Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ds
February 06, 2004 - February 26, 2004
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, I'm sure
more people were watching
the Super Bowl than
watched the State of the
Union address.
Mitch Paskowltz, Springfield
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |
In a message dated 2/6/2004 5:15:20 PM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes:
> I'll vote for that "boob" again.
>
> Lets talk about Pietenpols.
>
AMEN!
Tom Travis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Larry Ragan" <lragan(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |
| Let's
not!!
|
Larry Ragan
Jacksonville, Fl.
lragan(at)hotmail.com
Get some great ideas here for your sweetheart on Valentine's Day - and beyond.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Changing the subject |
Hey guys!
This is sort of changing the subject. Considering the current subject matter
I will ask a dumb question.
Am I supposed to cover the belly of this beast (underside of the fuse) with
fabric or leave it wood? I would assume you are supposed to cover it, but I
saw a fly baby the other day, and the fabric stopped at the bottom of the
fuselage. I am going to have an aluminum access panel from the pilots seat aft
all
the way the tail wheel.
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Another change of subject. . . |
Speaking of covering, I'm considering HiPec. Very similar, I think, to
what I used on R/C stuff, plse jump in with opinions, comments,
laughter, etc, and P.S., have ordered pile of how to cover your airplane
in bedsheets type books, any stuff aval online???? I'm too lazy tonight
to do much real work, thought I'd read about how great my plane will
look if I get off my butt type stuff. Thanks, Dave.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |
<
a05210602bc49e074a82d@[67.72.220.76]>
<002901c3ed1a$4beb4bb0$d2a86d44@Desktop> <000901c3ed1e$0f55aa20$f004fea9@new>
Nuff of the fishead, I mean navy talk! I have to live with those guys
4-6 mos a year. I walk on a floor and lean on the walls, go to the
bathroom, lie in my bed, and eat dessert. (navy translation = deck,
bulkhead, head, rack, duff) Note these Navy guys like the word head . .
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: From the keyboard of a hill billy |
Whew! I was worried that the "from the keyboard of a hill billy" was
going to be some sort of question about how far back on the tail do you
port the "range extender" so you don't get pee all over the tailwheel...
You can imagine my relief that instead it was nothing more than someone
stirring the pot-which-I'd-rather-not-stir-amongst-friends instead.
I'll happily share my poitical stance off-list with anyone who cares to
listen/read, but I recognize that while I'm certain we all would
disagree amount a million different things we all seem to dig
Pietenpols, no matter where we choose to vent the fluids. ;-) I look
forward to seeing you all at Brodhead...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
>>> rowed044(at)shaw.ca Friday, February 06, 2004 9:10:48 PM >>>
Nuff of the fishead, I mean navy talk! I have to live with those guys
4-6 mos a year. I walk on a floor and lean on the walls, go to the
bathroom, lie in my bed, and eat dessert. (navy translation = deck,
bulkhead, head, rack, duff) Note these Navy guys like the word head .
.
.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Interesting online Pietenpol article.... |
Timeless Voice of the Week
Dave Harris, EAA 9119, of Mason City, Iowa, has had some typical EAA experiences.
For instance, he built his own airplane-a Pietenpol Air Camper. But Dave also
had some unique experiences, like parachuting out of Steve Wittman's airplane
during air shows. "I like learning, and believe me, if you're even half alive
you will never quit learning when you're around aviation," he said. Read more
about Dave's experiences on the Timeless Voices website.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
Max,
Covering the belly is optional. I've seen it both ways.
Dale and I put a fairing strip down the center of the belly then covered
with fabric. It looks better than an uncovered belly.
Greg Cardinal in Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2004 7:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
Hey guys!
This is sort of changing the subject. Considering the current subject matter
I will ask a dumb question.
Am I supposed to cover the belly of this beast (underside of the fuse) with fabric
or leave it wood? I would assume you are supposed to cover it, but I saw
a fly baby the other day, and the fabric stopped at the bottom of the fuselage.
I am going to have an aluminum access panel from the pilots seat aft all
the way the tail wheel.
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
Max,
Not a dumb question.
Agreed, the belly does look better covered.
The other side is, it is easier to inspect bolt heads and nuts sticking thorough
the floor, uncovered.
Why are you running the inspection panel all the way back?
Skip, in Atlanta
----- Original Message -----
Hey guys!
This is sort of changing the subject. Considering the current subject matter I
will ask a dumb question.
Am I supposed to cover the belly of this beast (underside of the fuse) with fabric
or leave it wood? I would assume you are supposed to cover it, but I saw
a fly baby the other day, and the fabric stopped at the bottom of the fuselage.
I am going to have an aluminum access panel from the pilots seat aft all the
way the tail wheel.
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | Another change of subject. . . |
I have used the HIPEC system on my Pietenpol. 2.7oz.fabric, and brushed on the
Grey coat (Hipec sun barrer).This is the same material that is used to glue
the fabric to the ribs. When I made a sample test jig, the adhesion was strong
enough to rip apart the capstrips on the test jig. Whats reallyneatabout the
stuffis its incredible flexibility. You can take a piece of HSB treated fabric,
roll it up in to a ball. The spread it out andtry shining a light threw it.
The coating isn't damaged.
On the tail I finished the colour coat with the HIPEC Top Coat. This is the
two part cyanate based polyurethane that requires air supply while spraying. When
I recovered the wing this spring I used HIPEC again with 2.7oz. fabric,but
sprayed it with latex forthe colour topcoat. Mainly because I didn't want to
spray that poison again. The latex though is heavier and no way as nice as the
finish of the HIPEC Top Coat that was used on the tail.
On my other homebuilt, the original builder used HIPEC HSB then used Centauri
as a top coat. Centauri is a premium automotive finish. The Centauri seems to
have lost alot of its elasticity, and is cracking and peeling in places. But
with close inspection, the HIPEC underneath is in great shape. No cracking or
sign of any deterioration at all.
Repairs are also simple with the HIPEC, and no ribstitching or tapes at the
ribs. The extra work for getting the HIPEC to glue the fabric to the bottom of
the undercambered wing was a pain. I had to weight the fabric down so it was
resting on the ribs with over a hundred margarine tubs filled with sand & gravel.
Just to give you a p[erspective on how well the HSB glues. When I was removing
the masking tape from the fuel filler on the wing tank. I didn't run a knife
around first, and the HSB glued the masking tape to the edge of the fabric so
well that I ripped the fabric pulling off the tape. Good thing its easy to patch
with HIPEC.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
<001101c3ed13$390eab10$6501a8c0@Nancy>
Check these out;
http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=31215&categor
y=2,42407,33246
I believe superglue was originaly designed as a bandage for surgery and
promptly stolen by everyone else. So I was told anyway.
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: blood, sweat & tears
> > with some major pain it sounded like. I said " I vote we glue that
puppy up
> with Super Glue and see how it does." He shrugged his shoulders and said
> "OK by me".
>
> A few months later you couldn't even see the scar and the cut in the nail
> had grown out. All gone.
>
> Seriously, I never use a hand saw now - even a hack saw - without a glove
on
> my left hand.
> Bert
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Another change of subject. . . |
Thanks for the info, greatly appreciated. It's the most economical
system, and the one I am most familiar with, will definately stick to
that. PS what part of the country are you in? I'm in Sooke, BC,
Vancouver Island.
> Shawn Wolk wrote:
>
> I have used the HIPEC system on my Pietenpol. 2.7oz.fabric, and
> brushed on the Grey coat (Hipec sun barrer).This is the same material
> that is used to glue the fabric to the ribs. When I made a sample test
> jig, the adhesion was strong enough to rip apart the capstrips on the
> test jig. Whats reallyneatabout the stuffis its incredible
> flexibility. You can take a piece of HSB treated fabric, roll it up in
> to a ball. The spread it out andtry shining a light threw it. The
> coating isn't damaged.
> On the tail I finished the colour coat with the HIPEC Top Coat.
> This is the two part cyanate based polyurethane that requires air
> supply while spraying. When I recovered the wing this spring I used
> HIPEC again with 2.7oz. fabric,but sprayed it with latex forthe colour
> topcoat. Mainly because I didn't want to spray that poison again. The
> latex though is heavier and no way as nice as the finish of the HIPEC
> Top Coat that was used on the tail.
> On my other homebuilt, the original builder used HIPEC HSB then
> used Centauri as a top coat. Centauri is a premium automotive finish.
> The Centauri seems to have lost alot of its elasticity, and is
> cracking and peeling in places. But with close inspection, the HIPEC
> underneath is in great shape. No cracking or sign of any deterioration
> at all.
> Repairs are also simple with the HIPEC, and no ribstitching or
> tapes at the ribs. The extra work for getting the HIPEC to glue the
> fabric to the bottom of the undercambered wing was a pain. I had to
> weight the fabric down so it was resting on the ribs with over a
> hundred margarine tubs filled with sand & gravel.
> Just to give you a p[erspective on how well the HSB glues. When I
> was removing the masking tape from the fuel filler on the wing tank. I
> didn't run a knife around first, and the HSB glued the masking tape to
> the edge of the fabric so well that I ripped the fabric pulling off
> the tape. Good thing its easy to patch with HIPEC.
>
> Shawn Wolk
> C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
> C-GZOT Skyhopper 2
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
<001101c3ed13$390eab10$6501a8c0@Nancy>
<012e01c3ed53$ac2d6330$96715118@dawsonaviation>
You are right, and it is actually in medical service. I, being an
accident waiting for a place to happen, always have a bottle handy.
Also good for tacking/gluing gussets. Way stronger than the wood, but I
still epoxy over after. I've used the stuff for over 15 yrs, never a
failure. Just don't get any on fingers and then scratch anyplace . . .
Clif Dawson wrote:
>
>
> Check these out;
>
> http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=31215&categor
> y=2,42407,33246
>
> I believe superglue was originaly designed as a bandage for surgery and
> promptly stolen by everyone else. So I was told anyway.
>
> Clif
>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: blood, sweat & tears
>
>
> > > with some major pain it sounded like. I said " I vote we glue that
> puppy up
> > with Super Glue and see how it does." He shrugged his shoulders and said
> > "OK by me".
> >
> > A few months later you couldn't even see the scar and the cut in the nail
> > had grown out. All gone.
> >
> > Seriously, I never use a hand saw now - even a hack saw - without a glove
> on
> > my left hand.
> > Bert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
Max,
I am also planning to have an access panel under the belly for getting into
the elev bellcrank turnbuckles etc. Seems to make good sense.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
Also, I might add that I plan to use a center fairing strip and cover the
belly with fabric from the firewall to the tail, with only a small access panel
(maybe one bay) for access to the belcrank area.
Fabric on the belly is desireable for cleaning off the oil spatters and fuel
drips that are inevitable, no matter which engine you use. I'd prefer to
clean off of fabric, rather than allow those intrusive fluids to soak into the
belly plywood.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Changing the subject |
I've also included a belly access panel, as Mike Cuy did on his. There is
simply too much important stuff that you need to be able to inspect and
adjust in the area behind the rear seat. I don't think I would take it all
the way back to the tail, though - too heavy, and there is nothing back
there that should ever need adjustment. Here is a picture showing my access
panel area.
Having done a few "Owner assisted annual inspections" on my Cessna 140, I
know how important it is to be able to have ready access to the control
system for inspection and lubrication annually.
I put mine between two stringers that I added on the belly. I think they
add slightly to the look of the airplane, rounding it out slightly. They
also get the fabric up over the various bolts and nuts in the cockpit area.
I added inspection rings in the region of the bolts attaching the control
system components, in case I ever need access to those nuts.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
Max,
I am also planning to have an access panel under the belly for getting into
the elev bellcrank turnbuckles etc. Seems to make good sense.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
In a message dated 2/6/2004 11:05:11 PM Central Standard Time,
csfog(at)earthlink.net writes:
> Why are you running the inspection panel all the way back?
> Skip, in Atlanta
>
Skip:
I want to be able to have easy access to the bell crank assembly, turn
buckles and assorted hardware. I also want to have access to the tail cone for
inspection and clean-out of foreign object, nests etc. I am a fairly big person
and like the idea of being able to get my little grubbies in every little nook
and cranny. I read about this idea a long time ago, and it just made sense.
Something about the guy having a fuel leak and being able to take this
oversize access panel off from behind the pilot seat all the way aft to facilitate
drying it out. With some dzus fasteners, no one will even know it's there,
except me, during inspections.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
You are also working way too late... 11:45PM is what the clock says and it is dark
thru the windows!
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:04 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
I've also included a belly access panel, as Mike Cuy did on his. There is simply
too much important stuff that you need to be able to inspect and adjust in
the area behind the rear seat. I don't think I would take it all the way back
to the tail, though - too heavy, and there is nothing back there that should
ever need adjustment. Here is a picture showing my access panel area.
Having done a few "Owner assisted annual inspections" on my Cessna 140, I know
how important it is to be able to have ready access to the control system for
inspection and lubrication annually.
I put mine between two stringers that I added on the belly. I think they add
slightly to the look of the airplane, rounding it out slightly. They also get
the fabric up over the various bolts and nuts in the cockpit area. I added
inspection rings in the region of the bolts attaching the control system components,
in case I ever need access to those nuts.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:49 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
Max,
I am also planning to have an access panel under the belly for getting into the
elev bellcrank turnbuckles etc. Seems to make good sense.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
An excellent idea, I'd never thought of that. You guys rock!!
> Jack Phillips wrote:
>
> I've also included a belly access panel, as Mike Cuy did on his.
> There is simply too much important stuff that you need to be able to
> inspect and adjust in the area behind the rear seat. I don't think I
> would take it all the way back to the tail, though - too heavy, and
> there is nothing back there that should ever need adjustment. Here is
> a picture showing my access panel area.
>
>
>
> Having done a few "Owner assisted annual inspections" on my Cessna
> 140, I know how important it is to be able to have ready access to the
> control system for inspection and lubrication annually.
>
>
>
>
>
> I put mine between two stringers that I added on the belly. I think
> they add slightly to the look of the airplane, rounding it out
> slightly. They also get the fabric up over the various bolts and nuts
> in the cockpit area. I added inspection rings in the region of the
> bolts attaching the control system components, in case I ever need
> access to those nuts.
>
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
> BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:49 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
>
>
>
> Max,
> I am also planning to have an access panel under the belly for getting
> into the elev bellcrank turnbuckles etc. Seems to make good sense.
>
> Terry Bowden
> ph (254) 715-4773
> fax (254) 853-3805
>
> Name: Fabric - Fuselage 6.JPG
> Fabric - Fuselage 6.JPG Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 11:04 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
I've also included a belly access panel, as Mike Cuy did on his. There is simply
too much important stuff that you need to be able to inspect and adjust in
the area behind the rear seat. I don't think I would take it all the way back
to the tail, though - too heavy, and there is nothing back there that should
ever need adjustment. Here is a picture showing my access panel area.
Having done a few "Owner assisted annual inspections" on my Cessna 140, I know
how important it is to be able to have ready access to the control system for
inspection and lubrication annually.
I put mine between two stringers that I added on the belly. I think they add
slightly to the look of the airplane, rounding it out slightly. They also get
the fabric up over the various bolts and nuts in the cockpit area. I added
inspection rings in the region of the bolts attaching the control system components,
in case I ever need access to those nuts.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 10:49 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
Max,
I am also planning to have an access panel under the belly for getting into the
elev bellcrank turnbuckles etc. Seems to make good sense.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Cours <piet-j(at)moriarti.org> |
| Subject: | thinking about airfoils |
Hi, everyone -
I was thinking about airfoils last night, and it occurred to me that not
having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone
wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty
good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you
could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck,
poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data
at night on a smooth section of rural highway.
Then I started thinking that the test rig might not be that much of a
problem, either. For a simple thought experiment, I went through how you
might measure lift at different airspeeds and angles of attack. Since a
29 foot wing can lift a 1,000lb Piet, if we ignore edge effects (mostly
'cause I don't know enough to know how to figure them out), that says
that a 2 foot wing section ought to be able to lift somewhere in the
neighborhood of 70lb. So, let's say you put a bathroom scale in the
truck bed. On that scale, you put a 200lb block of concrete, just to
keep the weights in the region where bathroom scales are mostly linear.
Poking out of the concrete is a pole that's high enough to get the wing
section into clear air. On top of the pole is a 2' wide section of full
cord FC-10, pivoted to let you adjust the angle of attack, maybe with a
threaded rod to hold it at the desired angle. Also, imagine some
bracing, with a ring around the pole to let the pole slide up and down,
just to keep the rig from falling over. Your test run would be to set
the AOA and note the scale reading at speed 0. Then drive a set of test
point speeds, say every 5 MPH, and have someone else read the scale. At
the end of the run, stop, readjust AOA, and repeat for the next series.
I could also imagine variations on the test rig that'd let you measure
pitching moment.
It sounds like the things this project would really need are someone who
knows enough about the practical end of aero engineering to know exactly
what to measure and how to do it, and someone who's willing to devote
the time to building the test rig and collecting the numbers. (Neither
of whom are me, unfortunately.)
- Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | thinking about airfoils |
I worked with that sort of ground test vehicle in college. You can get
good data from it, but it is a bit tricky. At Mississippi State we used a
very old Buick roadmaster with all of the body panels removed so as to
affect the air as little as possible. You want the test sample to see only
undisturbed air. This means it has to be quite a ways up there. It also
means the vehicles CG will be quite high so we had to throw in some ballast
down low. A DAQ system recorded a couple of load cells installed on a
mechanism very much like a wind tunnel balance. However the data was
nowhere near as clean as what you get out of a tunnel so we had to do a lot
of averageing. Reducing the data was a chore; essentially you look at a
quick plot, try to find several steady seconds, and average those numbers.
Periods of acceleration, decelearation and bumps in the road (or in our
case the runway) need to be thrown out. Also, when the model gets large
compared to the vehicle things can get spooky.
Good luck with your experiment. You can get good data if you are careful
but it is not as easy as it sounds like it might be.
Kevin
www.airminded.net
> [Original Message]
> From: Jeff Cours <piet-j(at)moriarti.org>
> To:
> Date: 2/7/2004 7:25:01 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: thinking about airfoils
>
>
> Hi, everyone -
>
> I was thinking about airfoils last night, and it occurred to me that not
> having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone
> wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty
> good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you
> could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck,
> poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data
> at night on a smooth section of rural highway.
>
> Then I started thinking that the test rig might not be that much of a
> problem, either. For a simple thought experiment, I went through how you
> might measure lift at different airspeeds and angles of attack. Since a
> 29 foot wing can lift a 1,000lb Piet, if we ignore edge effects (mostly
> 'cause I don't know enough to know how to figure them out), that says
> that a 2 foot wing section ought to be able to lift somewhere in the
> neighborhood of 70lb. So, let's say you put a bathroom scale in the
> truck bed. On that scale, you put a 200lb block of concrete, just to
> keep the weights in the region where bathroom scales are mostly linear.
> Poking out of the concrete is a pole that's high enough to get the wing
> section into clear air. On top of the pole is a 2' wide section of full
> cord FC-10, pivoted to let you adjust the angle of attack, maybe with a
> threaded rod to hold it at the desired angle. Also, imagine some
> bracing, with a ring around the pole to let the pole slide up and down,
> just to keep the rig from falling over. Your test run would be to set
> the AOA and note the scale reading at speed 0. Then drive a set of test
> point speeds, say every 5 MPH, and have someone else read the scale. At
> the end of the run, stop, readjust AOA, and repeat for the next series.
> I could also imagine variations on the test rig that'd let you measure
> pitching moment.
>
> It sounds like the things this project would really need are someone who
> knows enough about the practical end of aero engineering to know exactly
> what to measure and how to do it, and someone who's willing to devote
> the time to building the test rig and collecting the numbers. (Neither
> of whom are me, unfortunately.)
>
> - Jeff
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: thinking about airfoils |
Atta way Kev.... The real world is sometimes quite different than the
hypothetical stuff. I liked your description of the test vehicle and what
you had to do with CG to test sections. Good stuff,
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: thinking about airfoils
>
> I worked with that sort of ground test vehicle in college. You can get
> good data from it, but it is a bit tricky. At Mississippi State we used a
> very old Buick roadmaster with all of the body panels removed so as to
> affect the air as little as possible. You want the test sample to see
only
> undisturbed air. This means it has to be quite a ways up there. It also
> means the vehicles CG will be quite high so we had to throw in some
ballast
> down low. A DAQ system recorded a couple of load cells installed on a
> mechanism very much like a wind tunnel balance. However the data was
> nowhere near as clean as what you get out of a tunnel so we had to do a
lot
> of averageing. Reducing the data was a chore; essentially you look at a
> quick plot, try to find several steady seconds, and average those numbers.
> Periods of acceleration, decelearation and bumps in the road (or in our
> case the runway) need to be thrown out. Also, when the model gets large
> compared to the vehicle things can get spooky.
>
> Good luck with your experiment. You can get good data if you are careful
> but it is not as easy as it sounds like it might be.
>
> Kevin
> www.airminded.net
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Jeff Cours <piet-j(at)moriarti.org>
> > To:
> > Date: 2/7/2004 7:25:01 PM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: thinking about airfoils
> >
> >
> > Hi, everyone -
> >
> > I was thinking about airfoils last night, and it occurred to me that not
> > having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone
> > wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty
> > good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you
> > could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck,
> > poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data
> > at night on a smooth section of rural highway.
> >
> > Then I started thinking that the test rig might not be that much of a
> > problem, either. For a simple thought experiment, I went through how you
> > might measure lift at different airspeeds and angles of attack. Since a
> > 29 foot wing can lift a 1,000lb Piet, if we ignore edge effects (mostly
> > 'cause I don't know enough to know how to figure them out), that says
> > that a 2 foot wing section ought to be able to lift somewhere in the
> > neighborhood of 70lb. So, let's say you put a bathroom scale in the
> > truck bed. On that scale, you put a 200lb block of concrete, just to
> > keep the weights in the region where bathroom scales are mostly linear.
> > Poking out of the concrete is a pole that's high enough to get the wing
> > section into clear air. On top of the pole is a 2' wide section of full
> > cord FC-10, pivoted to let you adjust the angle of attack, maybe with a
> > threaded rod to hold it at the desired angle. Also, imagine some
> > bracing, with a ring around the pole to let the pole slide up and down,
> > just to keep the rig from falling over. Your test run would be to set
> > the AOA and note the scale reading at speed 0. Then drive a set of test
> > point speeds, say every 5 MPH, and have someone else read the scale. At
> > the end of the run, stop, readjust AOA, and repeat for the next series.
> > I could also imagine variations on the test rig that'd let you measure
> > pitching moment.
> >
> > It sounds like the things this project would really need are someone who
> > knows enough about the practical end of aero engineering to know exactly
> > what to measure and how to do it, and someone who's willing to devote
> > the time to building the test rig and collecting the numbers. (Neither
> > of whom are me, unfortunately.)
> >
> > - Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
In a message dated 2/6/04 7:46:30 PM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
<< Am I supposed to cover the belly of this beast (underside of the fuse)
with
fabric or leave it wood? I would assume you are supposed to cover it, but I
saw a fly baby the other day, and the fabric stopped at the bottom of the
fuselage. I am going to have an aluminum access panel from the pilots seat
aft all
the way the tail wheel. >>
I covered my belly (on the airplane :) ) with fabric, to protect the plywood
from all the fluids and exhaust the engine barfs out. I installed two
standard access covers under the bellcrank, and made some adjustments to the
turnbuckles going up to the control stick, in there last spring. I don't like
the
thought of a huge access panel all the way back...what if it blew off ??
