engelkenjohn
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 6:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
Hi Dave:
If you don't find them there try Fog Hollow motorcycle salvage. They have
a location in Wellston, a St.Louis suburb and in Eureka, Mo on hwy 44. They also
have a website.
Dennis
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing Gear
List,
I've found a motorcycle shop in Rosebud Missouri that has hundreds of used
motorcycle wheels sorted into bins. I'm going there Saturday to pick out
my Piet wheels. Any suggestions as to what to look for and what to avoid? Thanks.
Dave Paulsen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail section dimensions |
Pat,
I'm currently working on the tail section with the horiz. stab completed. All
the capstrips in the tail are 3/16" thk. X 1/2" wide. As for # of plies, if you
have a good marine or aircraft grade 1/8" thk. plywood (I'm using marine grade
Okume) that should work fine. Typically I believe they're 3 ply. Many people
are using aircraft grade birch or mahogony plywood. Any of these should
be fine.
Where are you located?
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
----- Original Message -----
From: PAT HOEVELMANN
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 8:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail section dimensions
I am starting the tail section for my piet. I am having trouble reading the
dimensions on the horizontal. The cap strips that run from the leading edge back
to the main beam on the top and bottom are they 1/8x3/4? How many plies should
the The 1/8 plywood gussets be? I have a lot of questions, I hope you all
can help me. Thanks
James J. Hoevelmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | PAT HOEVELMANN <hoevelmann(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail section dimensions |
I am in Union Mo. Thanks for the dimensions. What kind of wood are you using
and where are you getting it? I used poplar for the fuselage and douglas fir
for the ribs. I think I may just get the precut stuff from wicks for the tail
section.
Brants wrote:Pat,
I'm currently working on the tail section with the horiz. stab completed. All
the capstrips in the tail are 3/16" thk. X 1/2" wide. As for # of plies, if you
have a good marine or aircraft grade 1/8" thk. plywood (I'm using marine grade
Okume) that should work fine. Typically I believe they're 3 ply. Many people
are using aircraft grade birch or mahogony plywood. Any of these should
be fine.
Where are you located?
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/29/04 3:18:06 AM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Do I need a seperate fuel vent pipe built into the fuel tank if I use a
vented fuel cap? >>
Peter,
You only need one vent, bent and pointed into the slipstream, similar to the
way Tony Bengalis shows it. I made the vents into the fuel caps, on both the
wing tank, and the cowl tank. I bent a 1/4" copper tube, JB Weld to attach
it to the cap. The cowl tank fuel cap also has a wire / cork for fuel quantity
indicator.
Are you building a wing tank, or cowl tank ? What material ?
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Grist for the mill;
http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads.html
http://www.dreesecode.com/other/aflprimer.pdf
http://www.aae.uiuc.edu/m-selig/ads/aircraft.html
A list of hundreds of aircraft and their airfoils
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
Thanks Jack, I'm thinking along the same lines. Nothing wrong with the Piet FC-10
as proven over the years. It was/ is my desire to do a bit of experimenting
with the possibility of maybe, if not accidentally, finding something a skosh
more aerodynamically better. Has anyone ever tried a different airfoil?
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Thanks for the replys,
I'm building both cowl tank and center section out of 0.050" 5052 - H32
Aluminium.
Looks like 1/4" tube in each of the caps will do the job.
Cheers
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks
In a message dated 1/29/04 3:18:06 AM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Do I need a seperate fuel vent pipe built into the fuel tank if I use a
vented fuel cap? >>
Peter,
You only need one vent, bent and pointed into the slipstream, similar to the
way Tony Bengalis shows it. I made the vents into the fuel caps, on both
the
wing tank, and the cowl tank. I bent a 1/4" copper tube, JB Weld to
attach
it to the cap. The cowl tank fuel cap also has a wire / cork for fuel
quantity
indicator.
Are you building a wing tank, or cowl tank ? What material ?
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
Does anyone remember that great site that
had all those Piet video clips on it?
It went down some time ago but I had down
loaded the clips. They all disappeared when
I had that virus attack last Sept.
They were great and I played them a lot. I don't
suppose they're still available somewhere???
Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
<01b801c3e6da$8f2dac60$8d00000a@kareneng>
<001b01c3e6f2$2e42a6e0$aa49e5d8@dpaul>
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing Gear |
>Thanks Dennis! Eureka sounds great. Question: Did you attach your
>landing gear to the fuse by drilling and bolting through struts, the
>wedges between the struts or doesn't it make any difference?
>
>Another question if you don't mind. On "Sky Gypsy," do you think
>those wheels are covered with fabric or metal. I'm wondering if
>that would be a good way to strengthen a spoked wheel or if it's
>just cosmetic.
>
>Hope you're making good progress on the Piet.
>
>Dave
Dave,
The coverings on Sky Gypsy's wheels are aluminum. I'm not sure how
Frank made them, as I've never asked him, but my guess is he did it
himself - he is a real expert at vintage aircraft restoration. He
recently finished rebuilding a Waco Taperwing that rivaled anything
I've ever seen for craftsmanship and sheer beauty. I was part of the
crew who helped him put on the wings, so I really got to see
everything 'up close & personal'. Wheel coverings are neither
structural nor 'just cosmetic'. Coverings of that type reduce some of
the drag created by the spokes, although, as we all know, that's of
debatable value on a Piet.
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
DNA: do not archive
Its-Bogus: do not forward to list
--- MIME Errors ---
A message with no text/plain section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using plaintext formatting.
NOTE! This error can also occur when the poster of the
message has a specific type of computer virus. This virus
WAS NOT forwarded on to the List. The poster should be
informed of the potential problem with their system as soon
as possible.
--- MIME Errors ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
travel)
| Subject: | Graham ! (and idea for storage in a Piet for x-country |
travel)
Graham-- just a note to say I really enjoyed your post about flying your
Pietenpol in cold weather and on snow skis. I'll not complain about the
zero to ten degrees Fahrenheit and snow we have been having here in
Cleveland, Ohio since hearing of your -21 F in Camrose, Alberta Canada !
On flying your Piet in cold weather, I find that if I keep my brown vinyl
cockpit cover (they snap in around the perimeter) over the front pit on
colder days that my legs stay alot warmer. Perhaps you've tried this
already. When I go on a weekend trip or to Brodhead or Oshkosh I remove
the front stick (it is a slip fit in a socket) and snap in a heavy black
cloth sack/sling in the front seat that I had an upholstery shop sew up for
me. Installed it looks like one of those 55 gallon drums cut in 1/2 to
make a barbecue rack out of...but much smaller. That works great for
packing my sleeping bag, tent, pillow, water jug, snacks, camera, spare
oil, tie downs, etc. Then I snap the cover over the top to keep things
from flapping in the breeze. Between that and the center section people
are amazed when they see what all I can fit in that little airplane !
Stay warm and keep those posts coming,
Mike C.
(see cockpit cover on front pit at a layover in Valparasio, Indiana where
some nice guys got me out of the rain and put me next to a jet fuel thirsty
King Air !)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
Greg,
I bring my two boys to Brodhead every year and they love it. They will be 6 and
10 this year.
chris b.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun
Since the subject of Brodhead has come up, I am going to try to get there this
year and commercial into Madison, rent a car and stay somewhere. I've got my
wife and kids talked into going and hang out for the couple of days.
Any suggestions of places to stay for a young family with two boys, 9 & 11.
Thanks,
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
"Pietenpol-List Digest List"
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
more airfoil talk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | The Fisherman..... |
JUST an fyi.....(this is NOT a recommendation).....
(1/29/04) For Sale Piet Project
Partially built Pietenpol for sale at $6000 in Miami. Wings finished this
week, Yellow-Orange. Tail feathers on long fuselage done. Next job is
landing gear, have tubes in carton. Some instruments in one panel seat.
Fuselage not covered yet, but have the paint and dacron. Still need to build
the steering stuff. Center cabane struts also. No engine yet either!
Leaving USA for Belize, either this July, or following year, July. If this
year, I'm going to be in a big hurry to sell the house, plane and go. Would
like to sell my work, as I cannot ship it there. If I get another
postponement for one year, maybe I can finish it? I've got two years work in
this and a photo catalogue of the progress as I go along. Leaving in few
days for Belize and will be back late February and know for sure then my
plans. But anybody got the price, can take the plane as is! There is about
$3600 in materials spent so far.
Ray Auxillou
belizedevtrust(at)yahoo.co.uk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
I hope I'm not the only one that encourages this, but if Corky is thinking
about building a 2412 (or similar) airfoil as an experiment to see what
happens, I say go for it! Some of us like plowing through technical manuals
and trying to optomise down to the nats ass on design, but then again, some
of us just like to build and see. As long as anyone doesn't see anything
horribly unsafe with the wing section selection, I would like to be
encouraging on this one. It is an experimental aircraft for crying out
loud, and some of the fun is in the experimenting.
Also, when (not if) Corky flys his planes, he's going to need a little speed
to get from LA to WI to show it off. Heck now that I've said that, I think
it would be cool to have multiple wings (the standard set, a pair of
speeders, a super high lift set, etc.), depending on the day's application.
It would be the Swiss army knife of AirCampers.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
Thanks Jack, I'm thinking along the same lines. Nothing wrong with the Piet
FC-10 as proven over the years. It was/ is my desire to do a bit of
experimenting with the possibility of maybe, if not accidentally, finding
something
a
skosh more aerodynamically better. Has anyone ever tried a different
airfoil?
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun |
I'm planning on bringing my wife and two kids this year (my wife doesn't
age, but my daughter will be 11 and my son will be 7), as the first stop
on a vacation up north. I am pretty sure they'll dig it. We will camp
and enjoy the excellent vittles onsite. It's nice to know they'll be
able to make some new friends while we're there.
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> bobka(at)compuserve.com Friday, January 30, 2004 12:48:32 PM >>>
Greg,
I bring my two boys to Brodhead every year and they love it. They will
be 6 and 10 this year.
chris b.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gnwac(at)cs.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 9:51 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Seeking Piet ride at Sun N Fun
Since the subject of Brodhead has come up, I am going to try to get
there this year and commercial into Madison, rent a car and stay
somewhere. I've got my wife and kids talked into going and hang out for
the couple of days.
Any suggestions of places to stay for a young family with two boys, 9
& 11.
Thanks,
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Oh yea, and another thing (oh, now I'm started), what the heck is with this
concern for changing the wing section?! "Oh My, you can possibly change the
wing, it just won't be an original!"
You can change the fuselage, heck the plans give you three choices, some
even change it beyond that. You can put whatever engine in it, the cowlings
are different from plane to plane... Wheels and gear, got a few choices
there... some have passenger doors... struts as opposed to rigging wires...
to flop or not to flop... three piece wing or one big slab... turtle deck.
But HEAVEN FORBID that the wing section get changed! Gesh, you thought we
were talking about rounding the lines of the tail (that, of course you can
not do, it would just be silly).
Whew.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
:)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: more airfoil talk
> I hope I'm not the only one that encourages this, but if Corky is thinking
> about building a 2412 (or similar) airfoil as an experiment to see what
> happens, I say go for it! Some of us like plowing through technical
manuals
> and trying to optomise down to the nats ass on design, but then again,
some
> of us just like to build and see. As long as anyone doesn't see anything
> horribly unsafe with the wing section selection, I would like to be
> encouraging on this one. It is an experimental aircraft for crying out
> loud, and some of the fun is in the experimenting.
>
> Also, when (not if) Corky flys his planes, he's going to need a little
speed
> to get from LA to WI to show it off. Heck now that I've said that, I
think
> it would be cool to have multiple wings (the standard set, a pair of
> speeders, a super high lift set, etc.), depending on the day's
application.
> It would be the Swiss army knife of AirCampers.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: more airfoil talk
>
> Thanks Jack, I'm thinking along the same lines. Nothing wrong with the
Piet
> FC-10 as proven over the years. It was/ is my desire to do a bit of
> experimenting with the possibility of maybe, if not accidentally, finding
> something
> a
> skosh more aerodynamically better. Has anyone ever tried a different
> airfoil?
> Corky
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Long-range planning |
| From: | "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> |
Something that's been in the back of my mind but won't go away is the
ultimate hangar value question. Around here (Beantown, MA) suburban
hangar rental seems to be something like 200 - 400/month. Tie-downs
here can be almost reasonable (75 at one strip, for example). In a few
years at those hangar rates you pay more for the space than for the
Piet. Soooooo--just how much of a sin is it to tie down a
wood-and-fabric aircraft? The books say don't do it, but I notice that
some people do do it, and wonder if there are good inspection and
maintenance procedures to ensure you don't ultimately wind up like Knute
Rockne (whose Fokker had dry-rot in its spars).
Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | alum rims vs steel rims |
The Aluminum rims should be machined out of one piece and have no weld. Generally
speaking, pound for pound, aluminum is as strong as steel so if the alum rim
wieghs what the steel rim weighs, as Greg C. suggests, alum would be the way
to go.
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | alum rims vs steel rims |
Just from my experience, of the 3 aluminum motor cycle rims I have studied
closely, all had what appear to be factory welds.
Skip
The Aluminum rims should be machined out of one piece and have no weld.
Chris Bobka
Message
Just
from my experience, of the 3 aluminum motor cycle rims I have studied closely,
all had what appear to be factory welds.
Skip
The Aluminum rims should be machined out
of one piece and have no weld.
Chris
Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John_Duprey(at)vmed.org |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
7, 2002) at
01/30/2004 03:23:09 PM
Hey Mark: Where exactley are you located? I know a place on the South Shore
with very reasonable hangar fees.
John Duprey
sitting in my office in Copley Sq.
"Hodgson, Mark O" (at)matronics.com on 01/30/2004 02:07:45 PM
Please respond to pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent by: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
cc:
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
Something that's been in the back of my mind but won't go away is the
ultimate hangar value question. Around here (Beantown, MA) suburban
hangar rental seems to be something like 200 - 400/month. Tie-downs
here can be almost reasonable (75 at one strip, for example). In a few
years at those hangar rates you pay more for the space than for the
Piet. Soooooo--just how much of a sin is it to tie down a
wood-and-fabric aircraft? The books say don't do it, but I notice that
some people do do it, and wonder if there are good inspection and
maintenance procedures to ensure you don't ultimately wind up like Knute
Rockne (whose Fokker had dry-rot in its spars).
Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
Mark,
Not alot of airports will let you, but ours allows fabric hangers. So you
pay for an outside tiedown and put up your own "building". My Piet is in
one 30'wide X 20' deep. Now it's out of the sun and elements, snug as a
bug. It's worth everything for your peace of mind.
When you go asking, make sure you're armed with some good Piet pics. They
may give you the cold shoulder if they think they're getting "another 150" ,
But when they see the Piet in progress, you'll get nothing but pictures
passed around to everybody.
One airport in Jersey "Trinca" the manager keeps bugging me to relocate
there, where he's leaning toward the classic taildraggers.
And at Sussex up north, home of the sussex airshow, the manager asked me to
be in the show as a "between the acts" antique fly-by.
Good Luck!
"Cover-it" is the brand I used.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
>
> Something that's been in the back of my mind but won't go away is the
> ultimate hangar value question. Around here (Beantown, MA) suburban
> hangar rental seems to be something like 200 - 400/month. Tie-downs
> here can be almost reasonable (75 at one strip, for example). In a few
> years at those hangar rates you pay more for the space than for the
> Piet. Soooooo--just how much of a sin is it to tie down a
> wood-and-fabric aircraft? The books say don't do it, but I notice that
> some people do do it, and wonder if there are good inspection and
> maintenance procedures to ensure you don't ultimately wind up like Knute
> Rockne (whose Fokker had dry-rot in its spars).
>
> Mark Hodgson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: alum rims vs steel rims |
MessageI used 18" steel rims. The finished wheel with brake drum, and without
tire or tube, weighed 8 lbs. apiece. I was happy with the finished product.
Except mine had the "chromed look", maybe some would not like that.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Gadd, Skip
To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2004 3:16 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: alum rims vs steel rims
Just from my experience, of the 3 aluminum motor cycle rims I have studied closely,
all had what appear to be factory welds.
Skip
The Aluminum rims should be machined out of one piece and have no weld.
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "hjarrett" <hjarrett(at)hroads.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
I hate to be a party pooper but you DON'T want to put your baby outside. I
have been all over a wood wing Mooney and an old PT that only spent a couple
of seasons outside and they were JUNK. If the dry rot, mold or mildew
doesn't end up killing you in a related failure you will have a heart attack
when you inspect and find all your work has turned to junk (all of this
should be disregarded if you live in the desert southwest, just build a sun
shade for it). There IS however hope. How about building an enclosed
trailer? If you use the 3 piece wing you should be able to build a box for
her to keep her dry and several people could put trailers in one tie down
(drops the price to $25 a month!!!). Trailers are simple after you have
built a plane and seems like I saw one the guy put doors in so he could put
it in with the wings spread then buttoned it up with the wings sticking out
and put covers on them. Good solution if you are flying pretty regular.
Just go out at the end of the season and fold her up. Winter time you drag
her home and save even more.
Hank
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
>
> Something that's been in the back of my mind but won't go away is the
> ultimate hangar value question. Around here (Beantown, MA) suburban
> hangar rental seems to be something like 200 - 400/month. Tie-downs
> here can be almost reasonable (75 at one strip, for example). In a few
> years at those hangar rates you pay more for the space than for the
> Piet. Soooooo--just how much of a sin is it to tie down a
> wood-and-fabric aircraft? The books say don't do it, but I notice that
> some people do do it, and wonder if there are good inspection and
> maintenance procedures to ensure you don't ultimately wind up like Knute
> Rockne (whose Fokker had dry-rot in its spars).
>
> Mark Hodgson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
Mark...... It's a CRIME to park it outside. Unfortunately, you need to pay
the price.....and try to find someone to share it with.
Your plane will appreciate it by providing you with lots of hours of trouble
free flying....And it stays much cleaner when you park it inside.
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
>
> Something that's been in the back of my mind but won't go away is the
> ultimate hangar value question. Around here (Beantown, MA) suburban
> hangar rental seems to be something like 200 - 400/month. Tie-downs
> here can be almost reasonable (75 at one strip, for example). In a few
> years at those hangar rates you pay more for the space than for the
> Piet. Soooooo--just how much of a sin is it to tie down a
> wood-and-fabric aircraft? The books say don't do it, but I notice that
> some people do do it, and wonder if there are good inspection and
> maintenance procedures to ensure you don't ultimately wind up like Knute
> Rockne (whose Fokker had dry-rot in its spars).
>
> Mark Hodgson
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 1/30/04 1:28:34 AM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< I'm building both cowl tank and center section out of 0.050" 5052 - H32
Aluminium. >>
Peter,
Here is a few things to keep in mind, when you're designing your tanks:
Make the fuel sumps at the lowest part of the tank, with the tail down.
For the wing tank, put one in the back of the tank. For the cowl tank, slope
the bottom of the tank forward, to the outlet - when the tail is on the
ground. Make the outlet of the cowl tank so that all the water will find it's
way
out. You must assume that every time you add fuel, you add water, and you must
sump it out before each flight.
Make the wing tank slope to the center of the bottom, while in level
flight, to the outlet. This will allow all the fuel to be transferred to the cowl
tank, via an on / off valve on the bottom of the wing tank (above the
passenger's head). Make the valve accessible from the pilot seat. I used a ball
valve, and a simple torque tube in line with the rotation of the valve, along the
bottom of the wing, with a 90 bend in it for the handle, just above the
pilot's windshield.
Isolate the cowl tank, and all the fittings, from the passenger
compartment. Should a leak occur, the fuel can't find it's way to the passenger
compartment. Insulate the cowl tank from the engine compartment, behind a sealed
firewall. You can use Fiberfax, or Heavy weave fiberglass. Another fuel On /
Off valve should be located at the outlet of the Cowl Tank, and operated via
heavy duty cable, or very secure torque tube. I used a push-on, pull-off cable.
Tony Bengelis shows all this. An engine fire Can Not have a flame path to
the fuel tank, so all fittings through the firewall must be Fireproof.
The gascolator should go on the bottom edge of the firewall (lowest point
in the fuel system), and easily accessible thru the bottom of the cowl. Do
Not put any portion of the gascolator below the bottom edge of the firewall.
If you knock the landing gear off on landing, it can't cause a fuel leak.
No need for any kind of fuel quantity indicator in the Wing Tank, because
the engine will be drinking from the Cowl tank. Use a cork & wire in the
cowl tank fuel cap.
Do a thorough leak test to both tanks, before installation.
These are just a few things to consider, when designing your fuel system.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Thanks Chuck,
I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the capacity
of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank without
overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl tank
inlet from the wing tank.
I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each tank
seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
tank quantity guage.
What do you think?
Cheers
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks
In a message dated 1/30/04 1:28:34 AM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< I'm building both cowl tank and center section out of 0.050" 5052 - H32
Aluminium. >>
Peter,
Here is a few things to keep in mind, when you're designing your tanks:
Make the fuel sumps at the lowest part of the tank, with the tail down.
For the wing tank, put one in the back of the tank. For the cowl tank,
slope
the bottom of the tank forward, to the outlet - when the tail is on the
ground. Make the outlet of the cowl tank so that all the water will find
it's way
out. You must assume that every time you add fuel, you add water, and you
must
sump it out before each flight.
Make the wing tank slope to the center of the bottom, while in level
flight, to the outlet. This will allow all the fuel to be transferred to
the cowl
tank, via an on / off valve on the bottom of the wing tank (above the
passenger's head). Make the valve accessible from the pilot seat. I used a
ball
valve, and a simple torque tube in line with the rotation of the valve,
along the
bottom of the wing, with a 90 bend in it for the handle, just above the
pilot's windshield.
Isolate the cowl tank, and all the fittings, from the passenger
compartment. Should a leak occur, the fuel can't find it's way to the
passenger
compartment. Insulate the cowl tank from the engine compartment, behind a
sealed
firewall. You can use Fiberfax, or Heavy weave fiberglass. Another fuel On
/
Off valve should be located at the outlet of the Cowl Tank, and operated via
heavy duty cable, or very secure torque tube. I used a push-on, pull-off
cable.
Tony Bengelis shows all this. An engine fire Can Not have a flame path to
the fuel tank, so all fittings through the firewall must be Fireproof.
The gascolator should go on the bottom edge of the firewall (lowest
point
in the fuel system), and easily accessible thru the bottom of the cowl. Do
Not put any portion of the gascolator below the bottom edge of the firewall.
If you knock the landing gear off on landing, it can't cause a fuel leak.
No need for any kind of fuel quantity indicator in the Wing Tank,
because
the engine will be drinking from the Cowl tank. Use a cork & wire in the
cowl tank fuel cap.
Do a thorough leak test to both tanks, before installation.
These are just a few things to consider, when designing your fuel
system.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carbarvo(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
Pieters: The light at the end of the tunnel has alerted me to a need to house
this airplane somewhere. I have gotten interested in a company from Boone, NC
named US-Buildings..(800/463-6062). They have five styles of steel buildings
which appear to be simple to erect..(unlike some other aspects of my life).
One of these styles is reminiscent of B. Pietenpols hanger in Cherry Grove (now
at Oshkosh). I would be very interested to hear of any experiences any of you
may have with this company or with this style of building. At the prices they
were quoting, I figure it will pay for itself within five
years............CAVU Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
I recently purchased a 50x50 straight sided quonset hut. There are a number of
companies with very similar products, all of them reluctant to initially quote
a price but eager to beat their competitors price. Spend a few months and play
them off each other. My experience was that the 'special, good this week
only price' was still available the next month. Expect a lot of carrying on,
'special deals', 'buy now before the price of steel goes up', etc from the salesmen.
Ignore all of the carrying on and just keep going back and forth. The
final price I paid was about half of the first quote I received.
My building is not complete yet, so far 17 out of 25 arches are up. I started
on Dec 26 and have worked evenings and weekends as I have a day job. An arch
per full day of work is about what it works out to. Mostly it has just been my
wife and I; you will need someone to hold the nuts. At least with my building
(which is 50 ft wide and thicker than usual to meet Florida's wind codes) I
found the instructions that show the arches being assembled on the ground to
be a joke as the arches would buckle under their own weight. Instead I have been
building the arches in place. With large holes in the metal and small bolts
most of them go through with little trouble. A couple of drift pins help a
lot. When you price the job out do not forget to add in the concrete for the
pad as that came to around 2/3 the cost of my building. Also expect to rent
a man lift (scissor type) for a couple of months during assembly and a forklift
for a day to unload the truck when it arrives. Doo
rs are also quite expensive. The good news is that there are no difficult skills
to master, no heavy lifting, and little heavy equipment.
A frame steel building with siding would probably have gone together faster, however
that would have involved heavy equipment that I do not have. The thought
of a collection of 50 ft beems being dropped in my yard and having to figure
out how to get them in position 16 feet in the air makes a quonset look great
to me.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From:
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
Pieters: The light at the end of the tunnel has alerted me to a need to house this
airplane somewhere. I have gotten interested in a company from Boone, NC named
US-Buildings..(800/463-6062). They have five styles of steel buildings which
appear to be simple to erect..(unlike some other aspects of my life). One
of these styles is reminiscent of B. Pietenpols hanger in Cherry Grove (now at
Oshkosh). I would be very interested to hear of any experiences any of you may
have with this company or with this style of building. At the prices they were
quoting, I figure it will pay for itself within five years............CAVU
Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | corvair conversion cost |
Sorry just downloaded my messages; I should have also said that I am
running a Lycoming 0-235. When my test pilot did his test he got 2000RPM
static and unloaded to 2100RPM in the take of roll, he did a dive down
to the runway and she unloaded to 2200RPM at a max of 75kts, cruised at
55kts 2100RPM.
I agree that I have to much prop, I just got back home from the previous
owner, he gave me one of the previous props that was on the plane a GSC
72" dia, the original owner no longer has any of the props he had tested
on her.
Just some history, the plane did a nose over on landing in about 1984
and had not flown since, she has been recovered and the motor has been
majored with all the mandatory mods done. The 0-235 has of date 10Hrs
since major, airframe has 1.3Hrs since major.
<< Also what pitch and dia should I be using(currently 72X48) and only
getting 2000RPM >>
Norman,
Most of the Continental A65's that I've seen, including mine, has a
72 X
42 wooden prop. Sounds like you have too much prop.
Is that you on the business end, or in the driver's seat ?
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
> it would be cool to have multiple wings (the standard set, a pair of
> speeders, a super high lift set, etc.), depending on the day's
application.
> It would be the Swiss army knife of AirCampers.
The heck with this 3-piece wing stuff. How about a 12-piece wing. Just pick
the speed you want to fly and take off as many sections as you dare. When
you can't lift off anymore, you went one step too far. :)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Thanks Chuck,
I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the capacity
of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank without
overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl tank
inlet from the wing tank.
I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each tank
seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
tank quantity guage.
What do you think? >>
Peter,
The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If it
isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to the
cowl tank.
Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank. This
is
your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line of
defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage, you
also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before Flight'.
For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of fuel.
Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and finally
the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply replenishes
the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough. In
flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This system
does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can overflow
the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on the
wire, during re-fuel.
Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the cowl
tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick, have
the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank, and
add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
gallon line.
During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight log,
along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
I have a flying story about this system:
On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some fuel.
Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I reached
up
and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery and
unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6 minutes
to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank. NOT !!
A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached up and
turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel. Ducked down
in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip to
maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb rate.
I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been DISASASTEROUS
!! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my windshield.
Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
Chuck,
Sounds like fun!!!
As I noted, a mark on the cowl fuel tank contents level to show when there
is enough space in the tank to take the contents of the wing tank would be
useful.
Thanks for the suggestions.
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story.
In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
<< Thanks Chuck,
I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the capacity
of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank without
overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl tank
inlet from the wing tank.
I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each tank
seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
tank quantity guage.
What do you think? >>
Peter,
The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If it
isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to
the
cowl tank.
Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank.
This is
your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line of
defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage, you
also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before
Flight'.
For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of fuel.
Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and
finally
the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply
replenishes
the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough. In
flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This system
does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can
overflow
the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on
the
wire, during re-fuel.
Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the cowl
tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick,
have
the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank,
and
add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
gallon line.
During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight
log,
along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
I have a flying story about this system:
On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some
fuel.
Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I
reached up
and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery and
unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6
minutes
to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank.
NOT !!
A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached up
and
turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel.
Ducked down
in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip to
maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb
rate.
I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been DISASASTEROUS
!! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my
windshield.
Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
advertising on the Matronics Forums.
________________________________________________________________________________
for x-country travel)
| Subject: | Re: Graham ! (and idea for storage in a Piet for x-country |
travel)
Michael,
For years, I used a metal cover over the front cockpit in cooler weather
and, when the a/c was hangared, keep out pests of various kinds. The sheet
metal covers were fine, but I had leave them at home when I went anywhere,
so I had covers made from fabric material used for sailboat sail covers.
Snap fasteners hold them in place and they can be rolled up and taken with
the airplane in the wing center section which has always been the small
baggage compartment on my Pietenpol (I have only the fuselage nose tank
holding about 15 US gallons of fuel).
I have never flown really long distances with my Pietenpol, but on occasion
have removed the front stick and secured stuff onto the front seat using the
lap belt and shoulder straps. I have thought of making a canvas sling,
similar to yours, but never got around to doing so. I find the Pietenpol
uncomfortable after about an hour "in the saddle" and like to land for a
little "walkabout" after perhaps 1.5 hours. If some extra fuel is required,
I strap a 5 gallon container onto the front seat and empty it into the fuel
tank during such a stop. I have always preferred to use only the top half of
the fuel in the tank, and to not make
serious demands on the lower half. So these stops fit my philosophy nicely.