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Front & Center |
In a message dated 2/6/04 6:51:03 AM Central Standard Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
<< 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:)) >>
Mike,
Very good points !! I'm afraid I would have to personally escort someone
like that, out of the area !! I'll vote for a spot over by Theater in the Woods
!!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Changing the subject |
Even if you don't use any strip the fabric should cover the ply to
give protection to it and a more water and oil proof finish. The
bare wood, just painted, will inevitably crack in little splits.
My plan is to have a full width panel from the ply back to the first
cross brace under the bell crank, no strips and fabric over the ply.
But now that it's been mentioned, a full length panel would be a
neater looking installation, only one seam across the belly. How
do you plan on sealing the edges?
I finally found the time to visit my local 4130 supplier and get
what I need to make up that vast array of fittings.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Changing the subject
Also, I might add that I plan to use a center fairing strip and cover the belly
with fabric from the firewall to the tail, with only a small access panel (maybe
one bay) for access to the belcrank area.
Fabric on the belly is desireable for cleaning off the oil spatters and fuel
drips that are inevitable, no matter which engine you use. I'd prefer to clean
off of fabric, rather than allow those intrusive fluids to soak into the belly
plywood.
Terry Bowden
ph (254) 715-4773
fax (254) 853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | The Flying & Glider Manuals - EAA vs. Originals |
Hi listers,
Can someone tell me the differences between the original Flying and Glider
manuals and the EAA reprints? I own the set of EAA reprints, but haven't yet
been able to find an original set of manuals for what seemed like a
reasonable price. I know the EAA ones are "distilled" and don't have the
advertisements, original covers, etc. as the real ones. But are there any
relevant illustrations or text that were deleted from the EAA reprints? I'd
love to have the originals but we're on a really tight budget and don't want
to spend money needlessly.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
About a year ago, I was sawing a piece of thin plywood for a model using an
a hand saw." And sure 'nuff, within 5 seconds, I did just that! Nothing
major but man did it look bad, because you could look at all the parallel
cuts and quickly figure out that I was in fact stupid enough to saw through
myself with a hand saw. Never get complacent!
You ever notice the "Ohnosecond"? That's that split-second when you say to
yourself, "Oh, no..." and then whatever it is that you were thinking "oh no"
about actually happens.
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kevin Holcomb" <ksholcomb(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | The Flying & Glider Manuals - EAA vs. Originals |
The biggest difference that I can think of is in the 1933 Manual. The
original has a large section on the Corben Baby Ace, including plans for
both a parasol and a cabin version. That section does not appear in the
EAA reprint.
Best Regards,
Kevin Holcomb
www.airminded.net
> [Original Message]
> From: Mike Whaley <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com>
> To: Pietenpol List
> Date: 2/8/2004 10:19:46 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: The Flying & Glider Manuals - EAA vs. Originals
>
>
> Hi listers,
>
> Can someone tell me the differences between the original Flying and Glider
> manuals and the EAA reprints? I own the set of EAA reprints, but haven't
yet
> been able to find an original set of manuals for what seemed like a
> reasonable price. I know the EAA ones are "distilled" and don't have the
> advertisements, original covers, etc. as the real ones. But are there any
> relevant illustrations or text that were deleted from the EAA reprints?
I'd
> love to have the originals but we're on a really tight budget and don't
want
> to spend money needlessly.
>
> -Mike
>
> Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
> Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
> http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: thinking about airfoils |
> not having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone
> wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty
> good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you
> could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck,
> poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data
> at night on a smooth section of rural highway.
I've done the truck-testing bit, a friend and I wanted to know the real
forces put onto the servo actuating an R/C Pattern plane's rudder, with and
without balance tabs (the difference was dramatic). Back in high school, I
also did some real wind-tunnel testing in a Florida Tech's low-speed tunnel
(at the time, it was one of the best in the country) for a science fair
project with variable-camber airfoild (took first place at state, so I guess
I wasn't complete clueless back then.) My guess is that the truck method
could give you some OK data, but if you're serious about getting really good
data, then you really would need to do a bit more and go for the tunnel. The
problem is that the fine differences between two airfoils (or to get a good
baseline on the FC-10) would need to be measured with very smooth, laminar
airflow and sensitive instruments, you need to know not only the airspeed
but precise AOA, pressure, and forces acting on teh wing section. More
importantly, the conditions need to be identical between the control test
with the old airfoild, and the experimental test with the new one. As we
discovered with the rudder test, you have very strong boundary layer and
other effects generated by the vehicle itself that will destroy your ability
to get really good data. In our case, we figured this out and built a
boundary layer diverter (similar to that found on the intake of an F-15 or
similar jet) but we still had some effects of the vehicle. You could put a
test section on a long truss way out in front of the truck to get better
results, but then every bump will be magnified and really screw up the force
balance or whatever you're using to measure the forces. Plus, turbulence
from other vehicles, wind, fog, etc. will all affect things too.
Here's what I would do (and no, I'm not volunteering as my plate is too full
already...) I would get in touch with a college with an aeronautical program
and a wind tunnel. You want to figure out the typical Reynolds number that
the Piet flies at (low and high speeds) and then find a tunnel that can do
that. Then try to find a sympathetic prof to work with you and connect you
with a group of students so that they can learn, while generating useful
data. Dr. Michael Selig has done a lot of work at UIUC (I think) so that
might be one place to start. I think the guy I was working with went to
Purdue. (BTW, for those who don't know, the Reynold's number basically just
takes into account the size of an airfoil, the air density, speed,
viscosity, etc. and adjusts it for scale effects, thus allowing you to
compare airfoils of different sizes. With some exceptions and modifications,
you will get very close to the same performance as the full-size aircraft
has by adjusting the speed and density of the air passing over a small-scale
test model such that it has the same Reynold's number as the real one does
in flight. That's how they can test planes like the C-5 and 747 in a regular
tunnel.) As the test section's chord is a factor in the Reynold's number,
and it's impractical to build a test section at too small a scale, you'd
need to figure all this out to get teh right combination to be both
rpactical to build as well as what will suit the tunnel that's available. I
don't think it would be too hard to find someplace that could test a half-
or third- scale test section properly.
Bear in mind that a wind-tunnel test is typically going to produce 2-D test
data, which is invaluable, but not the whole story. The Piet, like all
planes, has a lot of 3-D effects going on... not only at the wingtips, but a
lot of interesting stuff may be happening between the wing and fuselage,
especially for a plane with a radiator there. There may well be a
significant difference between having a cut-out and a wing flap too. You'll
even get different wing sections where the covering sags between the ribs,
which could be significantly better or worse than the section on a rib. So
don't expect any single test to yield all-encompassing results. But it will
allow you to validly compare to other airfoils.
If anyone is interested in the full story of the truck testing I took part
in, let me know privately and I will send it to you (the list server doesn't
like ZIP file attachments.) It contains a writeup with our test results and
description of how we did it, as well as the test data. At highway speeds,
several times, the airflow on the standard rudder section was stronger than
I was... I pity those poor little servos trying to move the typical pattern
plane rudder!
Just some thoughts,
Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brodhead Pietenpol Fly-In |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
I was at the Brodhead Chapter 431 banquet on Saturday night. Plans are
being made for the 2004 Pietenpol Fly-In. I would be willing to make
arrangements for a block of rooms at a Madison hotel for those of you who
are flying in to Madison or driving. I would try to get a hotel on the
South edge of Madison to shorten the daily trip to Brodhead. The daily
drive would be 35 to 40 minutes of driving through Wisconsin farmland.
If you are interested, please e-mail me directly at rhartwig11(at)juno.com
if you are interested. Having everyone at one hotel would facilitate car
pooling.
We could have a discussion on the list of things we would like to see at
this fly-in, the 75th anniversary of the Pietenpol Air Camper. I will
pass along your ideas to our chapter members.
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Question of the week???????????? |
Pieters,
Anyone have any idea where they, those exalted beauros, have the sport pilot
bundle stashed away??????????? Haven't seen or heard anything for awhile. Is
it still breathing?
Corky still waiting in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | Question of the week???????????? |
Corky,
Dept of Trans approved and sent to Office of Mgt and Budget in late Dec
2003.
OMB has 90 days, this is early Feb, your probably looking at, oh... 90 days.
Skip, one short time beauro
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
Pieters,
Anyone have any idea where they, those exalted beauros, have the sport pilot
bundle stashed away??????????? Haven't seen or heard anything for awhile. Is
it still breathing?
Corky still waiting in La
Message
Corky,
Dept of Trans approvedand sent to
Office of Mgt and Budget in late Dec 2003.
OMB has 90 days, this is early Feb, your
probably looking at, oh... 90 days.
Skip, one short time beauro
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Isablcorky(at)aol.com
AM
Subject:
Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
Pieters,
Anyone have any idea where they, those exalted beauros, have the sport
pilot bundle stashed away??????????? Haven't seen or heard anything for
awhile. Is it still breathing?
Corky still waiting in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Does anyone know what the most forward c/g limit is for a short Fuse?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat |
| From: | "Hodgson, Mark O" <mhodgson(at)bu.edu> |
Isn't super glue the same as cyano-acrylate, or CA that is used so much
on model airplanes? I think that's also pretty similar to standard
fingernail polish, the remover of which is what they recommend to take
the residual stuff off of your hands when you're putting together ribs
etc. on your latest balsa project. It's pretty strong but I don't think
it's nearly as strong as T-88.
Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
short fuse... long fuse... whatever. It's still between 28-33% of chord.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
Does anyone know what the most forward c/g limit is for a short Fuse?
Dick N.
=
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> |
| Subject: | Another change of subject. . . |
Shawn,
For a Piet, or any aircraft with truss type ribs, rib stitching is important
and needed for more than just holding the fabric to the rib. The truss is
very strong in compression, but not as strong in tension. The stitching
helps hold the top and bottom of the wing together.
Now, the Piet rib may be over designed enough that this is not a concern
but, for the one or two days it takes to stitch-up the wing, it is not worth
the risk to me.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shawn Wolk
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another change of subject. . .
Repairs are also simple with the HIPEC, and no ribstitching or tapes at
the ribs.
Message
Shawn,
For a
Piet, or any aircraft with truss type ribs, rib stitching is important and
needed for more than just holding the fabric to the rib. The truss is very
strong in compression, but not as strong in tension. The stitching helps hold
the top and bottom of the wing together.
Now,
the Piet rib may be over designed enough that this is not a concern but, for the
one or two days it takesto stitch-up the wing, it is not worth the risk to
me.
Skip
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Shawn
Wolk
pietenpol-list
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Another change of subject.
.
.
Repairs are also simple with the HIPEC, and no ribstitching
or tapes at the ribs.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
That would be aft c/g. I am looking for most forward. There is a space on the
FAA forms asking for it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
short fuse... long fuse... whatever. It's still between 28-33% of chord.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
Does anyone know what the most forward c/g limit is for a short Fuse?
Dick N.
This email has been scanned for known viruses and made safe for viewing by Half
Price Hosting, a leading email and web hosting provider. For more information
on an anti-virus email solution, visit .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
<000901c3ef52$74474390$0600a8c0@laptop>
thats what I'm saying.... 28% is about 16.5" of chord and 33% is almost 20"
thats your limits... at least it is on the GN-1 which has damn near the same
airfoil.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
That would be aft c/g. I am looking for most forward. There is a space on the
FAA forms asking for it.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: w/b
short fuse... long fuse... whatever. It's still between 28-33% of chord.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: w/b
Does anyone know what the most forward c/g limit is for a short Fuse?
Dick N.
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 .
=
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: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
| Subject: | RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Yes Skip,
I kind of agree with you. But with with the incredibly low wing loadings. (mine
is 1180# gross and 31' span...works out to 7.6lbs. per square ft.) That is
a very small load in tension. If someone feels that ribstitching is a must.
It can still be done using HIPEC. A guy on our field did that on a Christavia
4 seater.
I personally was convinced after I made my own destructive test.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2 'Finally took to the air for its first two hours of flight
yesterday' So I couldn't fly my Pietenpol.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Think about the G-loading. 5 Gs would multiply the 7.6 by 5 38. before you dismiss
rib stitching, talk to an old timer; one that flew with grade A. Someone
that had the fabric rip off.
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for the Experimenter soon to be Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: Shawn Wolk
To: pietenpol-list
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 6:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Yes Skip,
I kind of agree with you. But with with the incredibly low wing loadings.
(mine is 1180# gross and 31' span...works out to 7.6lbs. per square ft.) That
is a very small load in tension. If someone feels that ribstitching is a must.
It can still be done using HIPEC. A guy on our field did that on a Christavia
4 seater.
I personally was convinced after I made my own destructive test.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2 'Finally took to the air for its first two hours of flight
yesterday' So I couldn't fly my Pietenpol.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat & tears |
The closest thing would be those kevlar ones
I gave the link for a couple of days ago.
http://www.leevalley.com/garden/page.asp?SID=&ccurrency=1&page=31215&categor
y=2,42407,33246
Clif
>
> >>> ever notice the "Ohnosecond"? That's that split-second when you say
> to
> yourself, "Oh, no..." and then whatever it is that you were thinking
> "oh no" about actually happens.
> > paranoid about not having my fingers around to type and play bass.
> Anybody know where a guy can get one of those armored gloves coroners
> use when doing autopsies? ;-)
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood, sweat |
That's the stuff.
And you're right.
Clif
> Isn't super glue the same as cyano-acrylate, or CA that is used so much
> on model airplanes? I think that's also pretty similar to standard
> fingernail polish, the remover of which is what they recommend to take
> the residual stuff off of your hands when you're putting together ribs
> etc. on your latest balsa project. It's pretty strong but I don't think
> it's nearly as strong as T-88.
>
> Mark Hodgson
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Didn't we come to the conclusion sometime last year
that stitching was the way to go. A whole bunch of
messages in the archives including one about a death
attributed to a lack if stitching, wasn't there?
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: Shawn Wolk
To: pietenpol-list
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 4:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Yes Skip,
I kind of agree with you. But with with the incredibly low wing loadings.
(mine is 1180# gross and 31' span...works out to 7.6lbs. per square ft.) That
is a very small load in tension. If someone feels that ribstitching is a must.
It can still be done using HIPEC. A guy on our field did that on a Christavia
4 seater.
I personally was convinced after I made my own destructive test.
Shawn Wolk
C-FRAZ Pietenpol Aircamper
C-GZOT Skyhopper 2 'Finally took to the air for its first two hours of flight
yesterday' So I couldn't fly my Pietenpol.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the catalougs? I checked
ACS and didnt see it.
Whats the 2 cent story about this.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Another change of subject. . . |
In a message dated 2/7/04 1:49:11 AM Central Standard Time,
shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca writes:
<< and no ribstitching or tapes at the ribs >>
Shawn,
Ribstitching is certainly still necessary.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Avids and the Kitfox are wing fabrics are generally glued, not rib-stitched
and I'm not aware of a single one having fabric separation on a wing. In fact,
Jim Metzger, former General Manager of Avid did fairly extensive spins, loops,
snap rolls in the Avid Speedwing over the course of several years and never
had a problem. This was a Ceconite process. The capstrips on the Avid are about
3/4 inch wide if memory serves me correct.
The above mentioned ribs are/were diecut from spruce plywood and in the Avid,
the rib was glued to the front spar using a 2-part epoxy glue for the
Speedwing and heavy-hauler wings. In the case of the Speedwing Avid, the plane
easily
cruised better than 100 mph.
I'm not advocating that people avoid rib stitching, but the glue on process
worked well on the Avids.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
I'm sure the new glues are fine but as one who has heard the sickening sound
of fabric ripping off in flight, I plan to rib stitch. That's all that saved
me the first time.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Rib stitching is fun, and it's a skill uncommon in today's modern world.
Why risk death just to avoid acquiring a unique skill? I would hate to be
thinking to myself as i plunged to my death - "Damn! I sure wish I'd
rib-stitched it!"
Another fact that I'm sure doesn't figure into the Avid or Kitfox is the
undercamber in the Pietenpol's wing. If you just glue it and don't
ribstitch before fully tautening the fabric, it may pull away from the ribs
on the bottom of the wing.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of
KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Avids and the Kitfox are wing fabrics are generally glued, not rib-stitched
and I'm not aware of a single one having fabric separation on a wing. In
fact, Jim Metzger, former General Manager of Avid did fairly extensive
spins, loops, snap rolls in the Avid Speedwing over the course of several
years and never had a problem. This was a Ceconite process. The capstrips on
the Avid are about 3/4 inch wide if memory serves me correct.
The above mentioned ribs are/were diecut from spruce plywood and in the
Avid, the rib was glued to the front spar using a 2-part epoxy glue for the
Speedwing and heavy-hauler wings. In the case of the Speedwing Avid, the
plane easily cruised better than 100 mph.
I'm not advocating that people avoid rib stitching, but the glue on process
worked well on the Avids.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing |
It's not THAT bad. I can do one in about 35 to 40 minutes. I've been building
for 8 years and 10 months. I figure another few hours won't really make a difference.
I do have a couple of tips for those thinking about rib lacing.
1) Make sure you leave just enough gap between your rib and any associated compression
struts to get the needle through - else you have to "rib stitch" the
fabric to EACH cap strip (top and bottom) instead of lacing it up and down through
the entire wing. This is a pain.
2) plan your rib lacing around spars and aileron cables carefully. requirements
for a Piet type plane are rib lacing (or stitches) every 2 1/2 inches within
the prop wash area an 3 1/2 inches outside the prop wash area. It never
fails that ONE of those lacings will need to go through a spar, gussett , or
pulley. Take a halogen flood light and lay it on the floor - turn it on and you
can see through the wing like it's saran wrap.
3) Rib lacing is really easy - Polyfiber has a video that shows it really well.
It's just "muscle memory" and takes about an hour to figure it out.
4) The undercamber (concave) bottom is alittle tricky. You have to glue the
fabric to the botton rib cap , heat to 250 degrees, lace, and THEN brush coat
the wing (Polyfiber) - I don't know about the other processes.
There are lots of really neat tricks to it that make it kinda fun. It's like woodwork,
welding, engines, etc. Another neat skill to learn. I respect people
who want to leave it out - but I think it's just one more of the neat little
things that make a fabric plane interesting. Also Polyester fabric is really
strong- it's the peel potential that can get you - lacing every 2 1/2 inches
may mean the difference in limping home and impersonating an anvil.
My 2 cents - only because i'm right here at his very moment.
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Rib stitching is fun, and it's a skill uncommon in today's modern world. Why
risk death just to avoid acquiring a unique skill? I would hate to be thinking
to myself as i plunged to my death - "Damn! I sure wish I'd rib-stitched
it!"
Another fact that I'm sure doesn't figure into the Avid or Kitfox is the undercamber
in the Pietenpol's wing. If you just glue it and don't ribstitch before
fully tautening the fabric, it may pull away from the ribs on the bottom of
the wing.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:37 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Avids and the Kitfox are wing fabrics are generally glued, not rib-stitched and
I'm not aware of a single one having fabric separation on a wing. In fact,
Jim Metzger, former General Manager of Avid did fairly extensive spins, loops,
snap rolls in the Avid Speedwing over the course of several years and never had
a problem. This was a Ceconite process. The capstrips on the Avid are about
3/4 inch wide if memory serves me correct.
The above mentioned ribs are/were diecut from spruce plywood and in the Avid,
the rib was glued to the front spar using a 2-part epoxy glue for the Speedwing
and heavy-hauler wings. In the case of the Speedwing Avid, the plane easily
cruised better than 100 mph.
I'm not advocating that people avoid rib stitching, but the glue on process worked
well on the Avids.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Pietenpol Fly-In |
In a message dated 2/9/04 7:21:00 AM Central Standard Time,
rhartwig11(at)juno.com writes:
<< We could have a discussion on the list of things we would like to see at
this fly-in, the 75th anniversary of the Pietenpol Air Camper. >>
I would like to see weight and balance done on everyone willing to
participate with their plane, like they did in '94. Scales, and a no-wind condition
would have to be met for that, in other words, in a hanger. The biggest
problem is the fuel. The pilot must know the precise fuel onboard, so it can be
removed in the paperwork, then an 'Empty Weight Center of Gravity' can be done.
EWCG is the base line where you can figure any configuration of loading the
plane.
Another thing I would like to ask, is if there are any flyers who would
like to participate in an organized formation flight. Long rows of Two by Two,
for a couple of low passes, then re-group in the air to some other formation.
Toss in a photo plane, and there would be some very unique pictures
available. This would all have to be gone over in detail in a Pilot Flight Brief.
Only those in the briefing would be allowed to participate in the formation
flight.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing |
Nice job Bert....
----- Original Message -----
From: Bert Conoly
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . . Rib Lacing
It's not THAT bad. I can do one in about 35 to 40 minutes. I've been building
for 8 years and 10 months. I figure another few hours won't really make a
difference. I do have a couple of tips for those thinking about rib lacing.
1) Make sure you leave just enough gap between your rib and any associated
compression struts to get the needle through - else you have to "rib stitch"
the fabric to EACH cap strip (top and bottom) instead of lacing it up and down
through the entire wing. This is a pain.
2) plan your rib lacing around spars and aileron cables carefully. requirements
for a Piet type plane are rib lacing (or stitches) every 2 1/2 inches
within the prop wash area an 3 1/2 inches outside the prop wash area. It never
fails that ONE of those lacings will need to go through a spar, gussett , or
pulley. Take a halogen flood light and lay it on the floor - turn it on and
you can see through the wing like it's saran wrap.
3) Rib lacing is really easy - Polyfiber has a video that shows it really
well. It's just "muscle memory" and takes about an hour to figure it out.
4) The undercamber (concave) bottom is alittle tricky. You have to glue the
fabric to the botton rib cap , heat to 250 degrees, lace, and THEN brush coat
the wing (Polyfiber) - I don't know about the other processes.
There are lots of really neat tricks to it that make it kinda fun. It's like
woodwork, welding, engines, etc. Another neat skill to learn. I respect people
who want to leave it out - but I think it's just one more of the neat little
things that make a fabric plane interesting. Also Polyester fabric is really
strong- it's the peel potential that can get you - lacing every 2 1/2 inches
may mean the difference in limping home and impersonating an anvil.
My 2 cents - only because i'm right here at his very moment.
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:57 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Rib stitching is fun, and it's a skill uncommon in today's modern world.
Why risk death just to avoid acquiring a unique skill? I would hate to be thinking
to myself as i plunged to my death - "Damn! I sure wish I'd rib-stitched
it!"
Another fact that I'm sure doesn't figure into the Avid or Kitfox is the undercamber
in the Pietenpol's wing. If you just glue it and don't ribstitch before
fully tautening the fabric, it may pull away from the ribs on the bottom
of the wing.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of KRSBtv(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 10:37 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
Avids and the Kitfox are wing fabrics are generally glued, not rib-stitched
and I'm not aware of a single one having fabric separation on a wing. In fact,
Jim Metzger, former General Manager of Avid did fairly extensive spins, loops,
snap rolls in the Avid Speedwing over the course of several years and never
had a problem. This was a Ceconite process. The capstrips on the Avid are about
3/4 inch wide if memory serves me correct.