At one time I was inclined to fly my Pietenpol to Oshkosh and/or Brodhead,
but never got things arranged so that I could get away. Nowadays, I am too
old for such an undertaking (Hint: I am the same age as the Pietenpol
design) and the distance is
simply too great. If I lived closer, say within 500 to 600 miles, you would
see me there, but 1600 to 1700 miles is at this stage a bit much. Besides,
border crossings have become a hassle and clearing Canadian Customs when
returning is awkward because many airports of entry are no longer available
on this side. With the Piet's limited range there could be problems and I
just don't need that sort of thing! Many years ago (It now seems to be in
another life) I used to fly old Bell helicopters from Edmonton to the
northern Yukon, Northwest Territories and Arctic coast, and back again.
Those Bell 47s were even slower than my Pietenpol, but we had practically
unlimited places to land and didn't have to play the Customs game. It was
somewhat
tiresome going north in the spring, but much more pleasant when returning in
the autumn. Today, people like Ted ("Iron Butt") Brousseau can do the honors
in my place!
Thanks for the tips, Mike. Cheers,
Graham (Pietenpol CF-AUN in chilly Alberta, where we now have LOTS of
snow for ski flying.)
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Corky, Robert, et all,
When you change anything in an aircraft design, you will change a host of
other things, especially if it's the airfoil that you consider changing. The
'French Curve, Ten Minute' (FC-10) airfoil has been designed into the
Pietenpol for very good reasons. It allows the C.G. to be further aft, than any
airfoil that is not undercambered. It's a High Lift airfoil, that allows a low
power engine to be used. The down side of the high lift, is that it is High
Drag. The overall high drag of the Pietenpol also has it's advantages...it's
difficult to achieve a high enough speed for flutter to occur.
None of the flight control surfaces of a Pietenpol are mass balanced. If
a more efficient airfoil is used on the Pietenpol, higher speed will result.
This higher speed, will certainly approach the speed at which one of the
control surfaces will flutter. B.H.P. called out the Vne of the Piet at 90
m.p.h., and must be adhered to.
On three separate occations, I've wittnessed a model R.C. airplane
flutter one of the control surfaces. I could hear the sound - z z z Z Z Z Z as
it
went past, and it took just a couple of seconds before the control surface tore
itself loose from the plane, and the plane crashed into hundreds of pieces.
On two separate occasions, I've witnessed the results of an aft C.G. on a
model R.C. airplane. These two planes were of aerobatic design, and
maintaining the C.G. at the aft limits allows the plane to be Very agile, and also
increases it's efficiency. Both times, the pilot thought he would be all right
with the C.G. just a tiny bit behind the aft limit, and after entering a spin,
the plane would not come out of the spin, no matter what the pilot did with
the stick or power setting, and the model airplane spun all the way to the
ground, with disastrous results.
The Grega G1 has a larger radius on the leading edge, in an attempt to
soften the stall break. It's actually the rapid increase in 'Induced Drag' that
causes the Pietenpol to slow down quickly, and surpass the 'Critical Angle of
Attack. 'Parasite Drag' is at it's minimum during the slow flight of the
Landing.
On prototype certified aircraft, they have some underpaid experimental
test pilot, take the plane up for flutter tests. He dives it, in incremental
speed increases, until one of the control surfaces begins to flutter, and
immediately pulls power and eases the nose up, to slow down. If his prayers are
answered, the control surface will still be attached to the aircraft. The
designer then reduces this speed by 25%, and this is the Vne of the aircraft.
If
anything is changed to any of the flight control system, these flutter tests
must be re-done. Steve Wittman did these flutter tests on his design, down
very close to the frozen Lake Michigan. If a control surface would flutter and
come off, he would land at a very high speed, and slide to a stop. I don't
believe it ever did happen, though. Talk about Big Kahoona's !!!!
I am all for experimenting, and learning as much as possible as to why
things are designed the way they are, but you must understand all the
consequences before you make any changes to the aircraft.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Amen. A lot of us R/C guys have experimented and seen the results.
Much cheaper and the only thing hurt is our wallets! We once tried
overpowering our club piper clipped-wing cubs, and quickly tore the
horzontal stab from one. It took a complete redesign to allow us to fly
with the power we wanted for doing crazy things. I also experienced
flutter with a unlimited Sukhoi, fortunately just lost one elevater, and
was able to land without further incident! If you want to screw around,
build an R/C Pietenpol and have a blast, cheap way of trying new
things! I'm sure DJ Vegh will volunteer his . . .
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
>
> Corky, Robert, et all,
> When you change anything in an aircraft design, you will change a host of
> other things, especially if it's the airfoil that you consider changing. The
> 'French Curve, Ten Minute' (FC-10) airfoil has been designed into the
> Pietenpol for very good reasons. It allows the C.G. to be further aft, than
any
> airfoil that is not undercambered. It's a High Lift airfoil, that allows a low
> power engine to be used. The down side of the high lift, is that it is High
> Drag. The overall high drag of the Pietenpol also has it's advantages...it's
> difficult to achieve a high enough speed for flutter to occur.
> None of the flight control surfaces of a Pietenpol are mass balanced. If
> a more efficient airfoil is used on the Pietenpol, higher speed will result.
> This higher speed, will certainly approach the speed at which one of the
> control surfaces will flutter. B.H.P. called out the Vne of the Piet at 90
> m.p.h., and must be adhered to.
> On three separate occations, I've wittnessed a model R.C. airplane
> flutter one of the control surfaces. I could hear the sound - z z z Z Z Z Z
as it
> went past, and it took just a couple of seconds before the control surface tore
> itself loose from the plane, and the plane crashed into hundreds of pieces.
> On two separate occasions, I've witnessed the results of an aft C.G. on a
> model R.C. airplane. These two planes were of aerobatic design, and
> maintaining the C.G. at the aft limits allows the plane to be Very agile, and
also
> increases it's efficiency. Both times, the pilot thought he would be all right
> with the C.G. just a tiny bit behind the aft limit, and after entering a spin,
> the plane would not come out of the spin, no matter what the pilot did with
> the stick or power setting, and the model airplane spun all the way to the
> ground, with disastrous results.
> The Grega G1 has a larger radius on the leading edge, in an attempt to
> soften the stall break. It's actually the rapid increase in 'Induced Drag' that
> causes the Pietenpol to slow down quickly, and surpass the 'Critical Angle of
> Attack. 'Parasite Drag' is at it's minimum during the slow flight of the
> Landing.
> On prototype certified aircraft, they have some underpaid experimental
> test pilot, take the plane up for flutter tests. He dives it, in incremental
> speed increases, until one of the control surfaces begins to flutter, and
> immediately pulls power and eases the nose up, to slow down. If his prayers
are
> answered, the control surface will still be attached to the aircraft. The
> designer then reduces this speed by 25%, and this is the Vne of the aircraft.
If
> anything is changed to any of the flight control system, these flutter tests
> must be re-done. Steve Wittman did these flutter tests on his design, down
> very close to the frozen Lake Michigan. If a control surface would flutter and
> come off, he would land at a very high speed, and slide to a stop. I don't
> believe it ever did happen, though. Talk about Big Kahoona's !!!!
> I am all for experimenting, and learning as much as possible as to why
> things are designed the way they are, but you must understand all the
> consequences before you make any changes to the aircraft.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Carbarvo(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
Kevin....I appreciate your comments and experience. You took on quite an
ambitious project with the size of that hangar. My plans are much more timid. I
plan to put up a building that's just large enough for my Piet. I'll keep in
mind what you said about playing one vendor against another..smart move...'works
too!....Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Have you ever read about Jimmy Doolittle's test flight of a highly modified
Travel Air Mystery ship? The airplane, owned by Shell Oil Company, was taken
to Parks College in St. Louis for refurb.... I think in 1931 or 1932. They
did an aerodynamic clean-up adding sweeping wing filet fairings, and other
changes, including an airfoil mod. The first flight lasted about 30 minutes with
Jimmy Doolittle at the controls. He climbed to approx 5000ft. and joined up
with a camera ship. One in-flight picture was taken as far as I have ever seen.
Jimmy claimed the "Shell 400" was performing so well that he decided to do a
high speed pass over the field. At an altitiude of less than 50 ft, aileron
flutter set in so bad that Doolittle had no choice but to pull up and bail
out. His Parachute flight was said to be the lowest on record up to that time.
Lucky that the canopy opened in time. The second picture of the "Shell 400"
that I know of is of the mangled twisted wreckage.
I don't know about you guys, but I feel that its going to take some biig
cahoooonas for me to climb into the Piet for that first flight. I would wear a
'Chute, but I doubt I could fit in the cockpit with it, much less pry myself
loose to bail out if anything happened. Go ahead and do your research and
experiment with another airfoil if you must. But I'll pass. I'd much rather test
my airplane with the known FC-10.
my $ .02
TLB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lauritz Larsen" <pietlars(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Long-range planning |
Kevin,
I found your description of your hangar construction quite informative and pertinent.
Where are you located in Florida?
If you could reply, my address is pietlars(at)earthlink.net
Regards,
Lou Larsen
----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Holcomb
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2004 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
I recently purchased a 50x50 straight sided quonset hut. There are a number
of companies with very similar products, all of them reluctant to initially quote
a price but eager to beat their competitors price. Spend a few months and
play them off each other. My experience was that the 'special, good this week
only price' was still available the next month. Expect a lot of carrying on,
'special deals', 'buy now before the price of steel goes up', etc from the salesmen.
Ignore all of the carrying on and just keep going back and forth. The
final price I paid was about half of the first quote I received.
My building is not complete yet, so far 17 out of 25 arches are up. I started
on Dec 26 and have worked evenings and weekends as I have a day job. An arch
per full day of work is about what it works out to. Mostly it has just been
my wife and I; you will need someone to hold the nuts. At least with my building
(which is 50 ft wide and thicker than usual to meet Florida's wind codes)
I found the instructions that show the arches being assembled on the ground to
be a joke as the arches would buckle under their own weight. Instead I have
been building the arches in place. With large holes in the metal and small bolts
most of them go through with little trouble. A couple of drift pins help
a lot. When you price the job out do not forget to add in the concrete for the
pad as that came to around 2/3 the cost of my building. Also expect to rent
a man lift (scissor type) for a couple of months during assembly and a forklift
for a day to unload the truck when it arrives. Doors are also quite expensive.
The good news is that there are no difficult skills to master, no heavy
lifting, and little heavy equipment.
A frame steel building with siding would probably have gone together faster,
however that would have involved heavy equipment that I do not have. The thought
of a collection of 50 ft beems being dropped in my yard and having to figure
out how to get them in position 16 feet in the air makes a quonset look great
to me.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: 1/31/2004 11:18:59 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Long-range planning
Pieters: The light at the end of the tunnel has alerted me to a need to house
this airplane somewhere. I have gotten interested in a company from Boone,
NC named US-Buildings..(800/463-6062). They have five styles of steel buildings
which appear to be simple to erect..(unlike some other aspects of my life).
One of these styles is reminiscent of B. Pietenpols hanger in Cherry Grove (now
at Oshkosh). I would be very interested to hear of any experiences any of you
may have with this company or with this style of building. At the prices they
were quoting, I figure it will pay for itself within five years............CAVU
Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
I've acquired a complete firewall forward subaru EA-81, with the Dave
Johnson redrive, 2:1, dual electronic ignition, carb heat, cabin heat,
radiators, etc. Am seeking contact with anyone else using a Subaru in a
Piet, for any tips advice, etc. We are also looking for any avionics
for sale, we will be flying out of class C airspace, and need a
transponder with mode C, comms, etc, and are also looking to purchase
vintage looking instruments as well. Also, (long list here) as we must
have comms, any advice on setting up comms, for instance, how well do
the David Clarke mikes react to open-cockpit flying??? Thanks Dave
Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Subaru power |
Check out the "Wings" instruments and the diesel tachs;
http://www.stewartwarner.com/Products/prod1.html
Just returned from Seattle. The Concorde is a lot smaller
than I thought. Love the tailwheel! The Conny is a tail
dragger! ;-)
Very nice Taube hanging in the foyer with 19" motorcycle
wheels and 4" tires. It has brakes too! Your local field
operator would love for you to use them( actually it.) on
his lovely grass strip!
Clif
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Subaru power
>
> I've acquired a complete firewall forward subaru EA-81,
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: more airfoil talk |
Well, yea, that's the exact attitude you should have with any unproven
aircraft, even one with the FC-10 airfoil. There are hundreds of things
that can go wrong, you should always try to completely understand all the
risks and develop plans to mitigate them. Yes, one would be to use a proven
airfoil, that would be one less risk, no argument there. But let me ask,
how exactly did Bernie develop this airfoil? Did he pour through endless
wing section diagrams, did he develop remote control models, did he run
computer analysis or do wind tunnel test? As I understand, he made several
sets of wings and tried them all out on the plane, and then decided on the
one he liked best. As the story goes, he spent all of 10 minutes drawing
that one out.
I am not advocating any unsafe methodology to procede with the design,
development, and construction of an aircraft. I also think to many people
foolhartedly proceed with an existing design and just "burn-off" the flight
hours required in the initial testing phase. Simply because this design is
proven over and over, does not mean that your new aircraft is free from the
scrutiny required for any new experimental aircraft, and I would strongly
suggest that you initially fly the plane as if it were about to experience
any sort of catastrophic failure.
Regarding the comments to wing flutter: yes, flutter is a likely event when
increasing the speed of an aircraft with unbalanced control surfaces.
Although, how many who have considered that putting in more powerful
engines, providing covers over the wheels, or streamlining any other area
would increase the speed of the aircraft to a point that the control
surfaces would flutter? I haven't heard one word. Not to say that it would
or wouldn't, and I hope I don't sound like I'm lecturing, but my point is
that changes in design always have to be taken with a strong consideration
to the consequences. Changing the airfoil is just simply another one of
those things that you must provide a concious effort to seek out the results
of said change and that's how you proceed with an EXPERIMENTAL aircraft.
OK, getting off soapbox now. Thank you for your support.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: more airfoil talk
>
> Have you ever read about Jimmy Doolittle's test flight of a highly
modified
> Travel Air Mystery ship? The airplane, owned by Shell Oil Company, was
taken
> to Parks College in St. Louis for refurb.... I think in 1931 or 1932.
They
> did an aerodynamic clean-up adding sweeping wing filet fairings, and other
> changes, including an airfoil mod. The first flight lasted about 30
minutes with
>
> Jimmy Doolittle at the controls. He climbed to approx 5000ft. and joined
up
> with a camera ship. One in-flight picture was taken as far as I have ever
seen.
>
> Jimmy claimed the "Shell 400" was performing so well that he decided to
do a
> high speed pass over the field. At an altitiude of less than 50 ft,
aileron
> flutter set in so bad that Doolittle had no choice but to pull up and bail
> out. His Parachute flight was said to be the lowest on record up to that
time.
>
> Lucky that the canopy opened in time. The second picture of the "Shell
400"
> that I know of is of the mangled twisted wreckage.
>
> I don't know about you guys, but I feel that its going to take some biig
> cahoooonas for me to climb into the Piet for that first flight. I would
wear a
>
> 'Chute, but I doubt I could fit in the cockpit with it, much less pry
myself
> loose to bail out if anything happened. Go ahead and do your research and
> experiment with another airfoil if you must. But I'll pass. I'd much
rather test
>
> my airplane with the known FC-10.
>
> my $ .02
>
> TLB
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the fact,
I hate that.
To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a supplier
of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag for
$45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price for
all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer that
sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
(http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card, and
the bag arrived four days later.
I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I needed
50lbs of walnut shells for.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
great info Robert, what grade did you buy? and please post on how they work for
you, or if a different grade should be bought.
Del
Robert Haines wrote:
Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the fact,
I hate that.
To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a supplier
of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag for
$45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price for
all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer that
sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
(http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card, and
the bag arrived four days later.
I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I needed
50lbs of walnut shells for.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done and
all the abrasive is gone.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
fact,
> I hate that.
>
>
> To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
> abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
> clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
supplier
> of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag for
> $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price
for
> all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer that
> sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
> plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card, and
> the bag arrived four days later.
>
> I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
needed
> 50lbs of walnut shells for.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
where is a source of industrial grade baking soda?
Del
Christian Bobka wrote:
If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done and
all the abrasive is gone.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Del,
Try this website for info:
http://www.transportandconstruction.co.za/rasmech.html
I know, I know they are in New Zealand. But there was a guy in Winona marketing
this stuff at Oshkosh about ten years ago. His name is Mike Thern. I think
he was a teacher in the aviation tech school down at the winona airport. I would
contact him at the airport at 507 864 2705 or at home at 507 454 2705 and
ask him where it can be had. These phone numbers a current as I just got the
info from the Luscombe association newsletter that came in saturday's mail.
I know the soda is cheap. He may be out of the business becuase it is so easy
to purchase hence everybody bought it elsewhere. Please let the piet list know
what you find out.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: del magsam
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
where is a source of industrial grade baking soda?
Del
Christian Bobka wrote:
If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done and
all the abrasive is gone.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
I've got no experience here, but I chose the 20/30 (they mentioned it was
one of the more popular grades), it appeared to be middle of the line medium
abrasive. Now that I have it, it has the size of coarse sand, just for
comparison, but I'm sure walnut shell sieve and sand sieve do not correspond
as far as fine/medium/coarse grading. I haven't used it yet, I can't
comment yet.
Also, baking soda, I've read somewhere at sometime and may or may not be
right (how's that for a disclaimer?) attacks aluminum. Again, I don't know
for sure. Although, I do know that walnut shells pose no chemical danger.
:)
I do have a copy of the CORSA magazine that has the proceedings from a CORSA
presentation that the plant manager of the engine factory gave (November
1997?). It was interesting but I wished there was more technical details on
how they did what they did. He mentioned that the heads and cases were low
pressure die cast with sand cores. They had problems getting the core sand
out of the heads until they figured out about abrasive blasting with walnut
shells, and so that's how they were cleaned at the factory. He mentioned
that they bought walnut shells by the rail car load. So, if it's good
enough for the guys who built them in the first place, it'll be OK with me.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacklemAW(at)aol.com |
Only a portion of this applies to Piets. But I hope you enjoy the Addenda
For Fliers:
"Though I Fly Through the Valley of Death ...I Shall Fear No Evil ... For I
am at 80,000 Feet and Climbing. (Sign over the entrance to the SR-71 operating
location Kadena, Japan).
There is no reason to fly through a thunderstorm in peacetime. (Sign over
Squadron Ops desk at Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ, 1970).
Advice given to RAF pilots during WW II. When a prang (crash) seems
inevitable, endeavor to strike the softest, cheapest object in the vicinity as
slowly
and gently as possible.
You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3. (Paul F.Crickmore,
test pilot)
From an old carrier sailor - Blue water Navy truism; there are more planes in
the ocean than submarines in the sky.
Navy carrier pilots to Air Force pilots: Flaring is like squatting to pee.
When one engine fails on a twin-engine airplane you always have enough power
left to get you to the scene of the crash.
What is the similarity between air traffic controllers and pilots? If a pilot
screws up, the pilot dies; If ATC screws up, the pilot dies.
Never trade luck for skill.
The three most common expressions (or famous last words) in aviation are:
"Why is it doing that?", "Where are we?", and "Oh S#!+!"
Weather forecasts are horoscopes with numbers.
Airspeed, altitude, and brains. Two are always needed to successfully
complete the flight.
A smooth landing is mostly luck; two in a row is all luck; three in a row is
prevarication.
Flashlights are tubular metal containers kept in a flight bag for the purpose
of storing dead batteries.
Flying the airplane is more important than radioing your plight to a person
on the ground incapable of understanding or doing anything about it.
When a flight is proceeding incredibly well, something was forgotten.
Just remember, if you crash because of weather, your funeral will be held on
a sunny day.
The Piper Cub is the safest airplane in the world; it can just barely kill
you. (Attributed to Max Stanley, Northrop test pilot)
If you're faced with a forced landing, fly the thing as far into the crash as
possible. (Bob Hoover - renowned aerobatic and test pilot)
If an airplane is still in one piece, don't cheat on it; ride the bastard
down. (Ernest K. Gann, author &aviator)
Never fly in the same cockpit with someone braver than you.
You know that your landing gear is up and locked when it takes full power to
taxi to the terminal.
Basic Flying Rules: Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the
edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of
ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult
to
fly there.
Allan W. Macklem
Elkhorn, NE
TEL: 402 880 6559 // 402 289 2298 FAX: 402 289 3474
Personal growth comes from being
surrounded by highly talented people.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
<010501c3e9a6$b46ea960$0101a8c0@domain>
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
What is the difference between baking soda and industrial grade BS? More
for a cheaper per pound price?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
> soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done and
> all the abrasive is gone.
>
> Chris Bobka
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:44 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> >
>
> >
> > Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
> fact,
> > I hate that.
> >
> >
> > To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
> > abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
> > clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
> supplier
> > of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag
for
> > $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price
> for
> > all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer
that
> > sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> > different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> > (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
> > plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card,
and
> > the bag arrived four days later.
> >
> > I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
> needed
> > 50lbs of walnut shells for.
> >
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
What grit size did you buy?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
fact,
> I hate that.
>
>
> To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
> abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
> clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
supplier
> of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag for
> $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price
for
> all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer that
> sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
> plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card, and
> the bag arrived four days later.
>
> I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
needed
> 50lbs of walnut shells for.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | MacklemAW(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Recommended Reading |
I very much enjoyed these and recommend them to you.
Unlocking The Sky (Glenn Hammond Curtiss) by Seth Shulman, Perennial, Harper
Collins Publishers, 2003.
Wings of Madness (Alberto Santos-Dumont) by Paul Hoffman, Hyperion Publisher,
2003.
First World Flight (Billy Mitchell) by Spencer Lane, U.S. Press, 2002.
Allan W. Macklem
Elkhorn, NE
TEL: 402 880 6559 // 402 289 2298 FAX: 402 289 3474
Personal growth comes from being
surrounded by highly talented people.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
I bet the walnut standards are identicle to sand standards...The American Standards
Institute (ASI) sets all standards...I live near Stockton, MO where Hammons
is located. They sell to many industries. Can't imagine an industry that
would buy an abrasive without knowing what standard grade it is
Robert Haines wrote:--> Pietenpol-List message posted
by: "Robert Haines"
I've got no experience here, but I chose the 20/30 (they mentioned it was
one of the more popular grades), it appeared to be middle of the line medium
abrasive. Now that I have it, it has the size of coarse sand, just for
comparison, but I'm sure walnut shell sieve and sand sieve do not correspond
as far as fine/medium/coarse grading. I haven't used it yet, I can't
comment yet.
Also, baking soda, I've read somewhere at sometime and may or may not be
right (how's that for a disclaimer?) attacks aluminum. Again, I don't know
for sure. Although, I do know that walnut shells pose no chemical danger.
:)
I do have a copy of the CORSA magazine that has the proceedings from a CORSA
presentation that the plant manager of the engine factory gave (November
1997?). It was interesting but I wished there was more technical details on
how they did what they did. He mentioned that the heads and cases were low
pressure die cast with sand cores. They had problems getting the core sand
out of the heads until they figured out about abrasive blasting with walnut
shells, and so that's how they were cleaned at the factory. He mentioned
that they bought walnut shells by the rail car load. So, if it's good
enough for the guys who built them in the first place, it'll be OK with me.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Industrial grade BS?! (oh, you meant baking soda...)
RH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Ragan" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | walnut shells and airfoil talk |
I think if you were to use regular baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)
you could purchase it through swimming pool suppliers. It is used to
balance ph and can be purchased in 50# bags. Don't buy it at the local
pool supplier because they repackage it in 5#containers....rename it....and jack
the price up.
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Apparently I didn't do a good job making my point. What I meant to say was
that walnut shells at 20 sieve (U.S. Mesh at approximately 0.030" in
diameter so says Hammons) and sand at 20 sieve may not be considered in the
same abrasive category; where a 20 sieve sand is considered "coarse" (I'm
pretty sure about that), 20 sieve walnut shell may be considered "medium"
(or "coarse" or "fine"). I'm not sure of this gradation, but this is the
point I was trying to make. They could be graded exactly the same, I just
didn't want to assume this to be true considering they are somewhat
different materials.
What I want is a "medium" walnut shell abrasive since my parts are not
covered with mud, crud, paint, rust, etc. Also, most abrasives get smaller
with use, so eventually (no telling how long) I would likely end up with
"fine" anyway. Since Hammons, in their FAQ section, noted that 8/12, 12/20,
and 20/30 were their most popular, and my assumption was most applications
use "coarse" and "medium", I concluded that 20/30 was probably "medium".
Just a guess.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Deon Engelmann" <engelmannd(at)icon.co.za> |
| Subject: | walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Hi
This company is actually in Alrode, Johannesburg, South Africa (.co.za
).
It is about 25 min from where I stay.
Deon Engelmann
EAA322 Midrand # SA12055
Pretoria
South Africa
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Christian Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
Del,
Try this website for info:
http://www.transportandconstruction.co.za/rasmech.html
I know, I know they are in New Zealand.
where is a source of industrial grade baking soda?
Del
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
In my line of work, over the years, when we wanted less destructive blasting
we always used ground corn cob. It comes in the consistisy of corn
meal but it's the cob. Think places like Grainger or McMaster Carr stocks
it.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
fact,
> I hate that.
>
>
> To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested that
> abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the surfaces
> clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
supplier
> of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag for
> $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same price
for
> all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer that
> sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was $15
> plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card, and
> the bag arrived four days later.
>
> I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
needed
> 50lbs of walnut shells for.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
My Granger catalog only had glass bead. However, my McMaster-Carr catalog
had a number of choices, including walnut shells and corn cob. Walnut shell
was $25.00 for 50lb at 20/30 (the cheapest) and cob at $18.35 for 50lb at
20/40 (also the cheapest). The heavier grit get slightly more expensive.
Shipping is not known.
Thus, my recommendation for Hammons at $15.00 per 50lb bag of walnut shell.
Frustrating thing is that I'm in the middle of corn cob country. You would
think that I could get all I wanted for free if I was willing to pick
through the fields in the Fall and grind it myself. :)
Walt - what were you using cob blasting for and what were your experiences?
Robert Haines
Du Quoin (located between this corn field and that one), Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Robert,
I didn't personly use it, but in talking with our engineering P.E. (who has
since left and is with EASA) The sand grit actually hits and leaves a "barb"
since the sand is much harder that the steel/alum. And it could short out
the laminations on an AC motor. Where the corn cob is softer and either
doesn't touch/flattens the surface on the steel. {{We are one of the
largest electric motor/pump facilities in the northeast (only one ISO 9001
certified first time out)}}
But actually now they've switched to using a high pressure water blaster
that can also add backing soda to the mix for action. (the one where the
operator wears "tim man" shin and foot covers to limit cutting off toes.)
Don't know where cob, walnut shells, and baking soda compare, but just
wanted to bring up another option.
I imagine that if baking soda does the job ( and since it's not an acid,but
a base?)
Like Chris Bobka suggested, it's probably the best way to go.
Besides, when you're done, you can make buscuits. :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> My Granger catalog only had glass bead. However, my McMaster-Carr catalog
> had a number of choices, including walnut shells and corn cob. Walnut
shell
> was $25.00 for 50lb at 20/30 (the cheapest) and cob at $18.35 for 50lb at
> 20/40 (also the cheapest). The heavier grit get slightly more expensive.
> Shipping is not known.
>
> Thus, my recommendation for Hammons at $15.00 per 50lb bag of walnut
shell.
> Frustrating thing is that I'm in the middle of corn cob country. You
would
> think that I could get all I wanted for free if I was willing to pick
> through the fields in the Fall and grind it myself. :)
>
> Walt - what were you using cob blasting for and what were your
experiences?
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin (located between this corn field and that one), Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
Why don't you guys just hard-line between the wing tank and fuselage tank,
but NOT have a filler opening on the fuselage tank. It would just be a
flow-through tank, but you would have the added capacity without having to
worry about overfilling the tank or plumbing each separately to the
gascolator.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story.
>
> In a message dated 1/30/04 11:55:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
>
> << Thanks Chuck,
>
> I presume the cowl tank would have to have a level indicating the
capacity
> of the wing tank. This would allow the cowl tank to use enough fuel to
> enable the wing tank valve to be turned on and re-fill the cowl tank
without
> overflowing the cowl tank. Unless there was a float valve on the cowl
tank
> inlet from the wing tank.
>
> I think may be a better idea would be to have the fuel valves on each
tank
> seperatley feeding the gascolator. You would also need some sort of wing
> tank quantity guage.
>
> What do you think? >>
>
> Peter,
> The beauty of a Pietenpol is in it's simplicity. Keep it simple. If
it
> isn't there, it can't break or leak. Bernard Harold Pietenpol maintained
> this strategy throughout. He simply valved the line from the wing tank to
the
> cowl tank.
> Use 3/8" aluminum fuel lines and 37 flaired aircraft grade 'B' nuts
> throughout. You also need a 'Finger Screen' in the outlet of each tank.
This is
> your third line of defense against getting crap in the carb. First line
of
> defense is use clean fuel, during re-fuel operation, and during storage,
you
> also need to cap the L shaped vent, with a flag that says 'Remove Before
Flight'.
> For some reason, wasps and other bugs don't seem to mind the odor of
fuel.
> Fourth line of defense is the fine mesh screen in the gascolator, and
finally
> the Very Fine screen in the inlet of the carburetor.
> The Cowl tank is in fact the main tank. The Wing tank simply
replenishes
> the cowl tank, when you see the level of the wire / cork get low enough.