The above mentioned ribs are/were diecut from spruce plywood and in the Avid,
the rib was glued to the front spar using a 2-part epoxy glue for the Speedwing
and heavy-hauler wings. In the case of the Speedwing Avid, the plane easily
cruised better than 100 mph.
I'm not advocating that people avoid rib stitching, but the glue on process
worked well on the Avids.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Holly" <pietenpols(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: thinking about airfoils |
Mike-
I'd love to see your test data. Mainly just to stisfy my curiosity.
Best regards,
Robert Holly
New list member contemplating a Piet.
>From: "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Pietenpol List"
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: thinking about airfoils
>Date: Sun, 8 Feb 2004 23:54:51 -0500
>
>
> > not having access to a wind tunnel isn't really a limitation if someone
> > wants to test the FC-10, since automobile highway speeds are a pretty
> > good match for Pietenpol airspeeds. If you had the proper test rig, you
> > could mount an airfoil section in, say, the bed of a pickup truck,
> > poking up well above the cab to get it into clean air, and collect data
> > at night on a smooth section of rural highway.
>
>I've done the truck-testing bit, a friend and I wanted to know the real
>forces put onto the servo actuating an R/C Pattern plane's rudder, with and
>without balance tabs (the difference was dramatic). Back in high school, I
>also did some real wind-tunnel testing in a Florida Tech's low-speed tunnel
>(at the time, it was one of the best in the country) for a science fair
>project with variable-camber airfoild (took first place at state, so I
>guess
>I wasn't complete clueless back then.) My guess is that the truck method
>could give you some OK data, but if you're serious about getting really
>good
>data, then you really would need to do a bit more and go for the tunnel.
>The
>problem is that the fine differences between two airfoils (or to get a good
>baseline on the FC-10) would need to be measured with very smooth, laminar
>airflow and sensitive instruments, you need to know not only the airspeed
>but precise AOA, pressure, and forces acting on teh wing section. More
>importantly, the conditions need to be identical between the control test
>with the old airfoild, and the experimental test with the new one. As we
>discovered with the rudder test, you have very strong boundary layer and
>other effects generated by the vehicle itself that will destroy your
>ability
>to get really good data. In our case, we figured this out and built a
>boundary layer diverter (similar to that found on the intake of an F-15 or
>similar jet) but we still had some effects of the vehicle. You could put a
>test section on a long truss way out in front of the truck to get better
>results, but then every bump will be magnified and really screw up the
>force
>balance or whatever you're using to measure the forces. Plus, turbulence
>from other vehicles, wind, fog, etc. will all affect things too.
>
>Here's what I would do (and no, I'm not volunteering as my plate is too
>full
>already...) I would get in touch with a college with an aeronautical
>program
>and a wind tunnel. You want to figure out the typical Reynolds number that
>the Piet flies at (low and high speeds) and then find a tunnel that can do
>that. Then try to find a sympathetic prof to work with you and connect you
>with a group of students so that they can learn, while generating useful
>data. Dr. Michael Selig has done a lot of work at UIUC (I think) so that
>might be one place to start. I think the guy I was working with went to
>Purdue. (BTW, for those who don't know, the Reynold's number basically just
>takes into account the size of an airfoil, the air density, speed,
>viscosity, etc. and adjusts it for scale effects, thus allowing you to
>compare airfoils of different sizes. With some exceptions and
>modifications,
>you will get very close to the same performance as the full-size aircraft
>has by adjusting the speed and density of the air passing over a
>small-scale
>test model such that it has the same Reynold's number as the real one does
>in flight. That's how they can test planes like the C-5 and 747 in a
>regular
>tunnel.) As the test section's chord is a factor in the Reynold's number,
>and it's impractical to build a test section at too small a scale, you'd
>need to figure all this out to get teh right combination to be both
>rpactical to build as well as what will suit the tunnel that's available. I
>don't think it would be too hard to find someplace that could test a half-
>or third- scale test section properly.
>
>Bear in mind that a wind-tunnel test is typically going to produce 2-D test
>data, which is invaluable, but not the whole story. The Piet, like all
>planes, has a lot of 3-D effects going on... not only at the wingtips, but
>a
>lot of interesting stuff may be happening between the wing and fuselage,
>especially for a plane with a radiator there. There may well be a
>significant difference between having a cut-out and a wing flap too. You'll
>even get different wing sections where the covering sags between the ribs,
>which could be significantly better or worse than the section on a rib. So
>don't expect any single test to yield all-encompassing results. But it will
>allow you to validly compare to other airfoils.
>
>If anyone is interested in the full story of the truck testing I took part
>in, let me know privately and I will send it to you (the list server
>doesn't
>like ZIP file attachments.) It contains a writeup with our test results and
>description of how we did it, as well as the test data. At highway speeds,
>several times, the airflow on the standard rudder section was stronger than
>I was... I pity those poor little servos trying to move the typical pattern
>plane rudder!
>
>Just some thoughts,
>Mike
>
>Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
>Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
>http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
>
>
overload! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Have I missed anyone???? |
A couple folks have requested picture/video cd's from me recently (and not so recently)
and I have a feeling I've missed someone's request.....
So, if you've asked (and even if I've said I'll take care of it...) but haven't
received (except you, Gene).....tell me again.....
Work has been really busy lately and I just don't want to forget the REALLY important
stuff!
Jim in Plano.......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Shawn Wolk" <shawnwolk(at)sprint.ca> |
You will find it at Falconar avia in Edmonton AB Canada. Website is www.falconaravia.com .
Shawn Wolk
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | CG limits on the "long" fuselage |
Hi Richard -
The length of the fuselage does not change the basic characteristics of the
airfoil as far as CG limits are concerned. The wing is the thing, although
other factors enter into the equation to a small degree.
Tony Bingelis, in his classic "The Sportplane Builder" uses 16% to 28% of
the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) as an example of CG limits. Years ago,
the CAA suggested 22% to 34% of the MAC for high wing monoplanes, and said
so in the old Manual 18.
Having a nose heavy airplane can generate some stability problems. Racing
planes traditionally have a very forward CG, and can run out of elevator on
landing. They sometimes build a larger than normal horizontal tail plane
for this reason.
Having a tail heavy airplane gets into some serious stall/spin recovery
problems, which are pretty lethal. Using an undercambered airfoil such as
the Piet allows the rear limit to move a bit aft when compared to other
airfoils. Taylorcrafts, for example, are "floaters" on landing. This may
be the reason many Piets get away with a rearward CG limit that is slightly
further aft than other similar parasol aircraft. The Piet, with its
undercambered airfoil, is not known as a floater.
Using lead weight ballast to bring the CG within limits is a self-defeating
answer.
Forget for a moment that the Piet wing, due to its installation atop four
cabane struts can be moved fore and aft. If the wing were nailed to the
fuselage, regardless of the length of the fuselage, you have to balance the
weight of the airplane around the estimated CG. If you had a Cub or
Aeronca, you would not be able to move the wing, would you? Slanting the
cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an admission that proper
homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I know that this ignites a
whole firestorm that "Bernie did it."
When the Great Lakes biplane was originally built, a real problem occurred
with entry to the front cockpit (sound familiar?). The answer was to move
the top wing forward to get it out of the way for front cockpit
entry. OK. That solved the cockpit entry problem. But now the airplane
was tailheavy! What to do? Well, with the center section nailed in place
that allowed front seat accessibility, they swept the outer wing panels
back to place the MAC where it belonged. This resulted in a racier looking
biplane, and sales immediately started to grow.
The same thing could be done, of course, with the Piet, which would also
produce a racier look, but Piet people would disclaim such a bastard son.
I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the
fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the
lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit
area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing.
The fact remains that we all (well, most of us) love the Piet for what it
is. As a result, we try to keep the fuselage construction behind the wing
as light as possible, keep the tail surface construction as light as
possible, and keep the tailwheel assembly as light as possible. Some
people today are lengthening the fuselage by moving the firewall forward,
giving more legroom in the front seat, and allowing a larger fuselage fuel
tank. Others accept the standard plans location of the firewall and simply
add to the length of the engine mount. From what I hear and see, the
lengthening of the engine mount is the most popular fix.
I acknowledge that these comments will fire up a religious rant. Something
about recovering from a slip low to the ground will surface (who wants to
do that anyway, especially in a Piet?). If you move the wing back, you
have effectively moved the side area of the fuselage forward. So the idea
that the extension of the engine mount has adverse effects on the flight
characteristics pales into insignificance.
When EAA installed a heavier engine (Continental R-680) in the TravelAire
4000 at Pioneer Airport, it made the airplane noseheavy. The
answer? Fortunately, with a little shop floor engineering, the top
wing (mounted on cabanes) was moved forward as far as it would
go. Voila! It was no longer noseheavy! Incidentally, there are no
CAA/FAA center of gravity limits published in the TravelAire 4000 Type
Certificate Data Sheet. In those days, the CAA allowed you to set your own
CG limits! This was before Corky's bureaucracy got so smart. So, with a
337 and a logbook entry and my IA signature, I established that particular
TravelAire's CG limits according to the old CAA Manual 18. So you can see
that I am not saying never move the wing.
In the case of the Pietenol's endemic tailheavy condition (especially with
the "long" fuselage), simply extending the engine mount will accomplish
establishing the CG where it belongs.
Mike Cuy's Piet is beautiful with his slightly canted cabanes. Jim
Vandevoort has to empty his pockets to keep his CG within limits, even with
his severely canted cabanes. But hey! The Piets are all
"experimental" They are each a statement of the owner's place in the
universe. There is no "wrong" Pietenpol or GN-1 unless it is
dangerous. So do observe the common sense CG rules and have a lot of fun.
See you all at Sun'n'Fun!
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the
options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's
of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the
whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that.
I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I
lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12'
wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's,
positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework,
read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing
like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge
exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to
catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without
rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you
would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable
practice with that system!! Others for comment??
> Richard Navratil wrote:
>
> I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the
> catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it.
> Whats the 2 cent story about this.
> Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
That is my only concern, the undercamber. Let's hear more on this, I
will try to cantact the Canadian rep by phone, and discuss the issue.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
I've just talked to the manager at Falconar Avia Inc, the Cdn dealer for
HiPec, they also have a spuer line of wood/fabric bush planes, Chris the
developer of HiPec is on vacation til the 25th, but their manual should
be at my doorstep any day. They emphatically state that they have had
NO failures of any sort with this covering process, and that includes
undercambered wings. I will have to wait until the book arrives to get
more info, but if you wish to inquire directly to them, the can be
reached at telephone, 1-780-465-2024, or e-mail falconar(at)tic.ab.ca.
Note they won't be able to answer specifics on Hipec til after the
25th. Hope this helps, anyone wishing data from the book, e-mail me
direct with your questions, and I'll fire off answers once the book is
in my hands!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
and fabric work were the most enjoyable parts of the building process for
me. Perhaps it was the fumes, I dunno.
Rib stitching takes more time than digging a grave but....... There are
enough ways to die in a plane already.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
in regards to the accident of Joe Carter and his Celebrity... the Fabric was not
HiPec. I believe it was a Poly-Fiber process or similar.
I will say though that the covering on that aircraft was about 10 yrs old.... and
it took that long for the fabric to begin delaminating.
The way I see it rib stitching is just something you do to a fabric covered airplane....
BUT if there is a TESTED and PROVEN method that does not require it...
I suppose one could go that route. Tested and Proven are the key words.
It would be well worth the effort to trace the test data of the HiPec process
and see just exactly how it holds up and under what conditions/wing loadings/etc.
Nothing wrong with evolution and change but it's got to be PROVEN!
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: dave rowe
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: HIPEC
Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the
options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's
of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the
whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that.
I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I
lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12'
wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's,
positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework,
read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing
like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge
exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to
catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without
rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you
would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable
practice with that system!! Others for comment??
> Richard Navratil wrote:
>
> I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the
> catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it.
> Whats the 2 cent story about this.
> Dick
=
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: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Maroon Ford Piet had no rib stitching |
<40292E13.16555785(at)shaw.ca>
A few years ago there was a dark maroon Ford Piet at Brohead in one of the
back hangars----no stitching anywhere. I don't know who built it or owns
it or where he was from but it looked fairly new about 3 years
ago. Didn't see it at last summer's gathering.......but that doesn't
mean it's not around.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
If you don't want to rib stitch don't do it, bet your life on
weather cement will hold or not. I will rib stitch.
Duane
dave rowe wrote:
>
> Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the
> options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's
> of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the
> whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that.
> I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I
> lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12'
> wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's,
> positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework,
> read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing
> like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge
> exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to
> catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without
> rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you
> would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable
> practice with that system!! Others for comment??
>
> > Richard Navratil wrote:
> >
> > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the
> > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it.
> > Whats the 2 cent story about this.
> > Dick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
Rib stitching is an acceptable method for any fabric aerodynamic surface
according to AC 43-13.1B It can be used in place of screws, rivets. or
clips.
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: HIPEC
>
> Type it in on a search, should find it. I am still weighing the
> options. There are many users who swear by it, and reports such as DJ's
> of an accident in an a/c using no rib stitching, I will have toread the
> whole report to see if HiPec was involved, or if it even mentions that.
> I have flown giant scale aircraft for overt 20 yrs, and not once have I
> lost ironed on or adhesive fabric. Some of these aircraft were 10-12'
> wingspan, and capable of speeds in excess of 100 mph, pulling many G's,
> positive and neg. I suspect it's like most things. Do your homework,
> read and follow all of the instructions to the letter. A simple thing
> like having a fabric edge wrapped the wrong way, i.e. leaving the edge
> exposed to the fwd flow of air, vice wrapped underneath, can lead to
> catasrophe. I wouldn't discount HiPec as a method, without
> rib-stitching. Even if you wanted to rib-stitch and use HiPec, you
> would have to contact the manufacturer and ensure that is an acceptable
> practice with that system!! Others for comment??
>
> > Richard Navratil wrote:
> >
> > I havent heard of HIPEC that is being discussed. Is it in the
> > catalougs? I checked ACS and didnt see it.
> > Whats the 2 cent story about this.
> > Dick
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage |
| From: | <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net> |
> Slanting the cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an
> admission that proper homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I
> know that this ignites a whole firestorm that "Bernie did it."
>
.....
>
> I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the
> fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the
> lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit
> area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing.
I have not heard of anyone on this newsgroup yet who has completed a long
fuselage Piet who has not had to move his wing back to make CG (correct me
if I am wrong), this is probably why in later years Bernie recommended
extending the front of the long fuselage six inches. Although I have not
talked to anyone yet who has extended their fuselage six inches and not had
to move their wing back either (again please correct me if I am off base on
this).
Rick H
>
>
> Live List Chat: http://www.matronics.com/chat
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
<001a01c3f011$3c269e60$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com>
Agree totaly. I won't consider using it until I get some serious facts
and testimonials to back up their claims.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
<4029446F.2A1407A5@mo-net.com>
Again, thanks all for the discussion, I will investigate further, and
report any findings to the group. HiPec looks attractive, and is less
expensive and easier to get for us Canadians, but we know for a fact
that rib-stitching in the tried and true method works. Hopefully I will
be able to find out more soon. Hey someone should make a test wing
section, and bolt it to the top of their car for a few years, and let us
know how it goes. I would like to volunteer, but the neighbors are
getting worried about me as it is . . . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage |
----- Original Message -----
From: <at7000ft(at)speedtrail.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
================================
Rick,
My struts are vertical with the long fuselage. I simply substituted a
heavier engine/pru unit to move the cg foward without moving the struts.
The extra hp from the engine has proved to be beneficial to the performance
of the Piet. The wing loading increased slightly, but was more than offset
by the decrease in the power loading. About the only negative to this
change is a higher stall speed.
John
================================
>
>
> > Slanting the cabanes is viewed by some (certainlly not me) as an
> > admission that proper homework was not done before assembly. Yes, I
> > know that this ignites a whole firestorm that "Bernie did it."
> >
> .....
> >
> > I have always wondered about the logic behind the move to lengthen the
> > fuselage rearward when the heavier Ford engine was replaced with the
> > lighter Corvair engine. The lengthening takes place in the cockpit
> > area, when the lengthening should have taken place ahead of the wing.
>
> I have not heard of anyone on this newsgroup yet who has completed a long
> fuselage Piet who has not had to move his wing back to make CG (correct me
> if I am wrong), this is probably why in later years Bernie recommended
> extending the front of the long fuselage six inches. Although I have not
> talked to anyone yet who has extended their fuselage six inches and not
had
> to move their wing back either (again please correct me if I am off base
on
> this).
>
> Rick H
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Live List Chat: http://www.matronics.com/chat
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage |
John,
I was looking at your airplane pictures on Oscar's site. I like your nose fuel
tank. How much does it hold?
Terry B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage |
----- Original Message -----
From: <BARNSTMR(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CG limits on the 'long' fuselage
=====================================
Terry,
Cowl tank has 10 gallons usable and the wing tank has 12 gallons usable.
Both made of .040 aluminum.
John
=====================================
>
>
> John,
> I was looking at your airplane pictures on Oscar's site. I like your nose
fuel tank. How much does it hold?
> Terry B
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
<013d01c3f017$9b95b6a0$f004fea9@new>
Just a general follow up to a couple of discussions, the first being the
use of HiPec, and rib stitching or not. I received their product use
book, and I mean book! It is very detailed and informative. If anyone
has specific questions, feel free and I'll look them up and fire them
off. Their take on stitching is as fols, for aircraft with under 10
lbs/sq/ft wing loading, and under 130 mph, the strength of the adhesive
alone give a safety factor of over 9 Gs. The product has been in use
since 1964, with no reported failures. They have test pieces from the
60s, that still pass the required tests. Several test pieces were
submerged in water for many months, still passed. All attempts at
separating the fabric from 1/4 to 3/4 inch ribs resulted in tearing of
the wood fibre, the glue joint remained intact. The product is
certified for use with several certified airframes. If the aircraft is
of heavy wing loading, or fully aerobatic, then data is provided on the
recommended spacing, and placement of stitching. I have to conclude
after reading this, and getting very positive feedback from many
builders who have used the system that it is one of the easiest to use,
strongest, and most long lasting. They do understand that
traditionalists may be reticent in accepting their product, but they
have very compelling data that it is equal to or better than any other
covering system. Food for thought.
There has been some discussion of the use of aluminum vice steel for
fittings. I'm a bit of an aluminum proponent, I enjoy working with it,
and prefer it's corrosion resistance. I also fly in a 40yr old aluminum
helicopter, so I have to have faith!! I did some research on MatWeb,
really good data there. 6061T6 is the preferred aluminum for aircraft
fittings, due to its " high strength, good workability, and high
resistance to corrosion". Also made mention is it's "excellent joining
characteristics." Applications: Aircraft fittings, marine fittings and
hardware, hydraulic pistons, brake pistons, magneto parts, etc. etc. I
was able to get comparative data for this metal vice 4130 steel, which
allows one to determine thickness required to meet or exceed the steel
equivalent. Also convenient to use is a gauge to in to mm chart, which
I found at www.slotcar.com/drs/gachart.htm, very handy for those of us
who are gauge impaired, and had the metric system shoved down our
throats! Hope some of this rambling is of use, should fuel the fires of
debate for a bit. I must add that I very much appreciate all who have
commented, positive or negative, I refuse to make decisions on what
method or material without soliciting input from others. I value ALL
opinions, and use them to help in the process. Thanks, Dave Rowe
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/11/04 1:43:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, rowed044(at)shaw.ca
writes:
> www.slotcar.com/drs/gachart.htm
Dave
Thanks for the conversion chart. Where did you go to find the comparative
data to swap out the steel for al.
I have some fittings that I purchased already laser precut (28) of them. But
for most of the others if they work, the al. in its stead would add some
additional qualities that the steel doesn't offer.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
There was an earlier post about the suitability of gluing fabric to
undercamber wings. When I posted my info about Avids and Kitfox, I guess I didn't
make
it clear that both styles of wings (undercamber as on the STOL and Heavy
Hauler wings and the traditional rib on the Speedwing) never had fabric separation
when using the glue-only process.
A friend stalled my Avid out on takeoff and the plane was totaled. Not a
single fabric glue joint (at the juncture where fabric was glued directly to the
capstrip on the spar) failed in the crash. I've done a lot of checking with
friends in the last few days, and no one is aware of fabric pulling off of
capstrips on any Kitfox or Avid, aerobatic ... heavy hauler or speedwing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
Man. you really don't want to ribstitch do you?
Carl
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
>
> I've just talked to the manager at Falconar Avia Inc, the Cdn dealer for
> HiPec, they also have a spuer line of wood/fabric bush planes, Chris the
> developer of HiPec is on vacation til the 25th, but their manual should
> be at my doorstep any day. They emphatically state that they have had
> NO failures of any sort with this covering process, and that includes
> undercambered wings. I will have to wait until the book arrives to get
> more info, but if you wish to inquire directly to them, the can be
> reached at telephone, 1-780-465-2024, or e-mail falconar(at)tic.ab.ca.
> Note they won't be able to answer specifics on Hipec til after the
> 25th. Hope this helps, anyone wishing data from the book, e-mail me
> direct with your questions, and I'll fire off answers once the book is
> in my hands!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
In a message dated 2/11/2004 12:43:21 AM Central Standard Time,
rowed044(at)shaw.ca writes:
All attempts at
separating the fabric from 1/4 to 3/4 inch ribs resulted in tearing of
the wood fibre, the glue joint remained intact.
How comforting would it be to see wood fibres on the fabric as you examine
the wreckage? Sorry, I'll stick with the old tried and true on this one Don
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
Dave,
I have a question for the HiPec book.
Do they specifically recommend it without rib stitching for built-up, truss
type ribs?
I will give you that if the fabric/wood joint is strong enough to tear wood
fibers when separated, than the joint itself should not be a problem. I can
also see the under camber should not be a problem.
My concern is the strength of the rib itself in tension.
I guess I am just traditionalist enough that I will rib stitch anyway, but I
am interested in there take on truss ribs.
Thanks, Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
Corky,
It is on the front burner and we should be hearing something some time this spring
or summer.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2004 8:15 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
Pieters,
Anyone have any idea where they, those exalted beauros, have the sport pilot
bundle stashed away??????????? Haven't seen or heard anything for awhile. Is it
still breathing?
Corky still waiting in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
This morning, I dropped by my alma mater, Southern Illinois University, to
track down the wind tunnel that was in the Fluid Dynamics Lab. It has been
over a decade since I took the class and the university has since renovated
the School of Engineering so I would have been lucky to find it in the same
place. I had the assistant dean calling several departments to track it
down and it was evidently horse traded to the School of Aviation (where it
should have been in the first place). So I drove out to the airport. I met
the department head and he gave me the grand tour and there it was, right
next to the supersonic wind tunnel, between several cut-away jet engines,
and next to enough airplane stuff to make me want to quit my job and just
hang out there every day. He said that they don't use it much, but
considering that it had the same sample wing section in it as it did 14
years ago, I would say they haven't used it at all. He said that if I
wanted to make some wing sections, I could have full access to it. He also
said that if I needed some help, they have these things called undergraduate
students.
The only problem is that it only has the instrumentation to do lift and
drag. It would need an additional equipment, such as a third load cell, to
determine center of pressure, which in a university setting is not hard to
drum up. Since there has been so much debate regarding the moment generated
by the FC-10 and it other characteristics, I thought a full set of charts on
the airfoil might be nice to have.