In
> flight, there is no need to see the quantity of the wing tank. This
system
> does, however, require fuel management during flight, because you can
overflow
> the cowl tank during an in flight re-fuel period. Ya gotta keep an eye on
the
> wire, during re-fuel.
> Pre-flight fuel quantity indicator is a dip stick, one end for the
cowl
> tank, the other end of the stick is for the wing tank. To make the stick,
have
> the plane on level ground, and tail down. Start out with an empty tank,
and
> add 1 gallon increments, dip and mark the quantity on the stick at each
> gallon line.
> During each pre-flight, record the 'Fuel Onboard' in your pre-flight
log,
> along with the time, date, hour meter, etc. Check all this again at post
> flight, and this enables you to determine your fuel burn rate.
> I have a flying story about this system:
> On my way back from Oshkosh last year, I was 30 miles southeast of Kansas
> City, and the wire in the cowl tank showed me I was low enough to add some
fuel.
> Any time you move any fuel valve in any airplane, you should be within
> gliding distance of an airport. I had a small airport within sight, so I
reached up
> and turned the wing tank valve on, and settled back to enjoy the scenery
and
> unparalleled beauty of flying an open cockpit plane. It takes over 6
minutes
> to empty my wing tank, and although I glanced at the wire as it came up, I
> thought the entire contents of the wing tank, would fit in the cowl tank.
NOT !!
> A 1/4" stream of fuel began squirting out of the cowl tank vent, and
> instantly covered my windshield with FUEL ! I squinted my eyes, reached
up and
> turned the valve off, went full power climb to try to use more fuel.
Ducked down
> in behind the windshield, with eyes squinted, I watched the left wing tip
to
> maintain wing level, and watched the airspeed to maintain a steep climb
rate.
> I was afraid of getting fuel in my eyes, which would have been
DISASASTEROUS
> !! It took about minute or so, before the fuel stopped covering my
windshield.
> Whew !! That was a close one !! Lesson Learned !!
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | why waste two spaces ? |
Group-- My Piet holds 17 gallons in a nose fuel tank and the entire center
section is covered by a large, hinged, aluminum baggage compartment
door. The wing cutout helps to get your belly up tight against it (note
the cutout is just right for our bellies) and store all kinds of neat
things up there like tent, sleeping bag, tie down stakes and ropes, spare
oil, light tool kit and spare socks. The nose tank is SO much easier to
fuel !!! What a pain in the butt it must be to fuel a wing tank. Lots
of choices here with these issues. Also-- 17 gallons or even 15 gallons
is plenty in a Pietenpol unless you are running a 150 hp engine. My
longest leg was 2 hours 20 minutes but most run 2 hours and that is wayyyy
plenty enough.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Wet abrasive blasting, sounds effective but messy. :)
Yes, baking soda is alkaline (a base) and from what I've read (again, no
experience here so don't consider this gospel) baking soda discolors the
aluminum like an acid, etch cleaner, or oven cleaner would. I don't think
this would cause any structural or surface damage, only cosmetic. Also,
William Wynne pointed out in his conversion manual that sand blasting and
bead blasting does what you mentioned in your previous post, and the change
to the surface screws up things like the lifter bores. He noted that
cleaners and pressure washing was the way to go and the truth about that is
that it cleans with no abrasion. If you only need to get the dirt off, this
is preferable.
Although, some of us also want a little corosion removal and to provide a
little polishing action, this is not possible with pressure washing alone.
At that point, it appears to me that you have two options, one is to
mechanically polish with a small metal brush or a buffing wheel in a rotary
tool, and the second is a light abrasive blast. The metal brush is similar
to sand blasting in that it deforms the surface, which is no big deal to the
lifter bores (etc.) because you would never get the brush in there anyway.
The only other problems I have with the metal brush is that, one, it imbeds
the aluminum oxide formed on the surface down into the surface a little
which may cause problems with welding (but if you don't plan of welding, no
big deal) and, two, it takes a lot of work.
Again, this is only my opinion and the thought process I used to get me to
the decision on walnut shell blasting. I would like to note that DJ, who is
doing an excellent job on his project, cleaned with oven cleaner and a
pressure washer and then wire brushed and otherwise polished his engine. He
also then welded the intake runners on. So I may be a little overboard in
my thinking since it can be done satisfactorily to the contrary.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> Robert,
> I didn't personly use it, but in talking with our engineering P.E. (who
has
> since left and is with EASA) The sand grit actually hits and leaves a
"barb"
> since the sand is much harder that the steel/alum. And it could short out
> the laminations on an AC motor. Where the corn cob is softer and either
> doesn't touch/flattens the surface on the steel. {{We are one of the
> largest electric motor/pump facilities in the northeast (only one ISO 9001
> certified first time out)}}
> But actually now they've switched to using a high pressure water blaster
> that can also add backing soda to the mix for action. (the one where the
> operator wears "tim man" shin and foot covers to limit cutting off toes.)
> Don't know where cob, walnut shells, and baking soda compare, but just
> wanted to bring up another option.
> I imagine that if baking soda does the job ( and since it's not an
acid,but
> a base?)
> Like Chris Bobka suggested, it's probably the best way to go.
> Besides, when you're done, you can make buscuits. :
> )
> walt evans
> NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Robert,
You are concerned with the safety of using baking soda as an abrasive but
yet you are willing to use OVEN CLEANER and a WIRE BRUSH to clean the
aluminum.
I learned in A & P school that one should never use a wire brush or spun
wool (unless it is an aluminum wire brush or spun wool) on aluminum as it
will embed tiny particles of iron (or brass in the case of using a brass
brush) in the aluminum which will then be the seed for dissimilar metals
corrosion.
On the other topic, I can drink baking soda but yet would find it
uncomfortable to drink oven cleaner!
Baking soda is so mild an abrasive that it will not take anodizing off of
aluminum. As the anodizing is an oxide coating, I doubt the baking soda
would remove the natural aluminim oxide that would form on the aluminum
after it is manufactured. Besides, we normally etch the aluminum with
phosphoric acid and then pickle it with chromic acid to form a "uniform
layer of corrosion (read as protective oxide layer)" to protect the
aluminum.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> Wet abrasive blasting, sounds effective but messy. :)
>
> Yes, baking soda is alkaline (a base) and from what I've read (again, no
> experience here so don't consider this gospel) baking soda discolors the
> aluminum like an acid, etch cleaner, or oven cleaner would. I don't think
> this would cause any structural or surface damage, only cosmetic. Also,
> William Wynne pointed out in his conversion manual that sand blasting and
> bead blasting does what you mentioned in your previous post, and the
change
> to the surface screws up things like the lifter bores. He noted that
> cleaners and pressure washing was the way to go and the truth about that
is
> that it cleans with no abrasion. If you only need to get the dirt off,
this
> is preferable.
>
> Although, some of us also want a little corosion removal and to provide a
> little polishing action, this is not possible with pressure washing alone.
> At that point, it appears to me that you have two options, one is to
> mechanically polish with a small metal brush or a buffing wheel in a
rotary
> tool, and the second is a light abrasive blast. The metal brush is
similar
> to sand blasting in that it deforms the surface, which is no big deal to
the
> lifter bores (etc.) because you would never get the brush in there anyway.
> The only other problems I have with the metal brush is that, one, it
imbeds
> the aluminum oxide formed on the surface down into the surface a little
> which may cause problems with welding (but if you don't plan of welding,
no
> big deal) and, two, it takes a lot of work.
>
> Again, this is only my opinion and the thought process I used to get me to
> the decision on walnut shell blasting. I would like to note that DJ, who
is
> doing an excellent job on his project, cleaned with oven cleaner and a
> pressure washer and then wire brushed and otherwise polished his engine.
He
> also then welded the intake runners on. So I may be a little overboard in
> my thinking since it can be done satisfactorily to the contrary.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> >
> > Robert,
> > I didn't personly use it, but in talking with our engineering P.E. (who
> has
> > since left and is with EASA) The sand grit actually hits and leaves a
> "barb"
> > since the sand is much harder that the steel/alum. And it could short
out
> > the laminations on an AC motor. Where the corn cob is softer and either
> > doesn't touch/flattens the surface on the steel. {{We are one of the
> > largest electric motor/pump facilities in the northeast (only one ISO
9001
> > certified first time out)}}
> > But actually now they've switched to using a high pressure water blaster
> > that can also add backing soda to the mix for action. (the one where
the
> > operator wears "tim man" shin and foot covers to limit cutting off
toes.)
> > Don't know where cob, walnut shells, and baking soda compare, but just
> > wanted to bring up another option.
> > I imagine that if baking soda does the job ( and since it's not an
> acid,but
> > a base?)
> > Like Chris Bobka suggested, it's probably the best way to go.
> > Besides, when you're done, you can make buscuits. :
> > )
> > walt evans
> > NX140DL
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<010501c3e9a6$b46ea960$0101a8c0@domain> <001d01c3e9b2$18b4abd0$f004fea9@new>
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
Cy,
I don't know the difference. I just remember that from the literature and
talking to Mike Thern. The term "industrial grade" was used.
chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> What is the difference between baking soda and industrial grade BS? More
> for a cheaper per pound price?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:07 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
>
> >
> > If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is water
> > soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done
and
> > all the abrasive is gone.
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:44 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after the
> > fact,
> > > I hate that.
> > >
> > >
> > > To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested
that
> > > abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the
surfaces
> > > clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
> > supplier
> > > of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb bag
> for
> > > $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same
price
> > for
> > > all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer
> that
> > > sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> > > different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> > > (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was
$15
> > > plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit card,
> and
> > > the bag arrived four days later.
> > >
> > > I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck I
> > needed
> > > 50lbs of walnut shells for.
> > >
> > >
> > > Robert Haines
> > > Du Quoin, Illinois
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
<010501c3e9a6$b46ea960$0101a8c0@domain> <001d01c3e9b2$18b4abd0$f004fea9@new>
<013601c3ea8f$546601a0$0101a8c0@domain>
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
SWAG It might not be quite as pure as say food grade but is cheaper and
either will work as an abrasive.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
> Cy,
>
> I don't know the difference. I just remember that from the literature and
> talking to Mike Thern. The term "industrial grade" was used.
>
> chris
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 11:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> >
> >
> > What is the difference between baking soda and industrial grade BS?
More
> > for a cheaper per pound price?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 10:07 AM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If you use industrial grade baking soda, it does a good job and is
water
> > > soluable so that you rinse the engine out with water when you are done
> and
> > > all the abrasive is gone.
> > >
> > > Chris Bobka
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> > > To:
> > > Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: walnut shells and airfoil talk
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Just sent my rant about airfoils, caught three misspellings after
the
> > > fact,
> > > > I hate that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To all those who are building a Corvair engine, it's been suggested
> that
> > > > abrasive blasting with walnuts shells is a great way to get the
> surfaces
> > > > clean and bright. As I have a sandblaster, I started looking for a
> > > supplier
> > > > of walnut shells. Eastwood (automotive products, etc.) had a 50lb
bag
> > for
> > > > $45 plus $30 shipping, I about choked. That seemed to be the same
> price
> > > for
> > > > all the traditional suppliers. Fortunately, I found a food producer
> > that
> > > > sells walnut products and sells the walnut shells, ground to several
> > > > different sieves, as a byproduct. They are Hammons
> > > > (http://www.black-walnuts.com/) out of Missouri and the 50lb bag was
> $15
> > > > plus about that for shipping. They took a phone order by credit
card,
> > and
> > > > the bag arrived four days later.
> > > >
> > > > I had to explain to the wife when she saw the receipt what the heck
I
> > > needed
> > > > 50lbs of walnut shells for.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Robert Haines
> > > > Du Quoin, Illinois
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
Hello,
I found some motorcycle wheels but didn't want to purchase them with consulting
with the list. They are 18" rear wheels from dirt bikes that measure about
24" with the tires on. The hubs are 5" wide which makes me think that I could
get away without having to create new 5 1/2 or 6" hubs. They have brake
drums but I'm not sure whether or not I could utilize them. I don't recall seeing
any Piets at Brodhead with this type of wheel or brake system. Opinions
would be appreciated.
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel Tanks & Flying Story. |
In a message dated 2/3/04 6:21:29 AM Central Standard Time, rambog(at)erols.com
writes:
<< Why don't you guys just hard-line between the wing tank and fuselage tank,
but NOT have a filler opening on the fuselage tank. It would just be a
flow-through tank, but you would have the added capacity without having to
worry about overfilling the tank or plumbing each separately to the
gascolator. >>
Gene,
The drawbacks of eliminating the filler neck in the cowling tank are:
1) You couldn't monitor your fuel in flight, unless you added some type of
sealed float monitor in the cowl tank.
2) Re-fueling an almost empty system would require the time period to
re-fuel the cowl tank from the wing tank. On my system, this takes over 6 minutes.
I have a 9.8 gal wing tank, 10.7 gal cowling tank.
3) If the wing tank should ever develop a leak, I can always leave that
tank empty, and use only the cowl tank.
As Mike C. pointed out, the simplest and most efficient system would be
one tank, preferebly the 17 gal cowl tank location (plenty of fuel). As we all
know, there are pro's and con's for any system. One drawback for that much
fuel in the cowl tank, is the pitch trim change, as fuel is consumed.
Mike, I don't see how you squeezed that much fuel in your cowl tank (17
gal.). We both have the 'Short Fuselage', and I used every nook and cranny up
there, and could only get 10.7 gal.
For my plane, I started out with just the wing tank, then added the cowl
tank when I did the engine conversion last spring. I am completely satisfied
with how my system performs, and overflowing the cowling tank was my own
fault. It won't happen again !!
Another note of caution (while we're on the subject of fueling), is
refueling with one of those huge hoses, with the nozzels that doesn't shut off
when
the level touches the tip. Those things belch a HUGE quantity of fuel when
the handle is fully squeezed. Even dipping the tank to know how much fuel to
add, twice I've spilled fuel all over the cowling !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
I have been building a piet for about 4 years and started the project
with the idea of using things I have collected over the years. I built axles
like cessna's (1&1/2 by 5 and1/2 to fit goodyear 600 x 6 wheels.Then I wanted
motorcycle wheels so bought two 18 inch rear wheels for $25.00. I bought 7
and 5/8 spokes from JP motorcycle parts in Anamosa, Ia for $80.00. I built
hubs and bushing and rebuilt cleveland brake disk and have only about 4 inches
of space between spokes at the hub because of the length of axles. Here are
my weights. tires-3.5 xby 18 used 11 lbs, hub 2, brake disk 2, rim (steel)
6, bushings and spokes 2, and calipers 2 . This adds up to 25 lbs per wheel or
50 lbs. The goodyear assembly weighs 18 pounds or 36 for both,so I have
added 14 pounds for the motorcycle wheels and have lifted the axles about 4 and
1/2 inches. If I don't like them I can go back to the goodyears. I sure
makes it look like a bigger airplane and I can use a long prop. Having fun in
cold deep Iowa.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk |
To the contrary, baking soda sounds like a very nice mild abrasive (although
I have no experience with it's cutting action), my concern was that it would
chemical react with the aluminum like an oven cleaner would and that's why I
would be against using those materials. Also, I have reservation using a
wire brush as well. I must have reread my post three times here to make
sure I didn't phrase something incorrectly, I thought I was pretty clear.
Robert
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: walnut shells and airfoil talk
>
>
> Robert,
>
> You are concerned with the safety of using baking soda as an abrasive but
> yet you are willing to use OVEN CLEANER and a WIRE BRUSH to clean the
> aluminum.
>
> I learned in A & P school that one should never use a wire brush or spun
> wool (unless it is an aluminum wire brush or spun wool) on aluminum as it
> will embed tiny particles of iron (or brass in the case of using a brass
> brush) in the aluminum which will then be the seed for dissimilar metals
> corrosion.
>
> On the other topic, I can drink baking soda but yet would find it
> uncomfortable to drink oven cleaner!
>
> Baking soda is so mild an abrasive that it will not take anodizing off of
> aluminum. As the anodizing is an oxide coating, I doubt the baking soda
> would remove the natural aluminim oxide that would form on the aluminum
> after it is manufactured. Besides, we normally etch the aluminum with
> phosphoric acid and then pickle it with chromic acid to form a "uniform
> layer of corrosion (read as protective oxide layer)" to protect the
> aluminum.
>
> Chris Bobka
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Pietenpol
| Subject: | How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short fuse |
Pietenpol
Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought white
poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard. I made
a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top as our
cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I made slanted
toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to go forward
and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers get there
feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I have not
learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so I took
my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange, and
threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they made up
the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the space up
front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As far as CG
shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with air
cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to those of
us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you go long
cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of flight. So I
hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have no nose
pressure to even hold then.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
Dave:
Got a picture? If so please remember to make the file size small for us dial-up
users.. What bike are they off of? It's had to tell without seeing them. I think
someone else is using the back wheels off a motorcycle as well.
The usual way to build them is a 5 1/2 spacing between spoke flanges so 5" seems
wide enough (If close enough is ok). It's wider then some of the other wheels
people have used. The big question is can you get a large enough axel in them.
Smallest axels I know of are 1" for split gear and 1 1/4 on the strait axel.
Also look at how the casting was designed, your looking for high stress areas
during side loads that might crack a flange or something. Are you planning
on using heavier (thicker) spokes? Will they fit? Finally are YOU satisfied
they will work? If it all looks good to you then give them a try (If they
are not to expensive).
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2004 7:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wheels
Hello,
I found some motorcycle wheels but didn't want to purchase them with consulting
with the list. They are 18" rear wheels from dirt bikes that measure
about 24" with the tires on. The hubs are 5" wide which makes me think that I
could get away without having to create new 5 1/2 or 6" hubs. They have brake
drums but I'm not sure whether or not I could utilize them. I don't recall
seeing any Piets at Brodhead with this type of wheel or brake system. Opinions
would be appreciated.
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Landing Gear compression springs |
Pieters,
Someone recently posted on this list a source for the landing gear
compression springs the size required for a Piet. Would that person please repeat
that
source. Thanks
Corky in Cold La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Bill Church <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
| Subject: | Landing gear comparisons |
A few questions regarding landing gear.
Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of the
straight axle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to ground
handling, drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.
Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you prefer
and why?
Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?
Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloon
wheels (like on Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than the
smaller, Cub-size wheels many others have used?
I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe there
are some opinions out there that have not been heard.
Bill
Landing gear comparisons
A few questions regarding landing gear.
Aesthetics aside, what exactly are the known advantages/disadvantages of the straight
axle gear and the split axle gear? This could relate to ground handling,
drag, smoothness of landings...whatever.
Is there anyone out there that has flown both types? Which did you prefer and why?
Is one style better suited to hard runways? Grass?
Does it make a large difference, performance-wise, when large, balloon wheels (like
on Ken Perkins' Piet, for example) are used, rather than the smaller, Cub-size
wheels many others have used?
I am sure these questions have been addressed in the past, but maybe there are
some opinions out there that have not been heard.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
a short
fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short |
fuse Pietenpol
HI Mike,
Does your aluminuim tank have flanges where one side meets another (where edges
meet and you have to make the weld)? I have mocked up my tank and bought the
5052 for it but haven't been able to find any information on how the edges
should meet for max strength.
Thanks, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short fuse
Pietenpol
>
> Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought
> white
> poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.
> I made
> a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top
> as our
> cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I
> made slanted
> toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to
> go forward
> and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers
> get there
> feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I
> have not
> learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so
> I took
> my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,
> and
> threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they
> made up
> the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the
> space up
> front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As
> far as CG
> shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with
> air
> cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to
> those of
> us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you
> go long
> cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of
> flight. So I
> hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have
> no nose
> pressure to even hold then.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
a shortfuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in |
a shortfuse Pietenpol
Jim-- the guy just edge welded my tank pieces with generous amounts of
alum. filler rod. There are no baffles in my tank either--makes it easier
to build. I just supported the bottom of the tank very well with two s/s
1" wide fuel tank straps that for a nice 'U' under the tank.
Mike
>
>HI Mike,
>
>Does your aluminuim tank have flanges where one side meets another (where
>edges
>meet and you have to make the weld)? I have mocked up my tank and bought the
>5052 for it but haven't been able to find any information on how the edges
>should meet for max strength.
>
>Thanks, Jim
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
>Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 am
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a
>short fuse Pietenpol
>
> >
> > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought
> > white
> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.
> > I made
> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top
> > as our
> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I
> > made slanted
> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to
> > go forward
> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers
> > get there
> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I
> > have not
> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so
> > I took
> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,
> > and
> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they
> > made up
> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the
> > space up
> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As
> > far as CG
> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with
> > air
> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to
> > those of
> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you
> > go long
> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of
> > flight. So I
> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have
> > no nose
> > pressure to even hold then.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _-
> > _-
> > _-
> > _-
> > ========================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
a short fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short |
fuse Pietenpol
My Pietenpol was built from the 1933 plans drawn by Orrin Hoopman. The
fuselage was modified by extending the firewall six inches forward (BHP's
recommendation when using small Continentals, etc. instead of the Ford A)
and the width from the firewall back to the rear instrument panel was
increased by two inches. This allowed more space for the fuselage tank and I
could have easily made a tank holding at least 17 US gallons. The tank I
made holds about 15 US gal. and is adequate for the kind of flying I have
always done. As it is, the airplane's endurance exceeds mine, and I like to
limit each flight to about 1.5 hours because it isn't very
comfortable---even though I am about 5' 8" and about 175 lbs. I have always
used the wing center section as a storage space and have a small lockable
door on the underside, so 15 gallons is the total fuel capacity.
The original tank was made from 0.028" galvanized steel sheet with folded
and soft-soldered seams. I couldn't locate any terneplate so used galvanized
steel. It was heavier than an equivalent aluminum tank, but:
1. It was less costly because I could do the whole job myself with the
equipment I had at the time.
2. Repairs could be safely accomplished without using a flame (Never needed
repair).
3. The extra weight was tolerable since it was well forward.
4. It is durable.
This tank lasted for 30 years and I replaced it 3 years ago with an
identical new one.Years earlier I had used a sloshing sealer which began to
disintegrate, and bits floating around in the fuel scare me. I removed the
tank and had it steam cleaned, but the problem persisted. So I built a new
tank and won't even think of using sloshing sealer in it (I suspect auto
gasoline is somehow implicated, but have no proof).
Regarding trim change with fuel burn, my 85 hp Pietenpol is nose heavy with
the tank full, so I "trim" with the throttle using about 2350 to 2375 RPM in
cruise initially and gradually back off as the nose lightens up. However,
stick forces are so light that it isn't at all burdensome to cruise at any
RPM one chooses. The above procedure provides a "hands off" condition, but
only in smooth air. My Pietenpol has never been tail heavy in flight, even
with the A65 engine (I switched to a C85 after about 115 hours with an A65).
A friend built a nearly identical airplane from the same jigs and it
exhibits the typical Pietenpol tail heaviness in flight with an A65 engine.
We never found out why they were different in this respect. However, both
are quite nose heavy in a power-off glide, regardless of fuel quantity.
Altogether, I am content with the nose fuselage tank and don't hesitate to
recommend it for the same reasons Mike C. does.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Camrose, Alberta, Canada)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
a short fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short |
fuse Pietenpol
Have them meet at right angles.
Chris Bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: <jimboyer(at)direcway.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a
short fuse Pietenpol
>
>
> HI Mike,
>
> Does your aluminuim tank have flanges where one side meets another (where
edges
> meet and you have to make the weld)? I have mocked up my tank and bought
the
> 5052 for it but haven't been able to find any information on how the edges
> should meet for max strength.
>
> Thanks, Jim
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 am
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a
short fuse Pietenpol
>
> >
> > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought
> > white
> > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.
> > I made
> > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top
> > as our
> > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I
> > made slanted
> > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to
> > go forward
> > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers
> > get there
> > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I
> > have not
> > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use fiberglass so
> > I took
> > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,
> > and
> > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they
> > made up
> > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the
> > space up
> > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As
> > far as CG
> > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with
> > air
> > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to
> > those of
> > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you
> > go long
> > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of
> > flight. So I
> > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have
> > no nose
> > pressure to even hold then.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _-
> > _-
> > _-
> > _-
> > ========================================================================
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
a
shortfuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a |
shortfuse Pietenpol
Hi Mike, thanks that will make it easier to fabricate. Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a shortfuse
Pietenpol
>
> Jim-- the guy just edge welded my tank pieces with generous
> amounts of
> alum. filler rod. There are no baffles in my tank either--makes
> it easier
> to build. I just supported the bottom of the tank very well
> with two s/s
> 1" wide fuel tank straps that for a nice 'U' under the tank.
>
> Mike
>
>
> >
> >HI Mike,
> >
> >Does your aluminuim tank have flanges where one side meets
> another (where
> >edges
> >meet and you have to make the weld)? I have mocked up my tank and
> bought the
> >5052 for it but haven't been able to find any information on how
> the edges
> >should meet for max strength.
> >
> >Thanks, Jim
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> >Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 am
> >Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even
> in a
> >short fuse Pietenpol
> >
> > >
> > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought
> > > white
> > > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.
> > > I made
> > > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top
> > > as our
> > > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I
> > > made slanted
> > > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to
> > > go forward
> > > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers
> > > get there
> > > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I
> > > have not
> > > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use
> fiberglass so
> > > I took
> > > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,
> > > and
> > > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they
> > > made up
> > > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the
> > > space up
> > > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As
> > > far as CG
> > > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with
> > > air
> > > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to
> > > those of
> > > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you
> > > go long
> > > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of
> > > flight. So I
> > > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have
> > > no nose
> > > pressure to even hold then.
> > >
> > > Mike C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > >
> ========================================================================> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
a short
fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short |
fuse Pietenpol
Thanks Chris, thats basically what Mike said he did on his tank too. I was just
worried about the seam being strong enough, but the weld is probably stronger
than the material of the tank.
Thanks again, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 2:54 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a short
fuse Pietenpol
>
> Have them meet at right angles.
>
> Chris Bobka
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jimboyer(at)direcway.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--
> even in a
> short fuse Pietenpol
>
>
> >
> >
> > HI Mike,
> >
> > Does your aluminuim tank have flanges where one side meets
> another (where
> edges
> > meet and you have to make the weld)? I have mocked up my tank
> and bought
> the
> > 5052 for it but haven't been able to find any information on how
> the edges
> > should meet for max strength.
> >
> > Thanks, Jim
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> > Date: Wednesday, February 4, 2004 7:06 am
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even
> in a
> short fuse Pietenpol
> >
> > >
> > > Chuck-- I simply went to Wal Mart (my favorite store) and bought
> > > white
> > > poster board. Actually for the fuel tank I used brown cardboard.
> > > I made
> > > a mock up tank that is rectangular but has the same shape on top
> > > as our
> > > cockpit/instrument panel aluminum cover pieces. The bottom I
> > > made slanted
> > > toward the front so that even in a climb, the fuel would want to
> > > go forward
> > > and sit in the drain/sump area. This slant also helps passengers
> > > get there
> > > feet on the front rudder pedals should I invite them to fly. I
> > > have not
> > > learned to weld aluminum yet and did not want to use
> fiberglass so
> > > I took
> > > my cardboard mockup to a welding shop, alum. filler neck flange,
> > > and
> > > threaded aluminum drain fitting (all obtained from Wicks) and they
> > > made up
> > > the tank. To use a pre-made Cub tank or such does not utilize the
> > > space up
> > > front as well as a custom made-to-fit tank does in a Piet. As
> > > far as CG
> > > shifts are concerned, the Pietenpol is notoriously tail-heavy with
> > > air
> > > cooled engines so a large, full nose tank is very advantageous to
> > > those of
> > > us who are not skinny. The CG shift is only felt really when you
> > > go long
> > > cross country and only affects the last 45 minutes or so of
> > > flight. So I
> > > hold a little nose-down pressure. If I lost 30 lbs. I would have
> > > no nose
> > > pressure to even hold then.
> > >
> > > Mike C.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > > _-
> > >
> ========================================================================> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: (no subject) |
We have a bolt manufacturing plant here in the area. Name is Whitesell Fastners,
Inc. number is 256-381-9410 might give them a call and see if they could
be of help to you.
Alex Sloan
Florence, Alabama
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 6:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
Hello all:
I need a source for odd bolts, preferrably in or near the Dallas/Ft. Worth metroplex.
I will order though if anyone has a good source...
I need a -- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/4" shank &
-- 7mm bolt with a 1 1/8" shank
We had an over sight making the controls and one of each of the two size bolts
will fix it. They do not have to be aircraft grade bolts, although grade 8
or grade 5 would be nice.
Have already checked Ace Hardware and a couple of car dealerships -- any suggestions?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
cockpit flying.
| Subject: | Re: "Hearty individuals" and cold weather open cockpit |
flying.
Graham,
Thanks for the interesting story.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: "Hearty individuals" and cold weather open cockpit
flying.
<grhans@cable-lynx.net>
>
> To Chuck G., who said it was 4 degrees F outside, and:
>
> "Hearty individuals like Shawn Wolk and Graham Hansen, call this
> 'Pietenpol weather"!!!"
>
> Well, I can't speak for Shawn, but this old geezer never flew his
Pietenpol
> when it was THAT cold! I guess the coldest was around 18 degrees F.,
> but that was when I was young and stupid. Now I am old and stupid, but
> not nearly so tough as I used to be.