My questions for the group are: has anyone already produced this
information? Is there a computer software package available that analyzes
wing sections so building models is not necessary? Not that I wouldn't love
to do this, it's just my time is pretty scare already and I'd hate to waste
it.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
What year. Someone told me the same words back in 2000.
Corky waiting in wet La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Racing4funn(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
FUCK YOU!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Racing4funn(at)aol.com |
FUCK YOU!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Racing4funn(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
FUCK YOU!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
What on earth provoked that????
Tom Travis
(At least I'll
sign my name)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
You know guys, I've enjoyed meeting some fine people on this board and have
learned a lot, however, I don't need this sort of thing. I try to make it a
point to only associate with quality people and whoever this person is, he
doesn't qualify.
If this persists you can deal me out.
Tom Travis
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle) |
"Fw: RV-List: Crossflow Engine Proposal" (Feb 11, 4:56pm)
RV8-List(at)matronics.com, Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com,
Kitfox-List(at)matronics.com, Tailwind-List(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Potty-Mouth Squelched... |
Hi Ed and all,
This annoying fellow has been unsubscribed. I was able to kill a whole
bunch of similar posts from him, but unfortunately quite a few got
through before I could stop them. Funny how he could take the time
to send out all those offensive messages, but not the time to unsubscribe
himself.
My appologies.
Matt Dralle
List Admin.
>--------------
>Hi Matt,
>
>I don't know where the below email came from other than its the Racing4Funn
>address, but the message it conveys clearly falls below the standards we set
>for ourselves on the lists - even when parties get emotional. So I (and I'm
>sure most others agree) this is no place for folks like this on the list. I
>presume that he is a subscriber, so unsubscribing him would be the
>appropriate action. If it was an unauthorized use of some legitimate
>subscribers e mail, then he should at least be make aware of it.
>
>Sincerely
>
>Ed
>Ed Anderson
>RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
>Matthews, NC
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <Racing4funn(at)aol.com>
>To: ;
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:33 PM
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Crossflow Engine Proposal
>
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: Racing4funn(at)aol.com
>>
>> F*CK Y*U!!!
>--------------
--
Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
Tom and all:
I have reported all three e-mail's to the powers that be at AOL. I suspect
they will yank his chain, if not cancel his membership to AOL.
Probably just some 16 year old boy, no friends, unpopular and trying to draw
attention to his shortcomings and immaturity.
Sterling Brooks
Runnels County Texas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
I bet you wouldn't drop down to La and tell me that to my face. I'll also bet
you won't ID your self and give me an address.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
I'm getting in line with you.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
MatWeb is the site, you do have to do some careful comparisons, I'm
lucky in that I have two aeronautical engineers at work, and my father
was astructural engineer, and left me a lot of books and data. You can
e-mail me at rowed044(at)shaw.ca with specifics, and I can get the answers.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
Agree, the HiPec book deals specifically with undercambered wings, and
details the making of a test piece, when complete strips are cut and
then pulled of using a fish scale to confirm strength. Good way to
check any system for a first-time user.
KRSBtv(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> There was an earlier post about the suitability of gluing fabric to
> undercamber wings. When I posted my info about Avids and Kitfox, I
> guess I didn't make it clear that both styles of wings (undercamber as
> on the STOL and Heavy Hauler wings and the traditional rib on the
> Speedwing) never had fabric separation when using the glue-only
> process.
>
> A friend stalled my Avid out on takeoff and the plane was totaled. Not
> a single fabric glue joint (at the juncture where fabric was glued
> directly to the capstrip on the spar) failed in the crash. I've done a
> lot of checking with friends in the last few days, and no one is aware
> of fabric pulling off of capstrips on any Kitfox or Avid, aerobatic
> ... heavy hauler or speedwing.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: RE: Another change of subject. . . |
<4029326D.6B2F9AA9(at)shaw.ca> <001301c3f0c5$3e5d47b0$6401a8c0@carl>
Actually my wife was designated head ribstitcher! She's trying to
weasel out of it! I won't make my final decision until I read the other
manufacturer's books, and build a test piece and abuse it horribly.
Will send photos to the group when I'm done.
Carl Loar wrote:
>
>
> Man. you really don't want to ribstitch do you?
> Carl
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 2:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: RE: Another change of subject. . .
>
> >
> > I've just talked to the manager at Falconar Avia Inc, the Cdn dealer for
> > HiPec, they also have a spuer line of wood/fabric bush planes, Chris the
> > developer of HiPec is on vacation til the 25th, but their manual should
> > be at my doorstep any day. They emphatically state that they have had
> > NO failures of any sort with this covering process, and that includes
> > undercambered wings. I will have to wait until the book arrives to get
> > more info, but if you wish to inquire directly to them, the can be
> > reached at telephone, 1-780-465-2024, or e-mail falconar(at)tic.ab.ca.
> > Note they won't be able to answer specifics on Hipec til after the
> > 25th. Hope this helps, anyone wishing data from the book, e-mail me
> > direct with your questions, and I'll fire off answers once the book is
> > in my hands!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
The forces required to do so were 9G. I don't plan on being conscious
following any manouever resulting in that amount of force on a Piet!! I
wouldn't consider not stitching on anything fast, highly loaded, or
aerobatic, but I can say I flew a German Berg Falcon glider in europe
for 4 yrs with a similar system to hipec, I routinely pulled 3-4Gs, as
did everyone else, no problems. It's definately a matter of choice, I'm
still investigating before I chose.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
What they are trying to say is, if you are relying on the fabric to act
as a bag for your smashed up ribs, it will. The adhesive is stronger
than the wood, just as epoxy is. If the ribs are properly built and
gusseted, it is not a problem. Glue up a test rib, clamp it to your
vice, via the bottom of the truss, take a fish scale, hook it on the top
and pull. That is the force required to break the wood at a specific
area. Then calculate that over the entire surface area of the rib. .
See my point? What is the breaking point of the stitching? If it isn't
at least 900lbs, or 10X the wing weight, the fabric doesn't need it,
and I have a feeling that if you're separating the truss structure of
the wing, all that stitching will make it easier to wrap up the broken
pieces after the crash.
This system is not new. 40 yrs, not one failure, and an approved STC by
Transport Canada. I've used the stuff in high-performance models, with
very high weights, speeds, and Gs. It works. Problem is we have been
told for many years that there is only one way. Similar to steel being
the only metal to use. The reasoning in the thirties was this:
Steel=cheap, readily aval. Structural 6061T6 Aluminum, not yet
invented. Doesn't mean it doesn't work just cause it's not original.
Ribstitching came about as a result of the fabrics and adhesives then
aval. We have better, cheaper, eaiser to use products now. It's not a
matter of safety, but a matter of preference. Were I to do a 1:1 scale
Sopwith Camel, I would go as original as possible, especially the
stitching. It would look funny without it. I think the goal of the
Pietenpol was an easy to build affordable aircraft for the masses. I
don't think he would get hung up on copying his design to the letter.
Good god I talk to much, must go make sawdust!!!! Cheers, Dave
"Gadd, Skip" wrote:
>
>
> Dave,
> I have a question for the HiPec book.
> Do they specifically recommend it without rib stitching for built-up, truss
> type ribs?
> I will give you that if the fabric/wood joint is strong enough to tear wood
> fibers when separated, than the joint itself should not be a problem. I can
> also see the under camber should not be a problem.
> My concern is the strength of the rib itself in tension.
> I guess I am just traditionalist enough that I will rib stitch anyway, but I
> am interested in there take on truss ribs.
> Thanks, Skip
>
> -
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
If you find him, I can crash a ten ton helicopter on him. They're old,
paid for, and don't work too good anyway !!!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
, ,
, ,
| Subject: | Re: RV-List: Potty-Mouth Squelched... |
I just forwarded the messages to abuse(at)aol.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matt Dralle" <dralle(at)matronics.com>
; ;
;
Subject: RV-List: Potty-Mouth Squelched...
> --> RV-List message posted by: dralle(at)matronics.com (Matt Dralle)
>
>
> Hi Ed and all,
>
> This annoying fellow has been unsubscribed. I was able to kill a whole
> bunch of similar posts from him, but unfortunately quite a few got
> through before I could stop them. Funny how he could take the time
> to send out all those offensive messages, but not the time to unsubscribe
> himself.
>
> My appologies.
>
> Matt Dralle
> List Admin.
>
>
> >--------------
> >Hi Matt,
> >
> >I don't know where the below email came from other than its the
Racing4Funn
> >address, but the message it conveys clearly falls below the standards we
set
> >for ourselves on the lists - even when parties get emotional. So I (and
I'm
> >sure most others agree) this is no place for folks like this on the list.
I
> >presume that he is a subscriber, so unsubscribing him would be the
> >appropriate action. If it was an unauthorized use of some legitimate
> >subscribers e mail, then he should at least be make aware of it.
> >
> >Sincerely
> >
> >Ed
> >Ed Anderson
> >RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
> >Matthews, NC
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <Racing4funn(at)aol.com>
> >To: ;
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 7:33 PM
> >Subject: Re: RV-List: Crossflow Engine Proposal
> >
> >
> >> --> RV-List message posted by: Racing4funn(at)aol.com
> >>
> >> F*CK Y*U!!!
> >--------------
>
>
> --
>
>
> Matt G. Dralle | Matronics | P.O. Box 347 | Livermore | CA | 94551
> 925-606-1001 Voice | 925-606-6281 FAX | dralle(at)matronics.com Email
> http://www.matronics.com/ W.W.W. | Featuring Products For Aircraft
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/11/04 9:04:39 PM Central Standard Time, rowed044(at)shaw.ca
writes:
<< This system is not new. 40 yrs, not one failure, and an approved STC by
Transport Canada. >>
I still prefer rib stitching, no matter what type of adhesive is used.
Stitching sandwiches the assembly together from the outer surface, instead of
depending on adhesives that attach the faying surfaces.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert,
I commend your efforts already! I as a new builder would think that this
would be a great asset to all Piet'ers. This would put alot of questions to
rest.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Yikes, I hate to think that that's the only response I get from my post!
Anyway, last night after sending the following email, I downloaded a full
featured demo version of DesignFOIL. The demo only lasts five days, but
that's all I need to get some data on the FC-10. It looks to be an easier
and equally valid solution to models in a wind tunnel.
Again, if anyone else has generated wing section data for the FC-10, please
share.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
>
> This morning, I dropped by my alma mater, Southern Illinois University, to
> track down the wind tunnel that was in the Fluid Dynamics Lab. It has
been
> over a decade since I took the class and the university has since
renovated
> the School of Engineering so I would have been lucky to find it in the
same
> place. I had the assistant dean calling several departments to track it
> down and it was evidently horse traded to the School of Aviation (where it
> should have been in the first place). So I drove out to the airport. I
met
> the department head and he gave me the grand tour and there it was, right
> next to the supersonic wind tunnel, between several cut-away jet engines,
> and next to enough airplane stuff to make me want to quit my job and just
> hang out there every day. He said that they don't use it much, but
> considering that it had the same sample wing section in it as it did 14
> years ago, I would say they haven't used it at all. He said that if I
> wanted to make some wing sections, I could have full access to it. He
also
> said that if I needed some help, they have these things called
undergraduate
> students.
>
> The only problem is that it only has the instrumentation to do lift and
> drag. It would need an additional equipment, such as a third load cell,
to
> determine center of pressure, which in a university setting is not hard to
> drum up. Since there has been so much debate regarding the moment
generated
> by the FC-10 and it other characteristics, I thought a full set of charts
on
> the airfoil might be nice to have.
>
> My questions for the group are: has anyone already produced this
> information? Is there a computer software package available that analyzes
> wing sections so building models is not necessary? Not that I wouldn't
love
> to do this, it's just my time is pretty scare already and I'd hate to
waste
> it.
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
I saw this ad on Barnstormers
I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE PARTS, NEVER MET THE OWNER, NOT TIED TO THIS IN ANY WAY,
OTHER THAN TO PASS ON PIETENPOL INFO.
Terry B
PIETENPOL PARTS FOR SALE FOR SALE For Sale / Pietenpol tail feathers. Built
from aircraft grade Sitka Spruce from Aircraft Spruce Co. Tail Feathers are
amost complete. Over $400.00 invested not counting time. Will sell for $250.00
Included are fin and rudder, elevators and stabilizer. Have photos if you
need them. Contact Jim Farmer - located Maryville, MO USA Telephone: 660582-4189
Posted February 9, 2004
I HAVE NOT SEEN THESE PARTS, NEVER MET THE OWNER, NOT TIED TO THIS IN ANY WAY,
OTHER THAN TO PASS ON PIETENPOL INFO.
Terry B
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s |
I managed to lose my list of fellow Texans who are building or have built and
are flying Pietenpols and GN-1s. If y'all (Texan for you guys or you all)
could resend me your details, I'd be much obliged. I'll not trust the data to a
hard drive again but will print out addresses, phone numbers and other
contact details to leave in my Rolodex this time. I guess it might be nice to
have
a list of folks in adjoining states of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana.
Texans and Southerners can resend me the info at KRSBTV(at)AOL.com (I'd also like
to meet owners in Tucson and Phoenix areas since I occasionally make trips
there.)
I'm hoping to make the rounds across Texas when the weather is a little more
favorable, to take some pictures and video. In return, I'll send everybody I
visit a CD or DVD of what I compile. It might be handy to compare notes and
builder tips and tricks.
I'm still in a quandary what to do with my airplane (now named Frankenstein)
and I suppose I might get it flying someday (to be flown by the Village Idiot)
or I might part it out and sell off components. I might end up with another
Piet and "Frankenstein," if I simply go out and buy a flying specimen in the
coming weeks... Time will tell.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
Knot-2-Shabby Airport & Texas Longhorn Cattle Ranch
(5TA6) San Antonio Sectional
NOTAMS... Fresh cow chips on runway. Land at your own risk. Pilots flying
open cockpit airplane are encouraged to wear goggles upon touchdown... Cow chips
tend to splatter everywhere and I have 5 dogs on patrol. Shultzie, the German
Shepherd bites!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
I suppose if we do not put a number on the year then when it comes out, it will
be correct.
Alex S.
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
What year. Someone told me the same words back in 2000.
Corky waiting in wet La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
Alex,
It looks like this waiting on this issue is going to outlast me. When it
began I was troting, then I slowed to a walk. Now I'm on a cane but still
optimist. I honestly think that it's all politics so certain people can gather
the
credit.
Corky in La and will keep waiting
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
Hi Corky,
You know its all politics. They all want the credit but they are also afraid
to be the one giving their support in case there might be a problem somewhere
they haven't thought of.
Hang it there, eventually it will get signed off in spite of the political hacks.
Cheers, Jim
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2004 8:44 pm
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
> Alex,
>
> It looks like this waiting on this issue is going to outlast me.
> When it
> began I was troting, then I slowed to a walk. Now I'm on a cane
> but still
> optimist. I honestly think that it's all politics so certain
> people can gather the
> credit.
>
> Corky in La and will keep waiting
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s |
Doyle Combs
P. O. Box 421
Lometa, Texas 76853
512/752-9202
Rebuilding a GN1/Piet
----- Original Message -----
From: KRSBtv(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s
I managed to lose my list of fellow Texans who are building or have built and
are flying Pietenpols and GN-1s. If y'all (Texan for you guys or you all) could
resend me your details, I'd be much obliged. I'll not trust the data to a
hard drive again but will print out addresses, phone numbers and other contact
details to leave in my Rolodex this time. I guess it might be nice to have a
list of folks in adjoining states of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana. Texans
and Southerners can resend me the info at KRSBTV(at)AOL.com (I'd also like to
meet owners in Tucson and Phoenix areas since I occasionally make trips there.)
I'm hoping to make the rounds across Texas when the weather is a little more
favorable, to take some pictures and video. In return, I'll send everybody I visit
a CD or DVD of what I compile. It might be handy to compare notes and builder
tips and tricks.
I'm still in a quandary what to do with my airplane (now named Frankenstein)
and I suppose I might get it flying someday (to be flown by the Village Idiot)
or I might part it out and sell off components. I might end up with another Piet
and "Frankenstein," if I simply go out and buy a flying specimen in the coming
weeks... Time will tell.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
Knot-2-Shabby Airport & Texas Longhorn Cattle Ranch
(5TA6) San Antonio Sectional
NOTAMS... Fresh cow chips on runway. Land at your own risk. Pilots flying open
cockpit airplane are encouraged to wear goggles upon touchdown... Cow chips
tend to splatter everywhere and I have 5 dogs on patrol. Shultzie, the German
Shepherd bites!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s |
Mike King has a completed Air Camper hangered just south of Dallas somewhere around
DeSoto
Jeff Hill is working on a one piece wing Air Camper up just north of DFW
Tom Travis is working on a 3 pce wing Air Camper in Dallas
DL Grammont has a completed Corvair powered Air Camper he keeps at the Lancaster
Airport (just South of Dallas)
Hank Stein has a completed A65 powered Air Camper he keeps in a hanger at his grass
strip SW of Ft Worth near Grandview
Monte Miller in the Denton EAA club has an ultralight Air Camper
Ronnie Wagner's working on an Air Camper in Mena, AR
There are several Air Campers at a little field just northeast of Tulsa (I hope
to retire some day and add MINE to that gaggle....)
John Greenlee in Bowie has a real beauty that WILL fly again some day
Larry Neal is working on an Air Camper down SW of Waxahachie
Max Davis in Arlington (and his dad) are working on an Air Camper
Jim Markle in Plano walked through his garage recently and might have seen something
resembling an Air Camper project that hasn't gotten much attention lately
There's a steel tube Air Camper fuse in a hanger at Aero Country Airport a bit
north of Dallas.....just sitting there collecting dust and the owner won't sell
it....what a shame.
By the way, several of the above might just show up at Brodhead in 2005......
Jim in Plano
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 7:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s
I managed to lose my list of fellow Texans who are building or have built and
are flying Pietenpols and GN-1s. If y'all (Texan for you guys or you all) could
resend me your details, I'd be much obliged. I'll not trust the data to a
hard drive again but will print out addresses, phone numbers and other contact
details to leave in my Rolodex this time. I guess it might be nice to have a
list of folks in adjoining states of Oklahoma, New Mexico and Louisiana. Texans
and Southerners can resend me the info at KRSBTV(at)AOL.com (I'd also like to
meet owners in Tucson and Phoenix areas since I occasionally make trips there.)
I'm hoping to make the rounds across Texas when the weather is a little more
favorable, to take some pictures and video. In return, I'll send everybody I visit
a CD or DVD of what I compile. It might be handy to compare notes and builder
tips and tricks.
I'm still in a quandary what to do with my airplane (now named Frankenstein)
and I suppose I might get it flying someday (to be flown by the Village Idiot)
or I might part it out and sell off components. I might end up with another Piet
and "Frankenstein," if I simply go out and buy a flying specimen in the coming
weeks... Time will tell.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
Knot-2-Shabby Airport & Texas Longhorn Cattle Ranch
(5TA6) San Antonio Sectional
NOTAMS... Fresh cow chips on runway. Land at your own risk. Pilots flying open
cockpit airplane are encouraged to wear goggles upon touchdown... Cow chips
tend to splatter everywhere and I have 5 dogs on patrol. Shultzie, the German
Shepherd bites!!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Texas Pietenpols & GN-1s |
In a message dated 2/13/2004 7:47:14 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
> There's a steel tube Air Camper fuse in a hanger at Aero Country Airport a
> bit north of Dallas.....just sitting there collecting dust and the owner
> won't sell it....what a shame.
>
What a Bozo! Has anyone talked to him lately? I'd like to look at this and
see if he is willing to part company with it, but if it has been sitting around
for sometime, the problem with steel is interior corrosion. That's one of
several advantages of wood.
Thanks for the info on the builders/owners.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Aircamper for Realflight G2 program |
not completely related to the building of Piet's but it does have to do with our
wonderful airplane.
I'm contracted with the makers of RealFlight, the RC model simulator program, to
make 3D models for their "add-on" packs. The "add-on" packs are released every
6 months or so and contain new planes, flying fields, etc.
Last week, I asked if they would let me create a 3D model of the Piet. I just
recieved approval yesterday.
I know a few of you folks on the list have Real Flight G2. If you do (or even
if you don't) I have a couple questions.
1. would you like to see it with the Model A engine/radiator
2. solid axle landing gear or split?
3. motorcycle wheels or standard aircraft wheels?
4. tail skid or tail wheel?
I have full range of creativity on these... just would like a little input.
Be looking for a Piet in an upcoming Real Flight Add-on. :-)
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: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aircamper for Realflight G2 program |
DJ,
Although I am not a purest when it comes to my own airplane, I would think that
the best tribute to the legacy of Mr. Pietenpol would be to simulate the purest
most basic design he started with. Tailskid, model A, short fuselage, single
piece wing, etc... The simulator can fly another day without some of the alterations
we make to our airplanes in the interest of safety.
Terry L. Bowden
ph 254-715-4773
fax 254-853-3805
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
"Serge F. Vidal" <serge.vidal@ate-international.com>
| Subject: | My first flight in a Piet |
Hi All
I had my first flight in my Piet this afternoon, I had some teething
problems but everything seems to be going right, I changed the prop and
put on a GSC 72"dia ground adjustable, getting 2300Rpm static in flight
we get 60mph @2300Rpm and 100mph @2500Rpm, solo rate of climb is 500Fpm
and dual is not all that bad either. Got some small changes to do but if
all goes well will have my first official lesson on Thursday.
Here is a snap shot of the solo take off by my instructor and the second
of the take off dual
Regards
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (116Hrs)
South Africa
FASI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: My first flight in a Piet |
WAY TO GO NORMAN!!!
Terry B
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net> |
| Subject: | Modern Ford -Scout Engine Development |
Fred,
Thank you for staying in touch. I'd like to attend Sun and Fun at Lakeland in
mid-April. Progress on my 116 Cu. inch Ford Escort engine would be faster if
I wasn't trying to invert it. This engne, running on a test stand with a Pietenpol
mount, should generate some interest. One possibility would be to rent
a car and spend some time looking at aircraft. Another possible test bed for
the small, direct drive Ford would be a Jodel D-9, but most of the good airframes
are in Europe. The only information I have on Scout N701F is the empty weight,
indicating that it is probably plans-built. Do you have any other history
or Specs. avaiable?
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: My first flight in a Piet |
This is just TOO COOL!!!!
Congratulations!
Hey, looks like these pics were taken in the summer!!!! (hehehe, yes, I
know, and I would LOVE to be on that side of the equator RIGHT NOW!!!)
Fantastic Norman!
Jim in Plano
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
<serge.vidal@ate-international.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: My first flight in a Piet
> Hi All
>
> I had my first flight in my Piet this afternoon, I had some teething
> problems but everything seems to be going right, I changed the prop and
> put on a GSC 72"dia ground adjustable, getting 2300Rpm static in flight
> we get 60mph @2300Rpm and 100mph @2500Rpm, solo rate of climb is 500Fpm
> and dual is not all that bad either. Got some small changes to do but if
> all goes well will have my first official lesson on Thursday.