>
> On November 15, 2000 I flew my Pietenpol to commemorate the thirtieth
> anniversary of its first flight. The temperature was -6 degrees C (or
about
> 22 degrees F). The flight is well-documented by photographs and, if I get
> a scanner, I'll post a couple. This anniversary flight was made on wheels;
> there wasn't much snow. The very first flight was made using Federal
> A1500A aluminum skis similar to the ones in Shawn's photos. Since then
> I have used home-made skis made from ash and currently have a set of
> old Federal SC-1 aluminum skis rigged for the Pietenpol. In recent years
> snow conditions here have not been favorable for ski flying, but this
winter
> seems to be shaping up to be better. Usually February and March are best
> because the days get longer, the temperatures moderate, and the chances
> of getting a sunny day improve. My Pietenpol is an excellent skiplane.
How-
> ever the open cockpit is a serious limiting factor. A nice canopy for the
> pilot
> and a cover on the front pit would be great for solo ski flying.
Installing
> a
> canopy in the front would be more difficult to accomplish.
> A HISTORICAL NOTE:
> 75 years ago, in early January, two brave men took off from Edmonton,
> Alberta in an Avro Avian two-seater biplane, on wheels, to deliver diph-
> theria antitoxin to Fort Vermilion, about 500 miles to the north. The tem-
> perature on the ground was -33 degrees F when they left. It was a night-
> marish adventure and the round trip took several days. After landing at
> various places along the way, they literally had to be lifted from the
cock-
> pits because they were practically "frozen stiff". This remains one of the
> greatest feats in the history of bush flying. Their names: W.R."Wop" May
> and Vic Horner.(The Avro Avian they flew was a wood-and-fabric open
> cockpit biplane powered by an in-line 4 cylinder Cirrus engine. It was a
> bit larger and heavier than a Pietenpol Air Camper, having a longer fuse-
> lage and an extra wing.)
>
> NOTE: Wop May was set up to be the 81st victim of Manfred Von
> Richthofen on an April day in 1918, but the "Red Baron" was
> shot down while chasing him at a very low altitude.Wop May
> became a WW I "ace" with 7 victories.
>
> Graham Hansen [Pietenpol CF-AUN is in the hangar at Camrose,
> Alberta, where the current temperature is
now
> only -28 C (-21 F), and I think it will stay
> there
> for the time being!]
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Info List update |
Group,
I would like to thank everyone who so far responded to my request to send in
the Infomation List, about their project. I've been getting very good
feedback about the idea.
Be warned though, I'm going to pester those who didn't respond !! :)
I'll soon send out a list of those I need an e-mail for.
I sent out about 165 e-mails.
Out of them about 60 were returned 'Undeliverable'
29 lists were completed and returned to me, and I have them in the archives
of my computer.
Of the 29, 21 were builders. Of these, we can update it as you progress.
Of the 21, 7 are nearly complete, and the first flight is coming soon.
Of the 29, 8 are flying. Of these 8, 8 are lovin' it !!
Keep on building ...you will be rewarded ten fold !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Someone last week posted a letter which gave the part number for the die
springs suitable for the Piet landing, split, gear. Would someone please repost
that part number. Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Nearly 7 are complete ! and the 75th Anniv. |
Chuck-- Great data from your Pietenpol survey. What caught my eye is that
of your list, 8 are flying and we are about to almost DOUBLE that number
when these 7 who are nearly complete get done ! We had 17 Piet/GN-1's fly
into Oshkosh in 1999 for the 70th Anniversary of the design. If we are to
go there this year in some organized fashion it might be wise to contact
Bill Rewey in Madison 608-833-5839, (no e-mail) since he has some great
contacts at EAA and Doc Mosher helped bigtime too in 1999.
Then again we could just show up and that would be
that. Dunno. Either way is fine with me---they might just let us do the
no-radio approach (which is wayyyyyyy easier than trying to blend with
normal traffic) if we come in a bunch say from Hartford, WI where we
launched from in 1999. Just some thoughts.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Thanks... Junk Mail & "4-Sale" |
I've benefited very much since reading all the mail in the past month in
regard to building tips, and if I keep the GN-1 I have, or acquire a different
Pietenpol, the mail I have archived from other builder/owners will be a great
help. I'd also like to say thank you to several folks who have passed along
supportive e-mail concerning my parents.
Since joining the list, I have been flooded with spam from the below listed
domains and I have been busy entering these into my mail controls in order to
block the junk mail. I'm not certain how I got on the junk list, but for your
convenience, perhaps you can cut and paste these addresses into your "block"
list and it will help you too.
My GN-1 is otherwise available for $1,000 less than I have in it. I have
$12,500 in the "project" and have given it a good lookover for tweaks and fixes
that need to be done in order to make it a good, safe ship. (I am amazed that
the Atlanta FSDO signed this airplane off in June, 1998...) This airplane has
never been flown. I don't have the time to work on the plane due to other
responsibilities, but I'm confident it would be a good flyer if someone addressed
the issues on the list I have compiled. This "project" includes a freshly
overhauled, yellow-tag Stromberg carb and the Continental A-80 engine has a tad
over
5 hours since overhaul.
For anyone who is interested, I can send a CD showing the discrepancies
found. These are mostly "nickel and dime" tweaks that need attention. My
Pietenpol trailer (useful for hauling many other types of airplanes) is in "like-new"
condition and available for $1,000. It has two axles, wheel ramps and a winch
for loading the Piet on backwards.
The Spam list is below in case you want to block these domains.
acpa4me.com
apei.com
autolit.com
bmarsh.com
btopenworld.com
chello.se
comcast.net
ejargw.com
emailit.com
freemail.nl
holidaydemon.com
islandtelecom.com
mail.ee
mgn.ru
optiline.net
pricer.com
quepasa.com
sapo.pt
sify.com
stargate.net
swi.hu
vip.gr
web.de
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
a
short fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in a |
short fuse Pietenpol
Graham
If you were building another Piet (using the Contenental engine) would
you extend the front of the fuselage 6 inches again? In doing this did
you not have to extend your engine mount?
Thanks
Rick Holland
Graham Hansen wrote:
>
>My Pietenpol was built from the 1933 plans drawn by Orrin Hoopman. The
>fuselage was modified by extending the firewall six inches forward (BHP's
>recommendation when using small Continentals, etc. instead of the Ford A)
>and the width from the firewall back to the rear instrument panel was
>increased by two inches. This allowed more space for the fuselage tank and I
>could have easily made a tank holding at least 17 US gallons. The tank I
>made holds about 15 US gal. and is adequate for the kind of flying I have
>always done. As it is, the airplane's endurance exceeds mine, and I like to
>limit each flight to about 1.5 hours because it isn't very
>comfortable---even though I am about 5' 8" and about 175 lbs. I have always
>used the wing center section as a storage space and have a small lockable
>door on the underside, so 15 gallons is the total fuel capacity.
>
>The original tank was made from 0.028" galvanized steel sheet with folded
>and soft-soldered seams. I couldn't locate any terneplate so used galvanized
>steel. It was heavier than an equivalent aluminum tank, but:
>
>1. It was less costly because I could do the whole job myself with the
>equipment I had at the time.
>2. Repairs could be safely accomplished without using a flame (Never needed
>repair).
>3. The extra weight was tolerable since it was well forward.
>4. It is durable.
>
>This tank lasted for 30 years and I replaced it 3 years ago with an
>identical new one.Years earlier I had used a sloshing sealer which began to
>disintegrate, and bits floating around in the fuel scare me. I removed the
>tank and had it steam cleaned, but the problem persisted. So I built a new
>tank and won't even think of using sloshing sealer in it (I suspect auto
>gasoline is somehow implicated, but have no proof).
>
>Regarding trim change with fuel burn, my 85 hp Pietenpol is nose heavy with
>the tank full, so I "trim" with the throttle using about 2350 to 2375 RPM in
>cruise initially and gradually back off as the nose lightens up. However,
>stick forces are so light that it isn't at all burdensome to cruise at any
>RPM one chooses. The above procedure provides a "hands off" condition, but
>only in smooth air. My Pietenpol has never been tail heavy in flight, even
>with the A65 engine (I switched to a C85 after about 115 hours with an A65).
>A friend built a nearly identical airplane from the same jigs and it
>exhibits the typical Pietenpol tail heaviness in flight with an A65 engine.
>We never found out why they were different in this respect. However, both
>are quite nose heavy in a power-off glide, regardless of fuel quantity.
>
>Altogether, I am content with the nose fuselage tank and don't hesitate to
>recommend it for the same reasons Mike C. does.
>
>Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN in Camrose, Alberta, Canada)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
Corky,
We have assembled our gear with the following part number.
McMaster Carr, part # 9624 K61. Spring tempered steel oval wire 2" hole, 1"rod,
6 inch length, 7/16" X 7/32 wire. Max Load 880 lb. Rate: 392 lbs./inch. This
was an educated guess for the correct rating. Will let you know how it works out
whenever we finish the airplane....hopefully this summer.
See a picture of our gear....
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoGalleryList2.cfm?AlbumID=188
Best wishes.
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Graham-- are your cabanes slanted at all or vertical ? |
<5.1.1.5.2.20040204092503.017ccd58(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
<001a01c3eb6f$756a3de0$482226d0@grhans>
Graham-- a pearl of wisdom I had not heard yet from Pietenpol via your
e-mail on extending your fuselage six inches is a real revelation. Since
most Model A Fords keep the cabanes pretty much upright with the heavy
engine helping in that respect, I was curious to find if your wing needed
to be slanted back or perhaps somewhat forward to get your CG to fall in
the proper range. My guess is that they are mostly vertical.
The added benefits of the longer fuselage seem to far outweigh any
negatives. (that I can't think of even) You get more passenger leg room,
more room for a fuel tank or baggage space behind the firewall. Really
interesting.
I know there will be some of the aero engineer types out there downplaying
Graham's Pietenpol-suggested modification to the plans when using a
Continental engine because you'll claim that the nose will wander and it
will be laterally unstable or some such thing, but I've flown Joe Leonard's
GN-1 Aircamper that has a really long motor mount---at least 6" longer than
plans and his plane flies GREAT ! (with a 85 Cont.)
Another example of a great flying short fuse but Loooong motor mount Piet
is Brian Kenny from Ontario, Canada. As I recall his motor mount for his
65 Cont. is a whopping 9" longer than the plans motor mount and Brian never
spoke of any peculiar flying tendencies about his plane. (that he flew to
Brodhead many times before not wanting to hassle with the border crossing
pains)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
<400E9475.4030501(at)speedtrail.net>
ashort fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort |
fuse Pietenpol
Rick,
Yes, I would extend the fuselage 6" forward if I were to build another
Pietenpol, and I would also stay with the 2" wider fuselage.
I used an Aeronca 7ac engine mount which extends 8" forward from the
firewall. It is OK for -8 Continentals, but with the C85-12 sans starter and
generator the magnetos come very close to the firewall. Using a 10" mount
instead of the 8" one would cure this problem and move the mass of the
engine ahead an extra 2".
Graham (CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
<5.1.1.5.2.20040205102518.0179e728(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
vertical ?
| Subject: | Re: Graham-- are your cabanes slanted at all or vertical |
?
Mike C.,
Yes, my cabanes are slanted back. They are aligned approximately with the
slant of the fuselage side truss members directly beneath them. This is
where I arbitrarily set them and have had no need to change them since.
Weight and Balance figures were within reason. Motto: "If it ain't broke,
don't fix it".
Regarding directional instability with the longer forward fuselage, the four
different Pietenpols I have flown (all Continental- powered) exhibited some
instability in yaw. One of the four had the standard fuselage (1933 plans)
with a really long engine mount. When I flew it in 1963, I didn't think it
had a yaw stability problem. It was the first Pietenpol I ever flew and my
only negative impression was that it had sluggish aileron response. (The
builder had altered the stick-to-aileron ratios and, I think, he didn't have
gap seals. The other three a/c have sealed aileron gaps and conform to the
plans. Their aileron response is fine.) He obviously thought it needed more
keel surface aft and installed a larger vertical fin and rudder, but I never
flew it with these mods and don't know how effective they were.
Compared to production lightplanes in the same power/size range, the
Pietenpol seems to be less stable and needs to be flown all the
time---except in still air. But that is part of its appeal: When you fly a
Pietenpol, you are really flying; you don't just trim it and sit back. The
controls are highly responsive and their input forces are light, so a tad of
instability is of no concern, in my humble opinion.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
ashort fuse Pi...
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort |
fuse Pi...
Graham,
I' am planning on using Orrin's plans using the long 172" fuse design. Are
you saying that you would extend the fuse firewall an additional 6" (178"
total) then extend the engine mount an additional few inches to accomidate a C85?
Or rather are you saying that you would use the long fuse verse the short and
extend only the engine mount?
Thanks,
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
ashort fuse Pi...
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort |
fuse Pi...
Greg,
My fuselage is the 1933 "Improved Air Camper" version. It likely is the so-called
"short fuselage" with the front end designed for the Ford Model A engine. I
haven't seen the "long fuselage" plans, so am not familiar with the differences
between it and the earlier fuselages, but it would seem that the later one
would accomodate the lighter small aircraft engines without modifications. I dunno.
Likely there are people on the list who know this, so let's hear from them.
I extended my forward fuselage 6 inches, on the authority of Bernard Pietenpol
himself, because I was going to use a Continental A65 engine. This was his recommendation.
And I used the Aeronca mount because I had one.
My engine mount extends 8 inches forward from the firewall, effectively placing
the engine mounting bosses on the rear of the crankcase 6" + 8" 14" forward
from the 1933 firewall location. Without the extended fuselage, a 14" mount
would be required to match my engine position. Again, I don't know if this is
relevant with the newer "long fuselage" plans.
The only reason why I would like to have a 10" mount is to get more clearance between
the magnetos and the firewall with the C85-12 engine presently installed.
With an A65-8 or a C85-8 engine, the rear case is shallower and there is adequate
clearance with the 8" mount. If you are going to use a C85-12, C90-12 or
0-200 Continental, by all means use the 10" (or greater, as required for balance)
mount. We are talking only about the firewall-forward situation and ease
of servicing here.
Graham Hansen Camrose, Alberta, Canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
<001a01c3ebac$86379e00$d149e5d8@dpaul> <001901c3ec2d$11d597c0$6401a8c0@carl>
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Loar
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels
I am assuming that the width of the landing gear for my straight axle, wood
gear is the same as the plans show for the metal landing gear - Right? The
plans show 56 inches from center of hub left to center of hub right.
Thanks Richard and Carl for your advise concering spoke wheels. It's good
to hear from the "for what it's worth department."
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Nearly 7 are complete ! and the 75th Anniv. |
Mike & Group,
I'm going to call Bill Rewey sometime soon, to see how he's been, and to
talk 'Pietenpol' talk with him !! Last year at Oshkosh, Jim Markle and his
sons had Bill, Larry W. and myself over for dinner and brewskys a couple
evenings. Jim's son is a pretty good cook !! Beautiful star lit night, and
Pietenpol talk - Great time !! Bill has Dimple Tape on his prop, and he says
it
definitely helped. I've been considering that stuff for mine, even before I asked
him about it. He doesn't have e-mail, and I need a Pietenpol 'Information
List' from him.