>
>
> Here is a snap shot of the solo take off by my instructor and the second
> of the take off dual
>
>
> Regards
> Norman Stapelberg
> ZS-VJA (116Hrs)
> South Africa
> FASI
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Aircamper for Realflight G2 program |
<000001c3eb3a$a3601740$631b9341@Spot>
<001f01c3f262$41e131a0$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com>
Here's my votes:
>
> 1. would you like to see it with the Model A engine/radiator: YES
>
> 2. solid axle landing gear or split?: SOLID
>
> 3. motorcycle wheels or standard aircraft wheels?: Motorcycle
>
> 4. tail skid or tail wheel? EITHER
Something for MS Flightsim would be cool, I could dogfight an Me-262 . .
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | dave rowe <rowed044(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: My first flight in a Piet |
Congrats, hope to follow this summer!! Keep us posted.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net> |
<001f01c3f262$41e131a0$0564a8c0@rdci.az.home.com> <402D4614.F6B31A3C(at)shaw.ca>
| Subject: | Re: Aircamper for FS2004 |
Hey Dave,
We found a Piet for FS2004 to put in one of our museum exhibits (my day job
is as an exhibit tech for a children's science museum in Wichita, KS) from
the folks at "Golden Eagle Squadron"
ttp://windrfters.com/Stinpage.htm -- we wanted to show flying in the 30's
vs. present day for the 100 years of powered flight!! ;-)
It has all the right stuff -- spoke wheels, radiator, tail skid, & etc.--
even a pretty respectable Model "A" sound track. In FS2004, you can put
your own N-number on the wings & tail. For $12.50 , you also get the 1934
Ford Roadster & a Primary glider to play with.
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
----- Original Message -----
From: "dave rowe" <rowed044(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aircamper for Realflight G2 program
>
> Here's my votes:
>
> >
> > 1. would you like to see it with the Model A engine/radiator: YES
> >
> > 2. solid axle landing gear or split?: SOLID
> >
> > 3. motorcycle wheels or standard aircraft wheels?: Motorcycle
> >
> > 4. tail skid or tail wheel? EITHER
>
> Something for MS Flightsim would be cool, I could dogfight an Me-262 . .
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: My first flight in a Piet |
Norman,
Congratulations !!
I think we are going to see quite a few First Flights this year !!
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | e-mail test only, please ignore. |
I'm having some problems receiving e-mail from this list and I am testing
this. Sorry for the inconvenience.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | E.W.C.G. aft of L. E. |
I thought it would be informative to compare where the Empty Weight Center of
Gravity lies in the various aircraft in our Pietenpol Fleet, - an important
safety item. Normally, E.W.C.G. is a distance from the Datam. This has proven
to be quite a challenge, for the following reasons:
1) The plans call out the Datam for the Pietenpol - is the Firewall,
however, the Firewall is not always used as the Datam - although it should be.
2) Wings are placed at various distances from the firewall, therefore to
determine the E.W.C.G. behind the L.E., (with the firewall as the datam) this
distance must be subtracted.
3) Forward fuselages are not all the same.
4) Empty Weight Center of Gravity is the base line for the various loading
conditions.
Conclusion: The easiest way to compare E.W.C.G. is to list it as a distance
behind the leading edge, therefore in the 'Infomation Sheet' I've listed it
as - 'Empty C. G. aft of Leading Edge'.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Robert,
Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on this
venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
others.
What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the airfoil
just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the surface
as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome website
has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does the
wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
Chris Bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Aircamper for Realflight G2 program |
DJ,
A Piet on G2 would be the greatest!!! I'll take mine with the -A, straight
gear, M/C wheels, and a tailskid.
Yeah!!! ;-)
-Wayne
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "dpaul" <dpaul(at)fidnet.com> |
Dear List,
Is anyone flying a Piet with the long fuselage, who extended the front a few
inches, and is using a Continental 65hp for power? After looking at a lot of
Piets and reading list opinions, I added 6 inches to the front of my fuse.
(Which I can cut off later if it turns out to be a mistake). Anyway, before I
permanently attach my wood landing gear w/motorcycle wheels, I would like to
know for sure where the center of the axle should be in relation to the firewall.
One of the list members, a few weeks ago, said that the center of the wheel
should be back 21" from the firewall on the long fuse. The note said something
about a PhD, so with respect, I've got mine ready to go - 21" back from
where the ORIGINAL firewall would have been. Opinions would be very welcome.
Thanks.
Dave Paulsen - Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Tuckerman" <ws133b341(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Center of Gravity Computations |
This is in response to Chuck Gantzer's post of yesterday, suggesting the best way
to compare Pietenpols with regard to empty weight center of gravity (EWCG)
is to express EWCG in inches aft of the wing leading edge. I'd like to offer
the opinion that a better way is to express EWCG is as a percentage of mean aerodynamic
chord (MAC), particularly when discussing homebuilts that typically
have dimensional variances among individual aircraft.
The datum is an imaginary vertical plane from which all fore and aft measurements
are taken, to determine the arm of a particular item of weight. On a factory-built
aircraft, the datum is specified in the type certificate data sheet.
In a homebuilt (i.e., non-type certificated) it is wherever the builder wants
it to be. The important thing is that it be a location easy to measure from,
preferably one from which you can drop a plumb bob straight to the floor, allowing
you to mark the datum on the floor, again for ease of measurement. You
don't want to select as a datum a point whose location is changeable, like (on
a Pietenpol) the wing leading edge, or the front face of the propeller. On a
Piet, the firewall is probably as good a location as any.
If you assume the firewall face as your datum, your EWCG will be some number of
inches aft of the datum. Your wing leading edge (LE MAC) will also be some number
of inches aft of the datum. Take the EWCG location in inches, and subtract
the LE MAC location in inches. Divide the result by the MAC length in inches.
The result is your EWCG expressed as a percentage of MAC. For example,
if an aircraft has an EWCG 120 inches aft of the datum, and a wing leading edge
100 inches aft of the datum, and a MAC of 60 inches, your EWCG is at 33 1/3%
MAC. ((120 - 100)/60)
Ted Tuckerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
Ted,
The final "go/no go" for CG is if the balance fits into the "window" on the wing,
no matter where it is. You can go through all the loop de loops and stretch
this and that, but the final numbers are on the wing from the leading edge.
Think this is the common denominator that Chuck was needing. :
)
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Tuckerman
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2004 6:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Center of Gravity Computations
This is in response to Chuck Gantzer's post of yesterday, suggesting the best
way to compare Pietenpols with regard to empty weight center of gravity (EWCG)
is to express EWCG in inches aft of the wing leading edge. I'd like to offer
the opinion that a better way is to express EWCG is as a percentage of mean
aerodynamic chord (MAC), particularly when discussing homebuilts that typically
have dimensional variances among individual aircraft.
The datum is an imaginary vertical plane from which all fore and aft measurements
are taken, to determine the arm of a particular item of weight. On a factory-built
aircraft, the datum is specified in the type certificate data sheet.
In a homebuilt (i.e., non-type certificated) it is wherever the builder wants
it to be. The important thing is that it be a location easy to measure from,
preferably one from which you can drop a plumb bob straight to the floor, allowing
you to mark the datum on the floor, again for ease of measurement. You
don't want to select as a datum a point whose location is changeable, like (on
a Pietenpol) the wing leading edge, or the front face of the propeller. On
a Piet, the firewall is probably as good a location as any.
If you assume the firewall face as your datum, your EWCG will be some number
of inches aft of the datum. Your wing leading edge (LE MAC) will also be some
number of inches aft of the datum. Take the EWCG location in inches, and subtract
the LE MAC location in inches. Divide the result by the MAC length in inches.
The result is your EWCG expressed as a percentage of MAC. For example,
if an aircraft has an EWCG 120 inches aft of the datum, and a wing leading edge
100 inches aft of the datum, and a MAC of 60 inches, your EWCG is at 33 1/3%
MAC. ((120 - 100)/60)
Ted Tuckerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn & Doris Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
What type/brand do you fellow Pieters recommend?
Lynn Knoll
Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
I've had very good luck with PolyFiber's Epoxy primer. I started using
Randolph's Epoxy primer but found that it just doesn't hold up. Once the
PolyFiber primer is cured (it's a 2-part system) the only way to remove it
is with a sandblaster. Very tough. They make two colors - white and green.
I find the green to be easier to apply, and it seems to be tougher than the
white.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC, where we are getting another 4" of snow tonight. Sure wish it
would warm up soon so I can start spray painting.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Lynn & Doris
Knoll
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Metal Primer
What type/brand do you fellow Pieters recommend?
Lynn Knoll
Wichita
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
In a message dated 2/15/04 5:01:41 PM Central Standard Time,
ws133b341(at)cox.net writes:
<< I'd like to offer the opinion that a better way is to express EWCG is as a
percentage of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), particularly when discussing
homebuilts that typically have dimensional variances among individual aircraft.
>>
Ted,
Determining the E.W.C.G. could certainly be done as a percentage of Mean
Aerodynamic Chord, but it would require an additional calculation. Keeping
everything in inches, is just easier and simpler to compare. My intention is to
show a common baseline to compare.
The datum called out in the plans is the Firewall. For comparison,
everyone should keep it there, and deal with the math of negative numbers. The
problem with this, is the negative arm, ahead of the firewall, which makes it
more complicated when doing weight and balance. Positive times Positive equals
Positive. Negative times Negative equals Positive. Negative times Positive
equals Negative. The contemporary location of the datum is ahead of the prop,
that way all numbers are a positive number.
One thing to keep in mind, that I forgot to mention yesterday, is that
B.H.P. called out the LOADED Center of Gravity Range (envelope) is between 1/4
to 1/3 of the chord. This is between 25% and 33 1/3% of the chord, or
between 15" and 20", aft of the Leading Edge. Also keep in mind this is for the
'Pietenpol FC10' airfoil. And remember, this is the LOADED Center of Gravity
range, not an Empty Weight Center of Gravity Range. There is no E.W.C.G range.
Fly safe, and stay in your envelope !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
in serious need of warmer weather
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
Chuck- The interesting thing about using a EWCG is that it's really easy to
use it to determine how far out to extend an engine mount to accomodate a
different engine, prop, cowling, or Heaven Forbid, adding ballast to get the
loaded CG right. As long as you use a CG datum between the aircraft CG and
the engine CG, it's a simple exercise to build up a spreadsheet and play
with engine weights, prop weights, motor mount dimensions etc. I found the
firewall a great datum to use. But you're right that the EWCG has to be
referenced back to the LOADED CG at some point.
I recently went through this exercise in doing the W&B for a Boredome
Fighter. Had to move the engine WAY out front for a VW engine.
It's all about the math.
Bert
----- Original Message -----
From: <Rcaprd(at)aol.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Center of Gravity Computations
>
> In a message dated 2/15/04 5:01:41 PM Central Standard Time,
> ws133b341(at)cox.net writes:
>
> << I'd like to offer the opinion that a better way is to express EWCG is
as a
> percentage of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC), particularly when discussing
> homebuilts that typically have dimensional variances among individual
aircraft.
> >>
>
> Ted,
> Determining the E.W.C.G. could certainly be done as a percentage of
Mean
> Aerodynamic Chord, but it would require an additional calculation.
Keeping
> everything in inches, is just easier and simpler to compare. My intention
is to
> show a common baseline to compare.
> The datum called out in the plans is the Firewall. For comparison,
> everyone should keep it there, and deal with the math of negative numbers.
The
> problem with this, is the negative arm, ahead of the firewall, which makes
it
> more complicated when doing weight and balance. Positive times Positive
equals
> Positive. Negative times Negative equals Positive. Negative times
Positive
> equals Negative. The contemporary location of the datum is ahead of the
prop,
> that way all numbers are a positive number.
> One thing to keep in mind, that I forgot to mention yesterday, is that
> B.H.P. called out the LOADED Center of Gravity Range (envelope) is between
1/4
> to 1/3 of the chord. This is between 25% and 33 1/3% of the chord, or
> between 15" and 20", aft of the Leading Edge. Also keep in mind this is
for the
> 'Pietenpol FC10' airfoil. And remember, this is the LOADED Center of
Gravity
> range, not an Empty Weight Center of Gravity Range. There is no E.W.C.G
range.
> Fly safe, and stay in your envelope !!
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
> in serious need of warmer weather
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 2/15/04 12:20:12 PM Central Standard Time,
dpaul(at)fidnet.com writes:
<< Is anyone flying a Piet with the long fuselage, who extended the front
a few inches, and is using a Continental 65hp for power? After looking at a
lot of Piets and reading list opinions, I added 6 inches to the front of my
fuse. (Which I can cut off later if it turns out to be a mistake). Anyway,
before I permanently attach my wood landing gear w/motorcycle wheels, I would
like to know for sure where the center of the axle should be in relation to the
firewall. One of the list members, a few weeks ago, said that the center of
the wheel should be back 21" from the firewall on the long fuse. The note said
something about a PhD, so with respect, I've got mine ready to go - 21" back
from where the ORIGINAL firewall would have been. Opinions would be very
welcome. Thanks. >>
Dave,
The axle placement is a measurement from the firewall, but it's
relationship is to the wing - on a taildragger, it's usually about 16% or 17% chord,
behind the leading edge.
The front 6" extension you have will greatly reduce the possibility of
needing to move your wing back from vertical, to get the C.G. correct -
especially if you weigh over 200 lbs.
On the 'Improved AirCamper', short fuse, the axle is 17" aft of datum
(firewall), and the wing leading edge is 7 1/2" aft of datum. This puts the axle
16% aft of the leading edge. On my short fuse, I moved the wing back 3 1/2",
which puts the axles at 6" or 10% aft of the leading edge, but I have brakes
and it reduces the possibility of nose over. However, I never use the brakes
to slow down the landing roll...only use them to do a run - up, and for
taxiing in tight quarters.
On the 'Long fuselage', 3" is added to the forward station. Assuming the
wing is in the plans location, 21 inches behind this firewall location puts
the axle at 10 1/2" behind the wing leading edge, which is 1" farther back than
the plans call out, and is close to the aft limit of axle placement...unless
you tilt the cabane struts and move your wing aft, but then you already have
that 6" fuse extension...
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Chris,
The SIU wind tunnel is atmospheric with a test section of 24" in width. A
scale wing I believe would be too small to incorporate detail or an accurate
wing section. My inclination is to make a section 6" in cord and the full
24" in width. This would be focused toward developing wing section
information as opposed to a three dimensional study.
Also, I have been working with DesignFOIL and have been in discussion with
Kevin Holcomb regarding his results with XFoil. Apparently, there is a lot
to be desired with low cost (free) wing section analysis software. I have
results from DesignFOIL, but they are substantially different from the
XFoil. Suffice it to say that there is a difference in location of the
center of pressure of over 10% cord for a given angle of attack between the
two programs (imagine designing and building an aircraft and finding that
you have to move the wing 6", not good).
Although I'm an engineer, I don't have any direct experience in wind tunnel
tests and would appreciate any suggestions to achieve the most accurate
results.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
> From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
>
> Robert,
>
> Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
>
> I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
> analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on this
> venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
>
> I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
> others.
>
> What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the
airfoil
> just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the surface
> as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome website
> has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does the
> wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
>
> Chris Bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the leading
edge.
The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and the
Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall Datum
is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well before
the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the cord
between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location. This
could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also, it
is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating CG
location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from LE,
it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is 60").
Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed into
the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward when
compaired to other aircraft.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
One additional thing about why I suggest listing CG from LE in inches (this
is in response to Ted's email), it's easier for the individuals and
decreases the likelihood of error. It is safer to personally have the raw
data and perform the calculations oneself than to have multiple individuals
all performing a single calculation. The individuals would only then have
to operate a tape measure and a plumb bob. Not trying to say that the group
can't do math, it's simply a scientifically smarter thing to do.
Also, it should be stated at what position the aircraft is in when the
measurement is taken (it is assumed that the top longeron should be level,
but again, this should be stated for record).
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
> Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
> firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the leading
> edge.
>
> The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
> weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and the
> Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall
Datum
> is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well
before
> the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
> spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
>
> Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
> information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the cord
> between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
> most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location.
This
> could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
> problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
>
> Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
> because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also,
it
> is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
> using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating
CG
> location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from LE,
> it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is
60").
> Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed into
> the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
> forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward
when
> compaired to other aircraft.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity Computations |
Coffee just kicked in....
What the heck was I thinking?! You can't measure CG with a tape measure!
Gesh,
Robert
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
> One additional thing about why I suggest listing CG from LE in inches
(this
> is in response to Ted's email), it's easier for the individuals and
> decreases the likelihood of error. It is safer to personally have the raw
> data and perform the calculations oneself than to have multiple
individuals
> all performing a single calculation. The individuals would only then have
> to operate a tape measure and a plumb bob. Not trying to say that the
group
> can't do math, it's simply a scientifically smarter thing to do.
>
> Also, it should be stated at what position the aircraft is in when the
> measurement is taken (it is assumed that the top longeron should be level,
> but again, this should be stated for record).
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 9:39 AM
> Subject: Re: Center of Gravity Computations
>
>
> > Regarding the location of Datum, although I would normally argue for the
> > firewall, this situation would be better suited to a Datum of the
leading
> > edge.
> >
> > The firewall is a great location for an individual aircraft to work out
> > weight and balance. You could change engines or relocate the wing and
the
> > Datum does not change. Also during the building process, the firewall
> Datum
> > is physically available once the fuselage takes shape, which is well
> before
> > the engine or wings get mounted. It's hard to hang a tape measure on a
> > spinner tip when the engine is not mounted.
> >
> > Although, for this database which is being compiled, the most helpful
> > information would be a compairison of the CG and it's location on the
cord
> > between different aircraft. Specifically, a trend could be seen in that
> > most well flying aircraft all have their CG at the same cord location.
> This
> > could be used as a indicator to identify that an new aircraft may have a
> > problem if it's CG with respect to the cord is outside of the norm.
> >
> > Also, I use "cord" here as opposed to mean aerodynamic cord (MAC) simply
> > because there is no taper to this wing and why confuse the issue. Also,
> it
> > is my understanding that no one deviates from a wing with a 60" cord, so
> > using the leading edge as a Datum provides a stable location for stating
> CG
> > location and their relationship (i.e. if I mention that CG is 15" from
LE,
> > it's safe to say that it's at 25% since the assumption is that cord is
> 60").
> > Also, empty weight CG is not desirable since pilot weight is designed
into
> > the aircraft. If a pilot were somewhat heavy and compensated for with a
> > forward relocation of a battery or a weight, the EWCG would be forward
> when
> > compaired to other aircraft.
> >
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
==================================
Robert and Chris,
If I may get in on this discussion, could one of you answer a question that
I have regarding airfoil testing and the real world?
The tested airfoil is a reproduction of the profile at the rib and yet in
the real world the fabric sags somewhat between the ribs therefore changing
the profile somewhat. How is this discrepency accounted for in the final
results? Or must the test section also incorporate these deformities
between the ribs?
Just a dumb mechanical engineer trying to get smarter.
John
==================================
jPietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
>
> Chris,
>
> The SIU wind tunnel is atmospheric with a test section of 24" in width. A
> scale wing I believe would be too small to incorporate detail or an
accurate
> wing section. My inclination is to make a section 6" in cord and the full
> 24" in width. This would be focused toward developing wing section
> information as opposed to a three dimensional study.
>
> Also, I have been working with DesignFOIL and have been in discussion with
> Kevin Holcomb regarding his results with XFoil. Apparently, there is a
lot
> to be desired with low cost (free) wing section analysis software. I have
> results from DesignFOIL, but they are substantially different from the
> XFoil. Suffice it to say that there is a difference in location of the
> center of pressure of over 10% cord for a given angle of attack between
the
> two programs (imagine designing and building an aircraft and finding that
> you have to move the wing 6", not good).
>
> Although I'm an engineer, I don't have any direct experience in wind
tunnel
> tests and would appreciate any suggestions to achieve the most accurate
> results.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
> >
>
> >
> > Robert,
> >
> > Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
> >
> > I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
> > analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on
this
> > venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
> >
> > I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
> > others.
> >
> > What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the
> airfoil
> > just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the
surface
> > as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome
website
> > has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does
the
> > wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
> >
> > Chris Bobka
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Landing Gear location |
Pieters,
I have been recently reading the e-mails about landing gear location again and
it's location relative to the firewall or other parts of the plane such as wing
leading edge etc. I think using any reference other that the mass CG location
of the plane is wrong, especially because the wing is movable on a Piet. Each
Piet is different, but the CG of the wing must be within the same limits for
them to fly well, and therefore the mass CG of the entire plane will be close,
relative to the wing, beween various Pietenpols.
On January 13th I wrote and suggested:
"The CG of the entire plane is a combination of the horizontal and vertical centers
of gravity. From this point a line may be drawn to the ground contact point
of the landing gear. The angle of this line is usually 16.5 degrees forward
from the vertical if the plane is equiped with brakes, somewhat less if the
plane has no brakes. It might be neccessary to increase this angle if the thrust
line is high, so as to prevent nose over during run up and rough field operation.
However, the heavier the tail load is, the more of a tendency for ground
looping upon landing.
On "Mountain Piet" this angle is about 12 degrees and this seems to work out OK,
both for rough fields and no ground looping tendencies."
Chris Bobka also pointed out that the plane should be leveled up when determining
the CG of the plane. And additionally, Chris wrote a good explanation of the
same subject in another e-mail on about January 24. Look it up in the archives.
Then, as I remember, there was also some discussion about how to figure the CG
of the entire mass of the plane by weighing the plane both in a three point position
and level position from Hank Jarrett.
Hope that this is helpful.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Tuckerman" <ws133b341(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Center of Gravity |
Folks:
I'll make a couple more comments on CG, and then shut up. I'll stick by my original
recommendation to express and compare center of gravity as a percentage
of MAC (or simply "chord," if you prefer, since we assume a rectangular Hershey-bar
wing), and here's why: using "inches aft of wing leading edge" is fine if
you assume everyone sticks to the plans and builds an identical "FC-10" airfoil
with a 60" chord. I'm not sure that is necessarily a valid assumption. Note
that recently there has been discussion on the list about using different
airfoils. As soon as someone "improves" on BHP's design and goes to a 59" chord,
or a 63" chord, or whatever, your "inches aft of the leading edge" comparisons
become meaningless.
Deriving your safe operating CG range based on percentage of chord is consistent
with well-established aeronautical engineering practice. You might want to
search the archives for a post on this subject by Doc Mosher back on 4 Jul 2000,
in which he references the old CAM 18 standards for monoplanes as allowing
an operating CG range of 22% to 34% of chord. Of course, BHP's limits of 25%
to 33 1/3% are right in there. For loading graph purposes, you just convert to
inches from the datum, like on a factory-built aircraft. The math is pretty
simple, really.
Actually, I'm not sure why the comparison of airplane A to airplane B does anything
for you. What you want to compare is your airplane against the established
objective engineering standard (i.e., operating CG within 25% to 33 1/3% chord.)
Just because someone might manage to get a Piet with a 60" FC-10 to slither
around the sky with the CG at, say, 25" aft of the leading edge doesn't mean
it's "O.K."
Of more use than comparing airplanes is computing the extreme fore and aft loading
conditions for your particular aircraft, and making sure the aircraft can't
be loaded outside the allowable CG range, or else developing a set of loading
restrictions to keep yourself in the safe range. AC 43.13-1B, chapter 10 tells
all about it. If you want to maximize your safety, you're going to have to
do some math.
Ted Tuckerman
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Center of Gravity |
Ted,
I agree with everything you have said in that post. Particularly the point about
doing what it takes to make "YOUR" plane balance at the proper CG. these planes
get changed so much... pulling here, stretching there, etc.
Who really cares what others balance at in inches aft of firewall, leading edge,
front cabane, whatever. IMO it's 100% useless info that can eventually cause
someone to make a serious mistake.
The real deal about CG is make YOUR loaded plane balance at 25-33% of MAC (FC10).
PERIOD. and that works whether your wing is 6" aft of plans or 50 feet forward
of the plans. a wing is a wing is a wing..... it's center of pressure
has no clue how much fuse is in front of it or behind it.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Ted Tuckerman
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Center of Gravity
Folks:
I'll make a couple more comments on CG, and then shut up. I'll stick by my original
recommendation to express and compare center of gravity as a percentage
of MAC (or simply "chord," if you prefer, since we assume a rectangular Hershey-bar
wing), and here's why: using "inches aft of wing leading edge" is fine if
you assume everyone sticks to the plans and builds an identical "FC-10" airfoil
with a 60" chord. I'm not sure that is necessarily a valid assumption. Note
that recently there has been discussion on the list about using different
airfoils. As soon as someone "improves" on BHP's design and goes to a 59" chord,
or a 63" chord, or whatever, your "inches aft of the leading edge" comparisons
become meaningless.
Deriving your safe operating CG range based on percentage of chord is consistent
with well-established aeronautical engineering practice. You might want to
search the archives for a post on this subject by Doc Mosher back on 4 Jul 2000,
in which he references the old CAM 18 standards for monoplanes as allowing
an operating CG range of 22% to 34% of chord. Of course, BHP's limits of 25%
to 33 1/3% are right in there. For loading graph purposes, you just convert to
inches from the datum, like on a factory-built aircraft. The math is pretty
simple, really.
Actually, I'm not sure why the comparison of airplane A to airplane B does anything
for you. What you want to compare is your airplane against the established
objective engineering standard (i.e., operating CG within 25% to 33 1/3% chord.)
Just because someone might manage to get a Piet with a 60" FC-10 to slither
around the sky with the CG at, say, 25" aft of the leading edge doesn't mean
it's "O.K."
Of more use than comparing airplanes is computing the extreme fore and aft loading
conditions for your particular aircraft, and making sure the aircraft can't
be loaded outside the allowable CG range, or else developing a set of loading
restrictions to keep yourself in the safe range. AC 43.13-1B, chapter 10 tells
all about it. If you want to maximize your safety, you're going to have to
do some math.
Ted Tuckerman
=
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: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Question of the week???????????? |
Corky,
Have you ever been to an antique tractor show? They have one event that is a hoot.
It is called the "Slowest Tractor Race". Last one across the finish line
wins. That is what the Sport Pilot issue is like. The slow tractor race speed
is what I expected when it all came about. Like you, my flying days are
closing in on me. I sold my RV-6 and started the Pietenpol hoping I could use
it under the Sport Pilot issue some day. Time will tell.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2004 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Question of the week????????????
Alex,
It looks like this waiting on this issue is going to outlast me. When it began
I was troting, then I slowed to a walk. Now I'm on a cane but still optimist.
I honestly think that it's all politics so certain people can gather the credit.
Corky in La and will keep waiting
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
Robert,
From one Saluki to another, I look forward to results of a wind tunnel test
on a Pietenpol airfoil. I am just getting my foot in the door on building
the Piet and am looking forward to the thrill of the "First Flight".
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
>
> Yikes, I hate to think that that's the only response I get from my post!
>
> Anyway, last night after sending the following email, I downloaded a full
> featured demo version of DesignFOIL. The demo only lasts five days, but
> that's all I need to get some data on the FC-10. It looks to be an easier
> and equally valid solution to models in a wind tunnel.
>
> Again, if anyone else has generated wing section data for the FC-10,
please
> share.
>
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
> > From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
> >
>
> >
> > This morning, I dropped by my alma mater, Southern Illinois University,
to
> > track down the wind tunnel that was in the Fluid Dynamics Lab. It has
> been
> > over a decade since I took the class and the university has since
> renovated
> > the School of Engineering so I would have been lucky to find it in the
> same
> > place. I had the assistant dean calling several departments to track it
> > down and it was evidently horse traded to the School of Aviation (where
it
> > should have been in the first place). So I drove out to the airport. I
> met
> > the department head and he gave me the grand tour and there it was,
right
> > next to the supersonic wind tunnel, between several cut-away jet
engines,
> > and next to enough airplane stuff to make me want to quit my job and
just
> > hang out there every day. He said that they don't use it much, but
> > considering that it had the same sample wing section in it as it did 14
> > years ago, I would say they haven't used it at all. He said that if I
> > wanted to make some wing sections, I could have full access to it. He
> also
> > said that if I needed some help, they have these things called
> undergraduate
> > students.
> >
> > The only problem is that it only has the instrumentation to do lift and
> > drag. It would need an additional equipment, such as a third load cell,
> to
> > determine center of pressure, which in a university setting is not hard
to
> > drum up. Since there has been so much debate regarding the moment
> generated
> > by the FC-10 and it other characteristics, I thought a full set of
charts
> on
> > the airfoil might be nice to have.
> >
> > My questions for the group are: has anyone already produced this
> > information? Is there a computer software package available that
analyzes
> > wing sections so building models is not necessary? Not that I wouldn't
> love
> > to do this, it's just my time is pretty scare already and I'd hate to
> waste
> > it.
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
Isabelle and I are clearing the house of everything not immediately needed.
Found about 40 copies of Sport Aviation, some back in the 70's. Anyone willing
to pay the shipping can have them.
Corky in La cleaning house
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
Corky
I'll just drop in and pick them up sometime and get that ride...
Max Davis
Arlington
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Better wait until it warms up a bit but I'll keep them for you
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle K. Combs" <dcombs(at)ltex.net> |
I am sure you already have takers, but I will gladly pay the postage.
Doyle Combs
Lometa, Texas
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 8:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Magazines
Pieters,
Isabelle and I are clearing the house of everything not immediately needed. Found
about 40 copies of Sport Aviation, some back in the 70's. Anyone willing
to pay the shipping can have them.
Corky in La cleaning house
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Yes Sir, A man in Arlington was the first.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Tuckerman" <ws133b341(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Center of Gravity, One More Thing |
Folks:
In my last post, I referenced a 4 Jul 2000 post by Doc Mosher, in which he quoted
CAM 18 as giving CG limits for monoplanes as 22% to 34% of MAC. To clarify,
this refers to high-wing monoplanes; for low- and mid-wing monoplanes, CAM 18
says 18% to 30%. If you want to read more, search the archives for Doc's post
#19453, dated 1 Oct 2002, subject: "Ancient CAA recommendations for CG limits"
Cheers,
Ted Tuckerman
P.S.: Thanks, DJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Engine Oil Analysis |
I have found an affordable lab for aircraft engine oil analysis. I have been
buying oil analysis kits from Aircraft Spruce for the past 15 years, but ACS
is pricey.
Blackstone Laboratories - 4929 S. Lafayette Street - Fort Wayne, IN 46806
does the analysis for $17.
You need to purchase 6 prepaid kits. In my situation, they allowed me to buy
3 kits for an aircraft engine and 3 kits for an automotive engine. They mail
you a box containing the kits. They suggest taking the oil sample at midstream.
That is to say, you need to let about half of the oil drain out of the sump
before acquiring a sample.
I've talked to a number of older A&P mechanics (having grown up around
airports during my 52 years) and there are several schools of thought in collecting
the sample.
#1. Take the sample at first stream because the heavier metals are most often
found in the first few second of draining the oil and you need to know what
the first stream contains.
#2. Take the sample while the oil is warm (darned near hot). The logic in
this is that everything is stirred up and a hot sample yields the best data as
to
what is in the oil.
#3. Take the sample cold. This logic suggests that after an engine has sat
over night, most of the contaminates have found their way down into the sump and
this process will provide better data than when gathering a hot sample.
#3-B Allow the engine to sit overnight. Place a heat source (such as a
floodlight, or clamp a hair dryer aimed at the sump and turn the hair dryer on
low) after the oil has warmed up, take the sample at first stream.
This is kind of like Let's Make a Deal with Monte Hall. Do you want what's
behind Sample 1, Sample 2 or Sample 3?
I'm looking forward to seeing debate on this subject... Regardless,
Blackstone Labs (260-744-2380_ looks like they are hard to beat when it comes to
price.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | engine maintenance tips |
The following text is a maintenance Tip on oil content reports from the company
where I work, RAM aircraft. See also, the attached pdf file containing all RAM
maintenance tips. It may take a while to download, but it will be worthwhile.
We publish these tips for our large customer base in the effort to help them
maintain their engines to TBO. These tips are the result of more than 30
years overhauling and warranting turbocharged aircraft piston engines. We handle
30+ overahauls a month.
*******************
Oil Content Reports:
Should I use oil content reports? RAM reminds aircraft operators that one report,
especially one deviation from normal
report, is not necessarily sufficient reason to become alarmed. There are a number
of considerations associated with taking an oil sample as well as preparing
the report; plus, there are a number of mechanical considerations associated
with
estimating engine reliability.
Background: Certain parts of both Continental (TCM) and Lycoming engines, such
as rocker shafts and piston rings,
typically wear and deposit small quantities of normal wear particles in the oil.
It is a function of engine design.
The Oil Content Report Sample: The quality of the oil sample has a great deal to
do with the report. The individual taking
the oil sample should use caution not to take the first oil out of the drain, because
the majority of the wear metals could
have settled to the bottom of the oil pan. Such a procedure could result in an
erroneous reading of the metal concentration. In addition, oil samples should
only be taken from hot oil. Preferred engine warm-up should be done slowly, beginning
at idle RPM for a brief period limiting idle to 1200 RPM. If a dip tube
is used, it must not make contact with the bottom of the oil pan where concentrations
of wear metals are likely to be exaggerated. RAM recommends engine
pre-heat when the OAT is below 20F.
How much is too much? What is considered a high concentration of wear metal particles?
Remember, an oil content
report is measured in parts per million (ppm). Imagine a truck filled with 1,000,000
baseballs. If 20 of them have a flaw
it is listed as 20 ppm. Many engines have remained in service through TBO, even
though they had one or more abnormal metal particle reports.
Recently overhauled engines: Recently overhauled engines may have higher than normal
metal particle reports; however,
most laboratories are aware of these situations and usually make appropriate adjustments
to their reports when so advised of the recent overhaul.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Yea, a wind tunnel does not provide the results you see in the real world.
The only exception I can think of is the full scale wind tunnel at Langley
where you could actually test a complete airplane. So wind tunnel tests for
wing sections or scaled models produce results that provide marginalized
information. This usually provides fundamental information to develop a
prototype, but the next step is to build the prototype, and then to correct
as needed for a production run.
The origin of my curiosity for seeking out wind tunnel testing is that it
was mentioned that the FC-10 has some unique characteristics, particularly
it has a large moment (implying that the center of pressure is aft on the
wing). But, there was no documented information on the Cl, Cd, or Cm of
this airfoil to verify and quantify these claims. At the same time, there
were discussions on the appropriate placement of landing gear, discussions
regarding tail volume, discussions regarding trying new wings, and
discussions on the moving the wing back or increasing the front of the
aircraft. All of this really requires knowledge of the relationships
between the CG, center of pressure, and other forces acting on the aircraft.
These items seem to be generally known, but nothing (outside of the
collected experience of this group) exists that details them. And although
simply determining the properties of the FC-10 wing section will not
quantitatively answer all of these questions, it will be fundamentally
necessary and is a pretty good start.
You question was not dumb, actually very insightfull. Unfortuately, there
is always error involved when developing information from models (because
it's not the actual thing) or sample sets (not all things are exactly the
same, but you can't test all things). It then becomes a balance between
increasing the detail of testing or moving forward with the current
information.
Robert "just setting myself up as a target" Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
==================================
Robert and Chris,
If I may get in on this discussion, could one of you answer a question that
I have regarding airfoil testing and the real world?
The tested airfoil is a reproduction of the profile at the rib and yet in
the real world the fabric sags somewhat between the ribs therefore changing
the profile somewhat. How is this discrepency accounted for in the final
results? Or must the test section also incorporate these deformities
between the ribs?
Just a dumb mechanical engineer trying to get smarter.
John
==================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Cutting plywood |
Pieters,
I bought a saw for cutting plywood that goes through like a knife through hot butter.
It is a pull saw. I bought it at Lowe's. The name is Shark Saw and they
have or can get replacement blades. The blade I have is 19 TPI. I lay it
on the line to cut, apply no pressure, just the weight of the saw and PULL it
through the line. I have made many cuts on the 1/16" plywood with no splintering.
Only time it wanted to flake off was at the end of a cut with a long cut
and no support under the unsupported piece.
The saw comes with a protective sheath for the teeth. Great tool. Just wanted
to share this with the group.
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: Clif Dawson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 11:21 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Cabinet makers trick-use a knife instead of a pencil.
There are knives made especialy for this. They're
called "marking knives". Available from all the
woodworking catalogue outlets like Lee Valley Tools
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.asp?SID&ccurrency1&page32502&category1,42936,42949
Garret Wade and others also. A good blade is the
45=B0 one from exacto. Cutting the top layer of fibres
limits tearout to that line.
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: dpaul
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Cutting plywood
Listers,
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how to cut plywood without pulling
up the top layer of ply? Even with new plywood cutting blades I tend to leave
a rough edge. I'm ready to make a cut in the rear seat back so it can be hinged
for inspection access. I would hate to leave a rough or "over sanded" appearance
in a nice looking piece of plywood.
Dave in Missouri
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
Robert and friends,
Don't over analyze this thing, start making saw dust and build it. You guys
are beating this dog to death. If you want to reinvent the wheel go
ahead...but in the meantime use the search engine, most of these things have been
addressed and are archived, if your not too lazy to read old input, which you
obviously aren't if you are willing to run all of these tests and calculations.
Target acquired, back at ya.
In my humble opinion, while you groundlings are still cussing and discussing
which is the most efficient design, all the people willing to follow the plans
will be flying, albeit a mile or two slower per hour -- but still way over
"your" heads !!
75 years, still low and slow...
Max, target on his back, Davis
Arlington, TX
Do not achieve
________________________________________________________________________________
| 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: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
<001701c3f4a6$debecaa0$2c290005@dilatush>
John,
that was my question to Robert. I would assume that the test section would
have to have all the warts of fabric, rib stitches, etc. to make it valid.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 7:54 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
> ==================================
> Robert and Chris,
>
> If I may get in on this discussion, could one of you answer a question
that
> I have regarding airfoil testing and the real world?
>
> The tested airfoil is a reproduction of the profile at the rib and yet in
> the real world the fabric sags somewhat between the ribs therefore
changing
> the profile somewhat. How is this discrepency accounted for in the final
> results? Or must the test section also incorporate these deformities
> between the ribs?
>
> Just a dumb mechanical engineer trying to get smarter.
> John
> ==================================
>
> jPietenpol-List message posted by: "Robert Haines"
> >
> > Chris,
> >
> > The SIU wind tunnel is atmospheric with a test section of 24" in width.
A
> > scale wing I believe would be too small to incorporate detail or an
> accurate
> > wing section. My inclination is to make a section 6" in cord and the
full
> > 24" in width. This would be focused toward developing wing section
> > information as opposed to a three dimensional study.
> >
> > Also, I have been working with DesignFOIL and have been in discussion
with
> > Kevin Holcomb regarding his results with XFoil. Apparently, there is a
> lot
> > to be desired with low cost (free) wing section analysis software. I
have
> > results from DesignFOIL, but they are substantially different from the
> > XFoil. Suffice it to say that there is a difference in location of the
> > center of pressure of over 10% cord for a given angle of attack between
> the
> > two programs (imagine designing and building an aircraft and finding
that
> > you have to move the wing 6", not good).
> >
> > Although I'm an engineer, I don't have any direct experience in wind
> tunnel
> > tests and would appreciate any suggestions to achieve the most accurate
> > results.
> >
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > From: "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com>
> > > Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > Sorry to take a while to get back to you on this topic.
> > >
> > > I would be very interested in seeing a properly executed wind tunnel
> > > analysis of the Piet airfoil. This has come up a number of times on
> this
> > > venue and we never seem to be able to organize well enough to do it.
> > >
> > > I know Greg Cardinal would like to see it as well as Holcomb and a few
> > > others.
> > >
> > > What chord size and width are you contemplating? Would you make the
> > airfoil
> > > just like the real one with ribstitches and everything to have the
> surface
> > > as close to actual as possible? I believe the holcomb's Aerodrome
> website
> > > has an analysis of the airfoil using one of the canned programs. Does
> the
> > > wind tunnel at SIU work at MSL density or is it pressurized?
> > >
> > > Chris Bobka
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Redneck Pilot check-list. |
Sorry, I just had to pass this along... Chuck G.
A Redneck Pilot check-list.
You May be a Redneck Pilot If:
1. Your stall warning plays DIXIE.
2. Your cross-country flight plan uses flea markets as checkpoints.
3. You think sectionals should show trailer parks.
4. You've ever used moonshine as AV-Gas.
5. Your 172's wheel pants have mud flaps with a chrome silhouette of a
reclining nude.
6. Your toothpick keeps poking your mike.
7. You've ever taxied around the airport just drinking beer.
8. You wouldn't be caught dead in a Grumman Yankee.
9. You use an old sweet mix sack as a windsock.
10. You constantly confuse "Beechcraft" with "Beechnut."
11. You've never flown a nose-wheel airplane.
12. You refer to formation flying as "We got us a convoy."
13. Your matched set of lightweight flying luggage is 3 grocery bags from
Piggly Wiggly.
14. You have a gun rack in the rear window.
15. You have more than one roll of duct tape holding your cowling on.
16. You figure mud and manure in your weight and balance calculations.
17. You siphon gas from your tractor to go flying.
18. You've never landed at an actual airport even though you've been flying
for over 20-years.
19. You've ever ground looped to avoid hitting a cow.
20. You consider anything over 500-ft AGL as High Altitude Flying.
21. There are parts on your aircraft labeled "John Deere."
22. You don't own a current sectional, but have all the Texaco road maps for
your area.
23. There's a brown streak down each side of your airplane; exhaust on the
right side and tobacco on the left.
24. You have to buzz the strip to chase off the livestock before landing.
25. You use an old parachute for a portable hanger.
26. You've ever landed on Main Street for a cup of coffee.
27. The tread pattern, if any, on all three of your tires is different.
28. You have a pair of fuzzy dice and some small copper shoes hanging from
the Magnetic Compass.
29. You put straw in the baggage compartment so your dogs don't get cold.
30. You've got matching bumper stickers on each side of the vertical
stabilizer.
31. There are grass stains on the tips of your propeller.
32. Somewhere on your plane, there's a bumper sticker that reads "I'd rather
be fishing."
33. You navigate with your ADF tuned to only AM country stations.
34. You think an ultra light is a new sissy beer from Budweiser.
35. Just before the crash, everybody on the UNICOM heard you say, "Hey Y'all-
Watch This!"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Redneck Pilot check-list. |
The John Deere part strikes home to us
corvair moonshiners.
> A Redneck Pilot check-list.
>
> You May be a Redneck Pilot If:
There are parts on your aircraft labeled "John Deere."
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
Max - starting on my airplane is currently in the queue, it's right behind
restoring my 1866 house (I had it lifted off the foundation and replaced the
basement last winter) and my 1930 Model-A, and this last summer we had our
second son (yea, my friends and family think I'm nuts). I've got my hands
busy after hours. This wind tunnel thing is something I can sneak in on my
lunch hour. More to the point, it's actually part of what I would consider
my pre-building "homework" to an aircraft design that I'm sure I will
modify. Until my after-work projects run their course, I'm doing OK flying
152's periodically, at least I'm flying.
Chris - So if I added little bumps and dips on the 24" scaled wing section
the test would then be valid? Otherwise, the information is meaningless?
Please reread my previous post regarding error in testing, all testing has
error. At 1/10 scale (I'm considering a wing section with a 6" cord) the
surface irregularities due to rib stitching is too small to matter. The
deformation of the skin between the ribs is a consideration, but you would
have to be a fortune teller to be able to guess what that deformation is to
any accuracy since the deformation changes under different speeds and angle
of attack. Not to mention there are those who consider adding an aluminum
or plywood wrap around the front edge to midigate this and this would then
be another set of models.
Gesh, I'm just trying to do something that would be helpful to the group.
Respectfully,
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
Robert,
Any help and information you can add to the Group would be helpful regarding
the FC 10. Please continue. I would like to see what you come up with in the
end.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Robert, et al:
What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
If you want to enjoy the scientific lab work of building a model, setting up
and running a test, and analyzing results, the wind tunnel is a great
exercise that is fun in its own way.
If, however, you want to learn how the Piet wing performs, in its
full-scale, bug-smashed, real-life, application, there are thousands and
thousands of hours of actual flight, reported by the thousands of Piet
pilots of every possible skill level and scientific background who have
built and flown this little beauty in every conceivable configuration and
modification over the last 75 years. A wind tunnel test of any sort, even a
full-scale airplane in a large section tunnel at Langley in Virginia or at
Ames in California, is only going to give you an approximation of what is
learned in actual flight.
Enjoy your tunnel testing, but don't expect it to tell you anything usable
that hasn't already been learned.
Mike Hardaway
(More hours in airplanes than on tunnels, but have enjoyed both for their
own sakes.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
>
> Max - starting on my airplane is currently in the queue, it's right behind
> restoring my 1866 house (I had it lifted off the foundation and replaced
the
> basement last winter) and my 1930 Model-A, and this last summer we had our
> second son (yea, my friends and family think I'm nuts). I've got my hands
> busy after hours. This wind tunnel thing is something I can sneak in on
my
> lunch hour. More to the point, it's actually part of what I would
consider
> my pre-building "homework" to an aircraft design that I'm sure I will
> modify. Until my after-work projects run their course, I'm doing OK
flying
> 152's periodically, at least I'm flying.
>
> Chris - So if I added little bumps and dips on the 24" scaled wing section
> the test would then be valid? Otherwise, the information is meaningless?
> Please reread my previous post regarding error in testing, all testing has
> error. At 1/10 scale (I'm considering a wing section with a 6" cord) the
> surface irregularities due to rib stitching is too small to matter. The
> deformation of the skin between the ribs is a consideration, but you would
> have to be a fortune teller to be able to guess what that deformation is
to
> any accuracy since the deformation changes under different speeds and
angle
> of attack. Not to mention there are those who consider adding an aluminum
> or plywood wrap around the front edge to midigate this and this would then
> be another set of models.
>
> Gesh, I'm just trying to do something that would be helpful to the group.
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Robert Haines
> Du Quoin, Illinois
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
<001501c3f647$508043c0$08f50a04@dslverizon.net>
Thanks Mike! Well said....
----- Original Message -----
From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
>
> Robert, et al:
>
> What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
> If you want to enjoy the scientific lab work of building a model, setting
up
> and running a test, and analyzing results, the wind tunnel is a great
> exercise that is fun in its own way.
> If, however, you want to learn how the Piet wing performs, in its
> full-scale, bug-smashed, real-life, application, there are thousands and
> thousands of hours of actual flight, reported by the thousands of Piet
> pilots of every possible skill level and scientific background who have
> built and flown this little beauty in every conceivable configuration and
> modification over the last 75 years. A wind tunnel test of any sort, even
a
> full-scale airplane in a large section tunnel at Langley in Virginia or at
> Ames in California, is only going to give you an approximation of what is
> learned in actual flight.