I've been in contact with Doc Mosher, and as always, he offers his help
and support. He is kind of like our 'Oshkosh' connection. The 'No Radio
Approach' sounds like the best way to go. We gotta work on that. He says we can
probably get a front row center at the homebuilt area, but there is No Camping
in that area. There will be POP (Protect Our Planes) people around to keep
an eye on things, when the owner is not present. He's finding out if the EAA
camera plane (might have to be the Bell helicopter to fly slow enough) could
meet us at the half way point of our final leg to Oshkosh, for some Air to Air
shots of a formation of Pietenpols !! Would that be WAY COOL or what !! At
some point during Oshkosh, we will probably all take off and do a fly - by.
I asked him if he would find out if we could fly the flock of Pietenpols over
to Pioneer Field, for a photo shoot in front of the Pietenpol Hanger. He
said he would get started on the Pioneer Airport thing, although he had a feeling
that will be off limits (EAA has these systems, you know).
For this, the 75 th Anniversary Year, I kinda see Brodhead as the usual
laid back, no hassle, renew old friendships and make new ones, Pietenpol Heaven
!! Oshkosh, however, is our place to Shine our beloved design in front of
the masses, especially because the Sport Pilot Issue will have been passed by
then.
Chuck Gantzer
from Trees and Rags,
to Stick & Rudder,
Pietenpols are Forever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
<001a01c3eb6f$756a3de0$482226d0@grhans> <400E9475.4030501(at)speedtrail.net>
<000a01c3ec0b$455faf80$492226d0@grhans>
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair College IS Coming to Ohio! |
Group,
I just got off the phone with William Wynne a few hours ago. He has
agreed to do a Corvair College here in northeast Ohio sometime this
summer. We do not have a firm date yet, but are considering either
mid-June following the SAA Fly-In in Illinois, or sometime in late
August.
We should have the date finalized within a week or so. I'll keep
everyone posted.
Would someone please 'boot' this over to the CorvairCraft e-mail list
& ask them to pass the word there as well?
Stay tuned, more to follow...
KIp Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
(where we're having an ice storm currently - a good time to be down
in the workshop)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Brants" <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net> |
| Subject: | blood, sweat & tears |
I just spent the last two hours at urgent care getting whats left of my left middle
finger cotterized... I was working on the piet, slicing off some dried t88
with a utility knife... Guess it's true what they say about a project like
this - it takes blood, sweat and tears. I actually only cut the corner off of
my finger tip but man o man it hurt. went down to the work bench after I got
home and found the finger tip, nail and all. About the size of a puffy dime.
Sorry for the details but I just had to tell the group.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
OUCH!!!!!! Thats got to hurt........been there done that, don't ask I should have
known better.
Instead of a utility knife use a wood sharp chisel. Buy a cheap one (or more) and
swipe it across some 220 grit sand paper every now and then and it will become
your favorite tool for removing glue globs. I bought a set of 4 for around
20 bucks at Home Depot.
Hope your fingers not hurting too much
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 8:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: blood, sweat & tears
I just spent the last two hours at urgent care getting whats left of my left
middle finger cotterized... I was working on the piet, slicing off some dried
t88 with a utility knife... Guess it's true what they say about a project like
this - it takes blood, sweat and tears. I actually only cut the corner off
of my finger tip but man o man it hurt. went down to the work bench after I
got home and found the finger tip, nail and all. About the size of a puffy dime.
Sorry for the details but I just had to tell the group.
Tom Brant
Brooklyn Park, MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
<001a01c3ebac$86379e00$d149e5d8@dpaul> <001901c3ec2d$11d597c0$6401a8c0@carl>
<001e01c3ec66$86f79e20$b849e5d8@dpaul>
Dave:
Do you have the Flying and Glider magazine? The strait axel plans are in there.
A few people have made the gear a bit wider but I don't know if its 56" wide.
Send me your email address so I can send you some stuff off list.
Chris T.
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Loar
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wheels
I am assuming that the width of the landing gear for my straight axle,
wood gear is the same as the plans show for the metal landing gear - Right?
The plans show 56 inches from center of hub left to center of hub right.
Thanks Richard and Carl for your advise concering spoke wheels. It's good
to hear from the "for what it's worth department."
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
Tom,
I'm sorry to hear about your finger tip, but don't use a knife to remove
excess glue. Go down to your closest Woodcraft store and get one of their
carbide scrapers, don't remember the brand, but one is triangular about 1"
wide and the wider is about 2" wide. Much safer.
Hope your finger heals well. Cheers, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Brants <tmbrant(at)usfamily.net>
Date: Thursday, February 5, 2004 8:36 pm
Subject: Pietenpol-List: blood, sweat & tears
> I just spent the last two hours at urgent care getting whats left
> of my left middle finger cotterized... I was working on the piet,
> slicing off some dried t88 with a utility knife... Guess it's
> true what they say about a project like this - it takes blood,
> sweat and tears. I actually only cut the corner off of my finger
> tip but man o man it hurt. went down to the work bench after I
> got home and found the finger tip, nail and all. About the size
> of a puffy dime.
>
> Sorry for the details but I just had to tell the group.
>
> Tom Brant
> Brooklyn Park, MN
>
>
>
> $8.99/mo! ------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
<005901c3ec75$570d8b20$c7038841@Spot>
That's a good sized chunk! It's been a while for me.
It's nice to know I'm lucky in something! haha.
I find that files like epoxy a lot. Use a file to cut down
close to the wood then a small scraper. I have a
number of 1" X 2" ones. They love epoxy also and are
much more controlable than chisels. Later, when you
varnish the airframe, these scrapers will level the surface
without taking off the edges, like sandpaper does. Trust
me. It's a very satisfying experience to have the kind of
control and finess these things give you. They just feel
good in your hands.
A little practice and those blobs just seem to melt
away.
http://www.brendlers.net/oldtools/scraping/scraper.htm
http://www.woodzone.com/articles/scrapers/
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=32672&category=1,310,41069
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
<000001c3eb3a$a3601740$631b9341@Spot> <001a01c3ebac$86379e00$d149e5d8@dpaul>
<001901c3ec2d$11d597c0$6401a8c0@carl> <001e01c3ec66$86f79e20$b849e5d8@dpaul>
<006201c3ec75$e32223a0$c7038841@Spot>
Hey any info on the wood gear would be appreciated by myself, and
probably other as well!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
In 1999 Doc and Bill Rewey along with Grant M. got us a reserved parking
area near show center at Oshkosh in the homebuilt area. This was fine
except for two very annoying things: 1) There was no easy way to lug your
camping gear over to the camping area behind the Theater In The Woods, and
2) When the afternoon airshow started people crammed their chairs in,
under, and closely around every Pietenpol since they provide great
shade. We had to ask some to move so we could put our chairs under our own
plane. We had one guy who repeatedly stood up with his video camera and
bashed my left aileron with his head trying to get views of a plane passing
by. When we told the guy to stop he had no idea what he was doing
wrong. We caught one guy leaning his chair way back to see the planes
overhead and his seat back was pressing into the fabric near the side
stringer. We also had the occasional smoker who always seemed to like to
look at the engine area where our gascolator is located. Luckily we got
the float mod so our carb doesn't leak anymore. We felt like we could not
enjoy the show due to worrying about what was happening to the
plane. Admittedly, no permanent harm was done that we ever found, but the
potential is very great up close to the flight line.
I know the area by the Theater in the Woods is usually filled with
biplanes like Stearmans and such but to me, that would be the primo area
for parking the Piets since the foot traffic and spectators are soooe much
less congested in that area and we would be very, very, close to the
campground and showers. Just some thought from our experience in 99.
Mike C.
PS-- don't get me wrong--it was neat having such a prominent seat in the
house for us Pietenpols and I am grateful that we can attend such a huge
and diverse airshow (to even live in this country is a blessing, but within
flying distance of Oshkosh !), but I have no grey hair yet and don't like
pushing it:))
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Dave, I keep a copy of the Flying and glider in my backpack. I found 2 width
dimensions for the wood gear.
61 1/2", outside of hub to outside of hub, I guess this is the length of
the straight axle.
42 1/2", inside of wood fitting to inside of wood fitting, this is the run
of the axle between the wood landing gear struts.
Good luck,
Skip
I am assuming that the width of the landing gear for my straight axle,
wood gear is the same as the plans show for the metal landing gear - Right?
The plans show 56 inches from center of hub left to center of hub right.
Thanks Richard and Carl for your advise concering spoke wheels. It's
good to hear from the "for what it's worth department."
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
Message
Dave,
I keep a copy of the Flying and glider in my backpack. I found 2 width
dimensions for the wood gear.
61 1/2", outside of hub to outside of hub, I
guess this is the length of the straight axle.
42 1/2", inside of wood fitting to inside of wood
fitting, this is the run of the axle between the wood landing gear
struts.
Good
luck,
Skip
I am assuming that the width
of the landing gear for my straight axle, wood gear is the same as the plans
show for the metal landing gear- Right? The plans show 56 inches
from center of hub left to center of hub right.
Thanks Richard and Carl for your advise
concering spoke wheels.It's good to hear from the"for what
it's worth department."
Dave Paulsen -
Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
ashort
fuse Pietenpol
| Subject: | Re: How you get a 17 gallon nose tank--even in ashort |
fuse Pietenpol
<400E9475.4030501(at)speedtrail.net> <000a01c3ec0b$455faf80$492226d0@grhans>
Graham
With this arrangment did you have to move your wing back to get your CG right?
RickH
Graham Hansen wrote:
>
>Rick,
>
>Yes, I would extend the fuselage 6" forward if I were to build another
>Pietenpol, and I would also stay with the 2" wider fuselage.
>
>I used an Aeronca 7ac engine mount which extends 8" forward from the
>firewall. It is OK for -8 Continentals, but with the C85-12 sans starter and
>generator the magnetos come very close to the firewall. Using a 10" mount
>instead of the 8" one would cure this problem and move the mass of the
>engine ahead an extra 2".
>
>Graham (CF-AUN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
Netscape/7.1 (ax)
vertical
?
| Subject: | Re: Graham-- are your cabanes slanted at all or vertical |
?
<001a01c3eb6f$756a3de0$482226d0@grhans> <5.1.1.5.2.20040205102518.0179e728(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
Good info Mike. I have not yet heard of any negatives to Bernie's
suggested 6" front fuselage length increase. And as I said before the
mod buys you 6" of front passenger and fuel tank room instead of 6" of
dead air space between the engine and firewall with a 6" longer engine
mount.
RickH
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Graham-- a pearl of wisdom I had not heard yet from Pietenpol via your
> e-mail on extending your fuselage six inches is a real revelation.
> Since most Model A Fords keep the cabanes pretty much upright with the
> heavy engine helping in that respect, I was curious to find if your
> wing needed to be slanted back or perhaps somewhat forward to get your
> CG to fall in the proper range. My guess is that they are mostly
> vertical.
>
> The added benefits of the longer fuselage seem to far outweigh any
> negatives. (that I can't think of even) You get more passenger leg
> room, more room for a fuel tank or baggage space behind the firewall.
> Really interesting.
>
> I know there will be some of the aero engineer types out there
> downplaying Graham's Pietenpol-suggested modification to the plans
> when using a Continental engine because you'll claim that the nose
> will wander and it will be laterally unstable or some such thing, but
> I've flown Joe Leonard's GN-1 Aircamper that has a really long motor
> mount---at least 6" longer than plans and his plane flies GREAT !
> (with a 85 Cont.)
>
> Another example of a great flying short fuse but Loooong motor mount
> Piet is Brian Kenny from Ontario, Canada. As I recall his motor mount
> for his 65 Cont. is a whopping 9" longer than the plans motor mount
> and Brian never spoke of any peculiar flying tendencies about his
> plane. (that he flew to Brodhead many times before not wanting to
> hassle with the border crossing pains)
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
OUWWW. I read that to my wife and we just about crawled up the wall. I hope you
heal soon. Last week I unintentionally tried to use the belt sander as a nail
file and ground into the tips of my index and middle finger. These things
happen in a nano-second and then everything we know about shop safety hits home
in a real way.
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Pietenpol-List Digest: 16 Msgs - 02/04/04 |
| From: | "Sanders, Andrew P" <andrew.p.sanders(at)boeing.com> |
"Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net> Wrote:
... SNIP ...
>> Regarding trim change with fuel burn, my 85 hp Pietenpol is nose heavy with
the
tank full, so I "trim" with the throttle using about 2350 to 2375 RPM in cruise
initially and gradually back off as the nose lightens up. However, stick forces
are so light that it isn't at all burdensome to cruise at any RPM one chooses.
The above procedure provides a "hands off" condition, but only in smooth air.
My Pietenpol has never been tail heavy in flight, even with the A65 engine (I
switched to a C85 after about 115 hours with an A65). A friend built a nearly
identical airplane from the same jigs and it exhibits the typical Pietenpol tail
heaviness in flight with an A65 engine.
We never found out why they were different in this respect. However, both are
quite nose heavy in a power-off glide, regardless of fuel quantity.<<
Having the proper trim in cruise but nose heaviness in glide can be a symptom of
Too little downward offset of the engine thrust line. The actual trim of the aircraft
is too nose down and this shows itself in glide. During cruise the location of
the
thrust line below the drag pulls the nose up and masks the condition.
The two should be balanced so that when you back off the throttle, the nose should
drop to maintain (close to) the same trim speed. You might want to try adjusting
the stabilizer to maintain the speed in glide, then shim the top of the engine
mount with washers so that under power it doesn't nose up.
Andrew.
7E7 LSSPD Project Manager
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Vydra <jvydra(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | From the keyboard of a hill billy |
Sharon Mcmillan , pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com,
maryann ross , rudy ,
Anne Vydra , Marianne Vydra ,
Richard Vydra , Vic Vydra ,
Elaine Vydra-Wiegand
Attached was a letter to the editor in this mornings paper.
Naked boob on
tube nothing new
So whats the deal? Sure
we got a brief flash of breast
when Justin Timberlake
pulled off Janet Jacksons
bustier during the half time
show at the Super Bowl.
So what?
I mean, barely a week ear-
lier every network in the
country had a naked boob in
front of the camera for an
hour.
But then again, Im sure
more people were watching
the Super Bowl than
watched the State of the
Union address.
Mitch Paskowltz, Springfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |
rather political if I interpret this little message correctly. This is Pietenpol
country not Dems or Reps.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Vydra
To: dvydra ; kelly Sharon Mcmillan ; pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; maryann ross
; rudy ; Anne Vydra ; Marianne Vydra ; Richard Vydra ; Vic Vydra ; Elaine
Vydra-Wiegand
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 2:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: From the keyboard of a hill billy
Attached was a letter to the editor in this mornings paper.
Naked boob on
tube nothing new
So what's the deal? Sure
we got a brief flash of breast
when Justin Timberlake
pulled off Janet Jackson's
January 25, 2004 - February 06, 2004
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-dr