> Enjoy your tunnel testing, but don't expect it to tell you anything usable
> that hasn't already been learned.
>
> Mike Hardaway
> (More hours in airplanes than on tunnels, but have enjoyed both for their
> own sakes.)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Robert Haines <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 7:00 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: wind tunnel
>
>
>
> >
> > Max - starting on my airplane is currently in the queue, it's right
behind
> > restoring my 1866 house (I had it lifted off the foundation and replaced
> the
> > basement last winter) and my 1930 Model-A, and this last summer we had
our
> > second son (yea, my friends and family think I'm nuts). I've got my
hands
> > busy after hours. This wind tunnel thing is something I can sneak in on
> my
> > lunch hour. More to the point, it's actually part of what I would
> consider
> > my pre-building "homework" to an aircraft design that I'm sure I will
> > modify. Until my after-work projects run their course, I'm doing OK
> flying
> > 152's periodically, at least I'm flying.
> >
> > Chris - So if I added little bumps and dips on the 24" scaled wing
section
> > the test would then be valid? Otherwise, the information is
meaningless?
> > Please reread my previous post regarding error in testing, all testing
has
> > error. At 1/10 scale (I'm considering a wing section with a 6" cord)
the
> > surface irregularities due to rib stitching is too small to matter. The
> > deformation of the skin between the ribs is a consideration, but you
would
> > have to be a fortune teller to be able to guess what that deformation is
> to
> > any accuracy since the deformation changes under different speeds and
> angle
> > of attack. Not to mention there are those who consider adding an
aluminum
> > or plywood wrap around the front edge to midigate this and this would
then
> > be another set of models.
> >
> > Gesh, I'm just trying to do something that would be helpful to the
group.
> >
> >
> > Respectfully,
> >
> > Robert Haines
> > Du Quoin, Illinois
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Please don't do the wind tunnel testing. If you do--don't post the
findings on the Pietenpol list. We may learn something new about the
Pietenpol and its airfoil. Don't you know that learning by experience is
the best teacher (OK, it may also be the most deadly way to learn.) We
just like to build exactly to the plans with no deviations. If there is
a modification that can save lives, we don't want to know about it. If I
can get better stall characteristics by rounding the airfoil nose a
little--I don't want to know about it. After all what you don't know
can't hurt you--right? We all build exactly to the plans: engine
weights identical, fuselage lengths identical, gear placement ..... gross
weight......wing placement....horizontal stab....all identical...don't
we???.... so why do we have to know anything about the wing? We are into
homebuilding of aircraft strictly to slap a plane together and get into
the air, we don't want to be bothered by learning anything along the way.
And.....besides that.....those wind tunnel gadgets really don't
accomplish anything. If they did, the Wright brothers would have used
one.........uh....forget I said that. We should all write to our friends
in Washington and tell them to quit wasting our money on these gadgets.
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Chambers" <kchambers(at)winternals.com> |
I agree Dick.
Bernard Pietenpol is dead, and that means all progress on the design of
this aircraft must come to a halt. It is frozen in time and must remain
so.
So shut up, put your blinders on, and build!
Ken in Austin
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wind Tunnel
Please don't do the wind tunnel testing. If you do--don't post the
findings on the Pietenpol list. We may learn something new about the
Pietenpol and its airfoil. Don't you know that learning by experience
is
the best teacher (OK, it may also be the most deadly way to learn.) We
just like to build exactly to the plans with no deviations. If there is
a modification that can save lives, we don't want to know about it. If
I
can get better stall characteristics by rounding the airfoil nose a
little--I don't want to know about it. After all what you don't know
can't hurt you--right? We all build exactly to the plans: engine
weights identical, fuselage lengths identical, gear placement .....
gross
weight......wing placement....horizontal stab....all identical...don't
we???.... so why do we have to know anything about the wing? We are
into
homebuilding of aircraft strictly to slap a plane together and get into
the air, we don't want to be bothered by learning anything along the
way.
And.....besides that.....those wind tunnel gadgets really don't
accomplish anything. If they did, the Wright brothers would have used
one.........uh....forget I said that. We should all write to our
friends
in Washington and tell them to quit wasting our money on these gadgets.
Dick Hartwig
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Dick,
I appreciate what your ironic letter was trying to accomplish; I, too, think
more knowledge is better. I have spent a good portion of my life in
furthering the quest for aerodynamic knowledge.
However, the wind tunnel testing that has been bandied about on the list
won't produce any usable knowledge that hasn't already been learned,
sometimes the hard way, in flight.
For example, it has long been known that a more rounded leading edge on the
"FC-10" makes for more gentle and predictable stall characteristics. A wind
tunnel test, if it is properly scaled, set up and analyzed, will show the
same thing. If it is not properly done, though, it may show something
completely different. If those results lead someone to, for instance,
sharpen the leading edge, the result could be disastrous. (At small
Reynolds Numbers, a sharp leading edge works very well.)
There are many other examples where an improperly run wind tunnel test can
produce results that don't help, and can even hurt, the acquisition of
knowledge.
You mention the Wright brothers' wind tunnel testing. They did learn some
very useful things in their little tunnel. They also learned, or thought
they did, that a canard configuration that was unstable in pitch and roll
was best for the 1903 flyer. They didn't "unlearn" that until the 1908 and
1910 airplanes.
Mike Hardaway
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wind Tunnel
>
> To: Robert Haines,
> Please don't do the wind tunnel testing. If you do--don't post the
> findings on the Pietenpol list. We may learn something new about the
> Pietenpol and its airfoil. Don't you know that learning by experience is
> the best teacher (OK, it may also be the most deadly way to learn.) We
> just like to build exactly to the plans with no deviations. If there is
> a modification that can save lives, we don't want to know about it. If I
> can get better stall characteristics by rounding the airfoil nose a
> little--I don't want to know about it. After all what you don't know
> can't hurt you--right? We all build exactly to the plans: engine
> weights identical, fuselage lengths identical, gear placement ..... gross
> weight......wing placement....horizontal stab....all identical...don't
> we???.... so why do we have to know anything about the wing? We are into
> homebuilding of aircraft strictly to slap a plane together and get into
> the air, we don't want to be bothered by learning anything along the way.
> And.....besides that.....those wind tunnel gadgets really don't
> accomplish anything. If they did, the Wright brothers would have used
> one.........uh....forget I said that. We should all write to our friends
> in Washington and tell them to quit wasting our money on these gadgets.
> Dick Hartwig
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Pietenpolers:
Doing a search on the list archive, I came across a reply from Gary Gower to
Steve Eldredge (March 13, 1997) making mention of a Stearman "Dial" type fuel
gauge for the center section wing tank. I do not want a glass or plastic tube
hanging down and the magneto operated electric fuel gauge seems too
complicated for a Piet. Does anyone know of a source for this item.
Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
About to start plumbing,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Hello Max,
Well, this gauge is exactly that, a "plastic" (maybe some type of
clear nylon ???) tube that conects to the bottom of the wing tank and
the cork goes inside the tank, has marks every 1/4 of the tank, the
travel is about 8". the lower part can be used as drain, just change
the blue plug.
Hope this helps
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> Pietenpolers:
>
> Doing a search on the list archive, I came across a reply from Gary
> Gower to
> Steve Eldredge (March 13, 1997) making mention of a Stearman "Dial"
> type fuel
> gauge for the center section wing tank. I do not want a glass or
> plastic tube
> hanging down and the magneto operated electric fuel gauge seems too
> complicated for a Piet. Does anyone know of a source for this item.
>
>
> Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
>
> About to start plumbing,
> Max
> Arlington, TX.
>
>
__________________________________
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 10:32:08 AM Central Standard Time,
ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
> Hello Max,
>
> Well, this gauge is exactly that, a "plastic" (maybe some type of
> clear nylon ???) tube that conects to the bottom of the wing tank and
> the cork goes inside the tank, has marks every 1/4 of the tank, the
> travel is about 8". the lower part can be used as drain, just change
> the blue plug.
>
> Hope this helps
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower
Gary:
Thanks for replying,
What I thought we were talking about, is a Dial -- a gauge like what is on a
propane farm tractor, it has a float but it operates a needle on a dial.=A0=20I
thought I saw one at Brodhead last year.=A0 Maybe it was a compass or something
though..
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Max,
Some use a Model A gas gauge, it has a glass lens with rotating dial, but
would not be as "accident waiting to happen" as the Stearman type glass
tube. Snyders sells them for $33.00. If you saw the blue and cream Model A
Piet at Brodhead, this is what he has.
Skip
-----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: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Pietenpolers:
Doing a search on the list archive, I came across a reply from Gary Gower to
Steve Eldredge (March 13, 1997) making mention of a Stearman "Dial" type
fuel gauge for the center section wing tank. I do not want a glass or
plastic tube hanging down and the magneto operated electric fuel gauge seems
too complicated for a Piet. Does anyone know of a source for this item.
Any assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
About to start plumbing,
Max
Arlington, TX.
Message
Max,
Some
use a Model A gas gauge, it has a glasslens with rotatingdial, but
would not be as "accident waiting to happen" as the Stearman type glass tube.
Snyders sells them for $33.00. If you saw the blue and cream Model A Piet at
Brodhead, this is what he has.
Skip
-----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
AM
Subject:
Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Pietenpolers:
Doing a search on the list
archive, I came across a reply from Gary Gower to Steve Eldredge (March 13,
1997) making mention of a Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge for the center
section wing tank. I do not want a glass or plastic tube hanging down
and the magneto operated electric fuel gauge seems too complicated for a
Piet. Does anyone know of a source for this item.
Any
assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
About to start
plumbing,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:08:18 AM Central Standard Time,
Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov writes:
> Max,
> Some use a Model A gas gauge, it has a glass lens with rotating dial, but
> would not be as "accident waiting to happen" as the Stearman type glass tube.
> Snyders sells them for $33.00. If you saw the blue and cream Model A Piet at
> Brodhead, this is what he has.
> Skip
>
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders. Can
you give me contact info.
This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle, and
seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:
> Skip:
>
> Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders. Can
> you give me contact info.
>
> This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle, and
> seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
>
> Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the net... Thanks a bunch !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gadd, Skip" <Skip.Gadd(at)ssa.gov> |
| Subject: | Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Max,
Yea, that's the guys.
Skip
-----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: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders. Can
you give me contact info.
This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle, and
seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the net... Thanks a bunch !!!
Message
Max,
Yea,
that's the guys.
Skip
-----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
PM
Subject: Re:
Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not
familiar with Snyders. Can you give me contact info.
This was
mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle, and seems like
it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the
net... Thanks a bunch !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Bike.Mike asks-
>What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
Characteristic curves, man! Graphs of coefficients of lift, and drag! X
and Y axes, with numbers and things! We nerdy types (I'm an engineer) live
for graphs and formulae, and when we can reduce "touchy-feely" to numerical
and graphical quantification, then we can dig in with glee. All these years
this airfoil has been out there but it was developed by feel and the
performance results are all empirical. To those of us who live in the
'what-if' world, we need graphs and numbers and analyses to slake our
thirst. To those who are wondering about tweaking the airfoil (please don't
kick me off the list), a starting point is needed. That starting point is
the airfoil characteristics, the graphs, the plots, the numbers! Don't you
see?
But you knew that, Mike. You wanted to quash technical discussion out of
respect for a marvelous and time-proven, grand old dame... the Piet and her
enigmatic airfoil. You wanted to keep people from looking under her skirts,
from lifting her veil, from seeing her without her makeup on. You wanted to
protect her from "modernization", from the ugly hands of those who would
Rutan-ize her and turn her into something other than what she really needs
to be for all time, for us who see the design in its 75th year of successful
existence, and for builders and pilots not yet even born. I know you, Mike!
But cut us engineers a tiny bit of slack and let us play with the
computers, will ya? It's in our blood...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Oscar,
I have an engineer's heart, too, and I love numbers as much as anyone. My
concern is that, considering the understanding that I read between the lines
on the list, someone will produce numbers that have no relationship to any
other airfoil numbers. Then I fear that others will use those numbers and
assume they're gospel. What good are numbers that can't be relied on?
If someone can resurrect Abbot and Von Donhoff and use their techniques and
their old tunnel at Langley, I'll shut up and groove on those beautiful
drag polars and L/D curves.
But if a hobbyist carves a 6" approximation of a Piet wing and claims that
his numbers from a different tunnel can be compared to those of other
airfoils found in NACA Report 824 and give a valid basis for comparison of
the Piet wing with those other airfoils in flight, he's blowing smoke thick
enough to cloud reason.
Better numbers can be discerned from the flight testing that has been done
for years on our "grande dame".
Mike Hardaway
----- Original Message -----
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
> Bike.Mike asks-
>
> >What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
>
> Characteristic curves, man! Graphs of coefficients of lift, and drag! X
> and Y axes, with numbers and things! We nerdy types (I'm an engineer)
live
> for graphs and formulae, and when we can reduce "touchy-feely" to
numerical
> and graphical quantification, then we can dig in with glee. All these
years
> this airfoil has been out there but it was developed by feel and the
> performance results are all empirical. To those of us who live in the
> 'what-if' world, we need graphs and numbers and analyses to slake our
> thirst. To those who are wondering about tweaking the airfoil (please
don't
> kick me off the list), a starting point is needed. That starting point is
> the airfoil characteristics, the graphs, the plots, the numbers! Don't
you
> see?
>
> But you knew that, Mike. You wanted to quash technical discussion out of
> respect for a marvelous and time-proven, grand old dame... the Piet and
her
> enigmatic airfoil. You wanted to keep people from looking under her
skirts,
> from lifting her veil, from seeing her without her makeup on. You wanted
to
> protect her from "modernization", from the ugly hands of those who would
> Rutan-ize her and turn her into something other than what she really needs
> to be for all time, for us who see the design in its 75th year of
successful
> existence, and for builders and pilots not yet even born. I know you,
Mike!
> But cut us engineers a tiny bit of slack and let us play with the
> computers, will ya? It's in our blood...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
This seems like an basic difference in philosophies, both of which are right.
First of all, these airplanes fall under the "experimental" category. If someone
wishes to experiment and publish his data, there is absolutely nothing wrong
with it. The good of those numbers is to be a baseline of learning... perhaps
learning the right way... or wrong way to build an airplane. It is still knowledge
gained. Anyone who never learned by making a mistake or from the mistakes
of others has not benefited much from humanity.
Second of all, the BHP Pietenpol Aircamper is a well proven design. If someone
wishes to build it to plans, because they do not care to venture into an unproven
design, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. Some folks just want
to fly the loveable little Piet as BHP designed it.
So to argue over this is pointless. If the man wishes to test in a wind tunnel
or run analyses on computer and publish his findings, I say more power to him.
Maybe someone has already done it, maybe not. But some folks like to do this
sort of thing. And if they do...I say, publish it.
But for anyone to take that published data and consider it as "gospel" is not very
smart. Granted, some folks ARE that dumb. Those folks really shouldn't meddle
in building airplanes in the first place. And if they do, they are likely
to find one way or another to have some sort of an accident anyhow.
But most people involved in aviation, whether a weekend homebuilder or a professional
engineer, just do not take aircraft building so lightly. In fact, I see
most homebuilders end up doing enough research to satisfy themselves that what
they are going to risk their neck on is safe. Sure, they may not go to the
extent of testing as is done by aircraft manufacturers, but most do a lot of
learning from successful aircraft designers (like BHP, Tony B & others) when making
decisions. And even better, in our case, we all have a special email list
here with a lot of knowledgable builders to bounce our ideas off of and to
learn from. Some of us have learned what we know through the process of ground
testing, modeling, reading, making mistakes, and just by doing.
I have flown a corvair Piet. I have been a passenger in a model A Piet. And I
loved every minute. Personally, I am in this because I like to fly low and slow.
The aircamper seems the best way I know to do it safely and affordably.
I plan to stick with the proven design of BHP. My free time is too valuable
for me to spend researching and developing major changes to the design. My only
major deviation is that I plan to use a Continental engine because I feel it
is the safest way to go for what I want to do. I am comfortable risking my
neck on what I have learned about the success rate of the aircamper. Whatever
others decide is comfortable to them is their business. I expect I'll be flying
my Piet long before the wind tunnel data has been thoroughly examined.
But to criticize someone about wanting to test and learn before risking his neck
is short sighted in my opinion.
Sorry this is so long...it just strikes a nerve with me because I make my living
doing R&D, Testing, and certifying airplanes to make them safer.
Terry L. Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
STOL(at)onelist.com, ultravair(at)yahoogroups.com
| Subject: | Alternative engine roundup... |
I'm passing along info on an upcoming fly-in event featuring alternative
engines. Info on this website:
http://www.contactmagazine.com/roundUp.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack Phillips" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Max,
Gages similar to what you are describing have been used for years on high
wing airplanes, such as Cessna 140s, Citabrias and the like. A cork on the
end of a rod turns a needle in a dial by a system of gears. If you are
using a wing tank you could probably adapt one to fit. For a deep tank like
a fuselage nose tank, they might not be as practical.
I might have one off my old Cessna 140. I'll look in the shop tonight and
see if I can find it.
Jack Phillips
-----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: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 10:32:08 AM Central Standard Time,
ggower_99(at)yahoo.com writes:
Hello Max,
Well, this gauge is exactly that, a "plastic" (maybe some type of
clear nylon ???) tube that conects to the bottom of the wing tank and
the cork goes inside the tank, has marks every 1/4 of the tank, the
travel is about 8". the lower part can be used as drain, just change
the blue plug.
Hope this helps
Saludos
Gary Gower
Gary:
Thanks for replying,
What I thought we were talking about, is a Dial -- a gauge like what is on a
propane farm tractor, it has a float but it operates a needle on a dial. I
thought I saw one at Brodhead last year. Maybe it was a compass or
something though..
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
To Dick and Ken and Others:
I disagree!
I would like to know as much about the plane I am going to fly for my sake
and the sake of the passengers I will be responsible for when I do.
We ALL know that the plane BHP designed is GOOD, SOUND and RELIABLE. Who
said anything about changing the BHP design! I believe that Robert's whole
concept with the FC10 airfoil and wind tunnel plan is for general all purpose,
wouldn't be neat to know, you could win beers at parties with this stuff,
DATA. The design doesn't have to change and I don't think anyone has stated or
is encouraging any changes. I am planning on building mine as close as
possible to the plans with most of the notable improvements (Cont. 85, tail
wheel,...).
If anything does come of the tunnel tests and data is placed on the list, if
you don't want to save it, store it or use it, please press DELETE. Knowledge
is power. Know all there is to know about what your sitting in.
Greg Menoche
Delaware
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
On my fuselage tank there is a cork that rides up and down turning a spiral rod.
The top of the rod turns a dial that shows from full to empty in the 360 degrees
around it. I think I have seen them sold in ACS.
Ted Brousseau
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Phillips
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Max,
Gages similar to what you are describing have been used for years on high wing
airplanes, such as Cessna 140s, Citabrias and the like. A cork on the end of
a rod turns a needle in a dial by a system of gears. If you are using a wing
tank you could probably adapt one to fit. For a deep tank like a fuselage nose
tank, they might not be as practical.
I might have one off my old Cessna 140. I'll look in the shop tonight and see
if I can find it.
Jack Phillips
-----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: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:57 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 10:32:08 AM Central Standard Time, ggower_99(at)yahoo.com
writes:
Hello Max,
Well, this gauge is exactly that, a "plastic" (maybe some type of
clear nylon ???) tube that conects to the bottom of the wing tank and
the cork goes inside the tank, has marks every 1/4 of the tank, the
travel is about 8". the lower part can be used as drain, just change
the blue plug.
Hope this helps
Saludos
Gary Gower
Gary:
Thanks for replying,
What I thought we were talking about, is a Dial -- a gauge like what is on a
propane farm tractor, it has a float but it operates a needle on a dial. I thought
I saw one at Brodhead last year. Maybe it was a compass or something though..
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
Mike Hardaway,
You go out and fly around and when you land, please graph out the polar for
the FC-10. That will spare us all a lot of work trying to come up with it
the best we can the more traditional way.
Oh, also, I need the chordwise lift distribution at AOA's from -4 to 19
degrees to size spars.
I will eagerly await your results.
chris bobka
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
Well said Oscar. She's a grand dame, but still ...
Cheers, Jim (retired engr.)
----- Original Message -----
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:11 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
> Bike.Mike asks-
>
> >What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
>
> Characteristic curves, man! Graphs of coefficients of lift, and
> drag! X
> and Y axes, with numbers and things! We nerdy types (I'm an
> engineer) live
> for graphs and formulae, and when we can reduce "touchy-feely" to
> numerical
> and graphical quantification, then we can dig in with glee. All
> these years
> this airfoil has been out there but it was developed by feel and
> the
> performance results are all empirical. To those of us who live in
> the
> 'what-if' world, we need graphs and numbers and analyses to slake
> our
> thirst. To those who are wondering about tweaking the airfoil
> (please don't
> kick me off the list), a starting point is needed. That starting
> point is
> the airfoil characteristics, the graphs, the plots, the numbers!
> Don't you
> see?
>
> But you knew that, Mike. You wanted to quash technical discussion
> out of
> respect for a marvelous and time-proven, grand old dame... the
> Piet and her
> enigmatic airfoil. You wanted to keep people from looking under
> her skirts,
> from lifting her veil, from seeing her without her makeup on. You
> wanted to
> protect her from "modernization", from the ugly hands of those who
> would
> Rutan-ize her and turn her into something other than what she
> really needs
> to be for all time, for us who see the design in its 75th year of
> successful
> existence, and for builders and pilots not yet even born. I know
> you, Mike!
> But cut us engineers a tiny bit of slack and let us play with
> the
> computers, will ya? It's in our blood...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.
>
>
>
>
>
> _-
> _-
> _-
> _-
> ========================================================================
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net> |
Coming right up, Chris, as soon as I install the strain gauges on the flying
wires and getting the multi-channel data link to work. Oh, and finish the
airplane.
----- Original Message ----- From: Christian Bobka
> Mike Hardaway,
>
> You go out and fly around and when you land, please graph out the polar
for
> the FC-10. That will spare us all a lot of work trying to come up with it
> the best we can the more traditional way.
>
> Oh, also, I need the chordwise lift distribution at AOA's from -4 to 19
> degrees to size spars.
>
> I will eagerly await your results.
>
> chris bobka
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
==========================
Well said, Oscar!
==========================
>
> Bike.Mike asks-
>
> >What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
>
> Characteristic curves, man! Graphs of coefficients of lift, and drag! X
> and Y axes, with numbers and things! We nerdy types (I'm an engineer)
live
> for graphs and formulae, and when we can reduce "touchy-feely" to
numerical
> and graphical quantification, then we can dig in with glee. All these
years
> this airfoil has been out there but it was developed by feel and the
> performance results are all empirical. To those of us who live in the
> 'what-if' world, we need graphs and numbers and analyses to slake our
> thirst. To those who are wondering about tweaking the airfoil (please
don't
> kick me off the list), a starting point is needed. That starting point is
> the airfoil characteristics, the graphs, the plots, the numbers! Don't
you
> see?
>
> But you knew that, Mike. You wanted to quash technical discussion out of
> respect for a marvelous and time-proven, grand old dame... the Piet and
her
> enigmatic airfoil. You wanted to keep people from looking under her
skirts,
> from lifting her veil, from seeing her without her makeup on. You wanted
to
> protect her from "modernization", from the ugly hands of those who would
> Rutan-ize her and turn her into something other than what she really needs
> to be for all time, for us who see the design in its 75th year of
successful
> existence, and for builders and pilots not yet even born. I know you,
Mike!
> But cut us engineers a tiny bit of slack and let us play with the
> computers, will ya? It's in our blood...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
MessageI installed the Stearman guage but cut it down to 5" and installed close
to the cabane strut. It also functions as a low point drain. See the attached
pic.
Dick N
----- Original Message -----
From: Gadd, Skip
To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Max,
Yea, that's the guys.
Skip
-----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: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:25 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders. Can
you give me contact info.
This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle, and
seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the net... Thanks a bunch !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
----- Original Message -----
From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
============================
But Mike,
It seems that anything which flys and is a parasol wing design is now
referred to as a "Pietenpol". All are built differently, even from the same
plans. It seems to me that we must start from a common denominator, and
this must be accurate numbers from an accurate airfoil. I doubt if all of
our collective flight experience will provide this beginning point. I agree
with Oscar, do it right with accurate and confirmable wind tunnel testing!
John
============================
>
> Oscar,
>
> I have an engineer's heart, too, and I love numbers as much as anyone. My
> concern is that, considering the understanding that I read between the
lines
> on the list, someone will produce numbers that have no relationship to any
> other airfoil numbers. Then I fear that others will use those numbers and
> assume they're gospel. What good are numbers that can't be relied on?
> If someone can resurrect Abbot and Von Donhoff and use their techniques
and
> their old tunnel at Langley, I'll shut up and groove on those beautiful
> drag polars and L/D curves.
> But if a hobbyist carves a 6" approximation of a Piet wing and claims that
> his numbers from a different tunnel can be compared to those of other
> airfoils found in NACA Report 824 and give a valid basis for comparison of
> the Piet wing with those other airfoils in flight, he's blowing smoke
thick
> enough to cloud reason.
> Better numbers can be discerned from the flight testing that has been done
> for years on our "grande dame".
>
> Mike Hardaway
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:11 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: wind tunnel
>
>
>
> >
> > Bike.Mike asks-
> >
> > >What is it that you expect to learn by performing a wind tunnel test?
> >
> > Characteristic curves, man! Graphs of coefficients of lift, and drag!
X
> > and Y axes, with numbers and things! We nerdy types (I'm an engineer)
> live
> > for graphs and formulae, and when we can reduce "touchy-feely" to
> numerical
> > and graphical quantification, then we can dig in with glee. All these
> years
> > this airfoil has been out there but it was developed by feel and the
> > performance results are all empirical. To those of us who live in the
> > 'what-if' world, we need graphs and numbers and analyses to slake our
> > thirst. To those who are wondering about tweaking the airfoil (please
> don't
> > kick me off the list), a starting point is needed. That starting point
is
> > the airfoil characteristics, the graphs, the plots, the numbers! Don't
> you
> > see?
> >
> > But you knew that, Mike. You wanted to quash technical discussion out
of
> > respect for a marvelous and time-proven, grand old dame... the Piet and
> her
> > enigmatic airfoil. You wanted to keep people from looking under her
> skirts,
> > from lifting her veil, from seeing her without her makeup on. You
wanted
> to
> > protect her from "modernization", from the ugly hands of those who would
> > Rutan-ize her and turn her into something other than what she really
needs
> > to be for all time, for us who see the design in its 75th year of
> successful
> > existence, and for builders and pilots not yet even born. I know you,
> Mike!
> > But cut us engineers a tiny bit of slack and let us play with the
> > computers, will ya? It's in our blood...
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
One of you who lives in Calgary, Alberta was promised a wing tank about a
year ago. Would you please get back to me with a shipping address so I can get
this tank to you. Thanks
Corky in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
I installed a fuel shutoff valve right at the carb for an emergency shutoff in
the cockpit. I also have a shutoff for the wing tank located on the cabane strut.
I am having problems with the operation of the valve at the carb and am
wondering at this point if it is worth having. Problem is it does not always
fully open or close. I am thinking of getting rid of the cable and leaving the
valve for maint work. I should add that I also have a 4 gal nose tank located
after the wing tank valve which is fed directly from the wing tank. Does
anyone have this type of shutoff ? Is it a good idea?
question 2
I have a hand held Garmin GPS II that I would like to mount behind the wind shield.
Does anyone know if the gps will receive signal thru the fabric of the
wing. Checking it on the ground it works.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo |
Dick-- Thank you for posting the photo of your fuel gauge, but more
importantly your plane is looking very complete and very nice. Looks fresh
out of your shop and now in a hangar. Super. Think we'll be seeing a
first flight report in the future from you ? Great to see some folks
making some headway. It can be tough to work in shop time on these
Pietenpols while life happens !
Mike C. enjoying a nice 50 F day in February !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Dick-- I gave in and bought a gps for my birthday a few years ago. It is a
Garmin GPS III Pilot and it works well in the Piet cockpit on my lap. It
works better behind the windshield---especially upon initialization but for
me, that was way too close to my face. ( I use the antenna that comes
with the basic unit--no extra antenna) From time to time my unit will
slip along side my thigh and then it will tell me "poor gps coverage" but
once I bring it up to my lap clipboard it quickly re-acquires position.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn & Doris Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two questions |
Dick,
In Tony Bengelis's book "Firewall Forward" see page 159. He recommends the fuel
shut-off valve be located next to the tank.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: two questions
I installed a fuel shutoff valve right at the carb for an emergency shutoff
in the cockpit. I also have a shutoff for the wing tank located on the cabane
strut. I am having problems with the operation of the valve at the carb and
am wondering at this point if it is worth having. Problem is it does not always
fully open or close. I am thinking of getting rid of the cable and leaving
the valve for maint work. I should add that I also have a 4 gal nose tank located
after the wing tank valve which is fed directly from the wing tank. Does
anyone have this type of shutoff ? Is it a good idea?
question 2
I have a hand held Garmin GPS II that I would like to mount behind the wind
shield. Does anyone know if the gps will receive signal thru the fabric of
the wing. Checking it on the ground it works.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: two questions |
You don't want your shut-off valve on the engine side of the firewall. The best
design for fuel shut-off valve is to install it on the aft face of the firewall.
This is to allow the pilot to close the valve in flight in the event of
an engine compartment fire. And, you want it rigged so that there is no question
about the control having enough movement for full open and positive shut-off.
This comes straight out of the FAA regs.
Terry L. Bowden
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo |
What's with the missing nut on the bolt near the guage?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo
>
> Dick-- Thank you for posting the photo of your fuel gauge, but more
> importantly your plane is looking very complete and very nice. Looks
fresh
> out of your shop and now in a hangar. Super. Think we'll be seeing a
> first flight report in the future from you ? Great to see some folks
> making some headway. It can be tough to work in shop time on these
> Pietenpols while life happens !
>
> Mike C. enjoying a nice 50 F day in February !!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
I fitted my fuel shut off valve to the bulkhead fitting on the fire
wall, then I made up a 4130 0.90" plate which fitted on to the valve, to
that I fitted a rose joint and a stainless steel 1/4" pipe, the pipe
runs through to the rear cockpit, the pipe is run through two guides. In
the rear cockpit it is bent out and a aluminum angle is screwed to the
side wall of the fuselage, this angle acts as a stop, to operate the
shut off valve is as follows lift up and pull back to shut off and visa
versa for fuel on so far it has given no problems.
If need be I can take a snap shot and post to the net. With this mod I
got a increase in fuel flow from 25Lt in 50min to 70Lt in 50min. note no
fuel pump is fitted gravity is used, less contraptions less hang ups.
I use the idea of KIS (Keep It Simple)
Cheers for now
Norman Stapelberg
ZS-VJA (116Hrs)
FASI
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: two questions
You don't want your shut-off valve on the engine side of the firewall.
The best design for fuel shut-off valve is to install it on the aft face
of the firewall. This is to allow the pilot to close the valve in
flight in the event of an engine compartment fire. And, you want it
rigged so that there is no question about the control having enough
movement for full open and positive shut-off.
This comes straight out of the FAA regs.
Terry L. Bowden
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: two questions |
Locating a valve inside the engine compartment is not a good idea. Why you ask?
Valves leak externally as well as not stopping the flow. I gas leak under the
cowl is not a good thing for fire suppression. Now you are going to say that
many gascolators have quick drains and you are right. When you check the gascolator
for water and dirt you are there with the engine off and you shouldn't
start up unless it is closed and not leaking. Had an old 1963 Skyhawk that
had the gascolater drain on a cable into the cockpit. I noticed that this feature
is no longer used. Don't know if the factory suggested that it be re-located
but not being able to see that it is shut off before starting is not good.
I would remove the valve entirely and place it where it is protected and can
be used from pilot's compartment. It could be lifesaving to be able to shut
off the fuel in case of an in-flight fire.
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or experimenter(at)eaa.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn & Doris Knoll
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: two questions
Dick,
In Tony Bengelis's book "Firewall Forward" see page 159. He recommends the fuel
shut-off valve be located next to the tank.
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: two questions
I installed a fuel shutoff valve right at the carb for an emergency shutoff
in the cockpit. I also have a shutoff for the wing tank located on the cabane
strut. I am having problems with the operation of the valve at the carb and
am wondering at this point if it is worth having. Problem is it does not always
fully open or close. I am thinking of getting rid of the cable and leaving
the valve for maint work. I should add that I also have a 4 gal nose tank
located after the wing tank valve which is fed directly from the wing tank. Does
anyone have this type of shutoff ? Is it a good idea?
question 2
I have a hand held Garmin GPS II that I would like to mount behind the wind
shield. Does anyone know if the gps will receive signal thru the fabric of
the wing. Checking it on the ground it works.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
MessageNO NUT?
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
I installed the Stearman guage but cut it down to 5" and installed close to the
cabane strut. It also functions as a low point drain. See the attached pic.
Dick N
----- Original Message -----
From: Gadd, Skip
To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Max,
Yea, that's the guys.
Skip
-----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: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:25 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders.
Can you give me contact info.
This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle,
and seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the net... Thanks a bunch !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Give Dick N. a break, guys |
<003401c3f7cf$bd816290$0600a8c0@laptop>
Dick-- Again-- great looking plane you have there and just a note to say
that it was pretty obvious to me that you are not quite finished with your
project as the cabanes will be painted yet and you'll safety the
turnbuckles when you are ready and you'll put those nuts where they belong
well before your FAA inspection. I see you've already had some
pre-inspection help in critiquing your plane's incompleteness. I just
want to say---nice airplane and congratulations. Thanks for the input on
your fuel gauge to the list too.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
<5.1.1.5.2.20040220151437.017f7c20(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
| Subject: | Re: Give Dick N. a break, guys |
No need to worry about Dick N. He is quite skilled on all of this
building stuff and won't fly with a missing nut.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Give Dick N. a break, guys
>
> Dick-- Again-- great looking plane you have there and just a note to say
> that it was pretty obvious to me that you are not quite finished with your
> project as the cabanes will be painted yet and you'll safety the
> turnbuckles when you are ready and you'll put those nuts where they belong
> well before your FAA inspection. I see you've already had some
> pre-inspection help in critiquing your plane's incompleteness. I just
> want to say---nice airplane and congratulations. Thanks for the input on
> your fuel gauge to the list too.
>
> Mike C.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Max,
April 2004 CUSTOM PLANES has an article about a 1929 Davis Parasol. There is a
little better picture of the Model A fuel gauge than Snyders web site. The set-up
looks a lot like Dennis Halls Model A Piet, you probably saw at Brodhead.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo |
If weather cooperates, we'll be doing taxi tests this weekend.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo
>
> Dick-- Thank you for posting the photo of your fuel gauge, but more
> importantly your plane is looking very complete and very nice. Looks
fresh
> out of your shop and now in a hangar. Super. Think we'll be seeing a
> first flight report in the future from you ? Great to see some folks
> making some headway. It can be tough to work in shop time on these
> Pietenpols while life happens !
>
> Mike C. enjoying a nice 50 F day in February !!!
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
<00a001c3f7de$09b0fbe0$ab31020a@CPQ17340127742>
| Subject: | Re: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo |
It's an old picture. All done and safety wires on tunbuckles and all nuts
re-checked for at least the third time now.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo
>
> What's with the missing nut on the bolt near the guage?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 9:29 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Dick N.'s Pietenpol photo
>
>
>
> >
> > Dick-- Thank you for posting the photo of your fuel gauge, but more
> > importantly your plane is looking very complete and very nice. Looks
> fresh
> > out of your shop and now in a hangar. Super. Think we'll be seeing a
> > first flight report in the future from you ? Great to see some folks
> > making some headway. It can be tough to work in shop time on these
> > Pietenpols while life happens !
> >
> > Mike C. enjoying a nice 50 F day in February !!!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bert Conoly" <bconoly(at)earthlink.net> |
<00ef01c3f7e7$342a9da0$f004fea9@new>
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
MessageDick, knowing you and your ability, I'd say it's pretty darn obvious that
you have not exactly FINISHED your plane yet.
Well, the "no nut" should go along nicely with the "no safety wire on the turnbuckle"
that some of the resident critics have obviously missed.
Great Job Dick. It's looking really good. Hope to see you at Sun N Fun.
----- Original Message -----
From: Cy Galley
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 2:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
NO NUT?
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
I installed the Stearman guage but cut it down to 5" and installed close to
the cabane strut. It also functions as a low point drain. See the attached pic.
Dick N
----- Original Message -----
From: Gadd, Skip
To: 'pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com'
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Max,
Yea, that's the guys.
Skip
-----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: Thursday, February 19, 2004 12:25 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
In a message dated 2/19/2004 11:12:44 AM Central Standard Time, Andimaxd(at)aol.com
writes:
Skip:
Thank you, that sounds like the one! I am not familiar with Snyders.
Can you give me contact info.
This was mounted on the bottom of the tank at about a 45 degree angle,
and seems like it would be the lesser of the evils at this point.
Max
Skip:
I found Snyders Antique Auto Parts on the net... Thanks a bunch !!!
________________________________________________________________________________
Group,
I'm going to switch from plans built bunji struts, to spring struts. I need
the plans to build the spring struts. Doug Bryant told me that there was a
nice drawing in 'Reed Hamilton's Pietenpol Directory'. Does anyone have plans
from this directory, or any plans, that they can e-mail me, or maybe even
attempt a text description with details. Thanks !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge? |
Back to the future?? :-)
Clif
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Stearman "Dial" type fuel gauge?
Max,
April 2004 CUSTOM PLANES has an article about a 1929 Davis Parasol. There is
a little better picture of the Model A fuel gauge than Snyders web site. The set-up
looks a lot like Dennis Halls Model A Piet, you probably saw at Brodhead.
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Struts |
What about the ones in the 1933 Flying Manual
for the Sky Scout?
Clif
>
> Group,
> I'm going to switch from plans built bunji struts, to spring struts. I
need
> the plans to build the spring struts. Doug Bryant told me that there was
a
> nice drawing in 'Reed Hamilton's Pietenpol Directory'. Does anyone have
plans
> from this directory, or any plans, that they can e-mail me, or maybe even
> attempt a text description with details. Thanks !!
>
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Spring Struts details are on mykitplane.com.... |
Check out:
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=lndg_gear_spring.jpg&PhotoID=2009>
-----Original Message-----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spring Struts
Group,
I'm going to switch from plans built bunji struts, to spring struts. I need
the plans to build the spring struts. Doug Bryant told me that there was a
nice drawing in 'Reed Hamilton's Pietenpol Directory'. Does anyone have plans
from this directory, or any plans, that they can e-mail me, or maybe even
attempt a text description with details. Thanks !!
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Give Dick N. a break, guys |
<003401c3f7cf$bd816290$0600a8c0@laptop>
<5.1.1.5.2.20040220151437.017f7c20(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
<004701c3f7fd$18647850$0200a8c0@ATO>
Which one? :-)
Clif
>
> No need to worry about Dick N. He is quite skilled on all of this
> building stuff and won't fly with a missing nut.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Spring Struts & Center secton fuel gauges |
Pieter's and wannabe's
I need a drawing, or diagram of how to install the as per plans bunji cords
on my landing gear. After a year or two of fooling around with bunji's, I too
will probably want to refit with springs. I don't feel like changing them
right now, however, I would like to have the best plans, pictures and ideas about
how to go about it. I could not get the link that Jim Markle posted on this
subject to launch.
On another topic -- I have just about ruled out the electric (mag. operated)
fuel gauge as not right for my plane. I don't like the idea of having a five
or six inch sight gauge hanging down for a number of reasons, mainly safety in
the event of an accident. The model A ford and older cessna wing float
gauges look great, but that will mean a lot of redesigning of the bottom of my
tank. In the '98-'99 AS&S catalogue they listed a 6", 4-1/4" travel spiral action
float type fuel gauge that is sealed and the dial is operated magnetically
(No leaks possible in case of an accident). That seems like it would really fit
the bill. Except that it is made to be mounted only from the top, and they
don't carry it anymore. They carry the 15" and the 19" but not the 6". I
called AS&S and asked who manufactured them. It turns out they are made by
Rochester Gauges right here in Dallas, TX. So I called them and they still make
them but they have a $125.00 minimum PO. At which time he asked what the
application was for, and I assured him it was for a three wheel off road vehicle.
He
then gave me a number for a supplier in Arkansas, He was still wondering why
the gauge needed to be mounted inverted, which he said you could not do. I
asked why, and he said because it says so. It's a float and a magnet, he agreed
and we concluded I could mount it upside down, but it will register
completely backward. The full mark will register empty etc...
So, do any of you know if I can take a hermetically sealed dial apart and
change the numbers and letters or better yet if anyone makes an inverted 360
degree inverted spiral action float type fuel gauge with a 4-1/4" travel.
Still in Pietenpol College,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spring Struts |
In a message dated 2/21/04 12:05:39 AM Central Standard Time,
cdawson5854(at)shaw.ca writes:
<< What about the ones in the 1933 Flying Manual
for the Sky Scout? >>
Clif,
those are 'Compression Struts'. Split axle gear use the 'Expansion type
Struts'.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Spring Struts details are on mykitplane.com.... |
In a message dated 2/21/04 12:08:20 AM Central Standard Time,
jim_markle(at)mindspring.com writes:
<<
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=lndg_gear_spring.jpg&PhotoID=2009> >>
Jim,
That's what I was looking for !! I've already blew up the drawing, and
printed it out. Thank you !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss |
Well Piet builders and pilots
We had a mishap during our flying this weekend, the plane is officially
ground till she has been repaired. As you can see from the pics enclosed
the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places.
Well now that she has to repaired let me ask this, on the pax cockpit
has anyone installed a door similar to the old tigers (to assist with
the entry?).
Cheers for now
Norman Stapelberg
PS also enclosed is the fuel system shut off valve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alex Sloan" <alexms1(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: two questions |
Norman,
What is a "rose joint"?
Alex Sloan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: two questions
>
> I fitted my fuel shut off valve to the bulkhead fitting on the fire
> wall, then I made up a 4130 0.90" plate which fitted on to the valve, to
> that I fitted a rose joint and a stainless steel 1/4" pipe, the pipe
> runs through to the rear cockpit, the pipe is run through two guides. In
> the rear cockpit it is bent out and a aluminum angle is screwed to the
> side wall of the fuselage, this angle acts as a stop, to operate the
> shut off valve is as follows lift up and pull back to shut off and visa
> versa for fuel on so far it has given no problems.
>
> If need be I can take a snap shot and post to the net. With this mod I
> got a increase in fuel flow from 25Lt in 50min to 70Lt in 50min. note no
> fuel pump is fitted gravity is used, less contraptions less hang ups.
>
> I use the idea of KIS (Keep It Simple)
>
> Cheers for now
> Norman Stapelberg
> ZS-VJA (116Hrs)
> FASI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
> BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
> Sent: 20 February 2004 07:48 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: two questions
>
>
> You don't want your shut-off valve on the engine side of the firewall.
> The best design for fuel shut-off valve is to install it on the aft face
> of the firewall. This is to allow the pilot to close the valve in
> flight in the event of an engine compartment fire. And, you want it
> rigged so that there is no question about the control having enough
> movement for full open and positive shut-off.
>
> This comes straight out of the FAA regs.
>
> Terry L. Bowden
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss |
Wow,
You are lucky to still be with us in the living, I hear they don't fly very
well tail first !!
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss |
WOW!
were you in the pattern? or did you have to make an off field landing?
It's a damn good thing that mount held together!
DJ Vegh
N74DV
Mesa, AZ
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss
> Well Piet builders and pilots
>
> We had a mishap during our flying this weekend, the plane is officially
> ground till she has been repaired. As you can see from the pics enclosed
> the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
> broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places.
>
> Well now that she has to repaired let me ask this, on the pax cockpit
> has anyone installed a door similar to the old tigers (to assist with
> the entry?).
>
> Cheers for now
>
> Norman Stapelberg
>
> PS also enclosed is the fuel system shut off valve
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | one more question |
Thanks all for the kind words and the input on the fuel valve. I corrected that
this morning and since it was a beautiful, clear, 40 degree day in Minnesota,I
went out for my first taxi test around the airport.
It works good so far.
Now the question. I have been told that when 80/87 fuel is not available 100 ll
can be used adding Marvel Mystery Oil to the fuel to cut octane. How much per
gal?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: one more question |
It isn't the octane that needs cutting. It is the lead salt that need something
like MMO to prevent and remove from valve stems and plugs. Doesn't it say on
the side of the can?
Cy Galley, TC - Chair, Emergency Aircraft Repair, Oshkosh
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
cgalley(at)qcbc.org or sportpilot(at)eaa.org
Always looking for articles for Sport Pilot
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 8:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: one more question
Thanks all for the kind words and the input on the fuel valve. I corrected that
this morning and since it was a beautiful, clear, 40 degree day in Minnesota,I
went out for my first taxi test around the airport.
It works good so far.
Now the question. I have been told that when 80/87 fuel is not available 100
ll can be used adding Marvel Mystery Oil to the fuel to cut octane. How much
per gal?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss |
The landing happened on the field on the taxi way right off the side of
my hanger. The pilot did a perfect landing considering what had just
transpired.
Norman
South Africa
ZS-VJA (Rebuilding)
-----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: Re: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss
Wow,
You are lucky to still be with us in the living, I hear they don't fly
very well tail first !!
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: one more question |
In a message dated 2/21/04 8:26:05 PM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
<< I have been told that when 80/87 fuel is not available 100 ll can be used
adding Marvel Mystery Oil to the fuel to cut octane. >>
I think it's stuff called 'TCP' (tetrachloral - something) that you add to
the fuel. That's only if you use 100LL exclusevely. Reduces lead buildup on
the valves & plugs. I haven't had to use it...yet.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
In a message dated 2/21/04 1:43:01 PM Central Standard Time,
norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
<< As you can see from the pics enclosed
the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places. >>
Norman,
What brand prop is that ?? In your infomation list, it's a GSC 72" dia. Is
this the one ? I've heard quite a bit of horror stroies about Ivo props,
splitting and so on.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Ohio Corvair College - Dates SET |
Group,
Corvair College #7 will take place on JUNE 18-20, 2004 at BARBER
AIRPORT (2D1), Alliance, Ohio.
Sponsored by EAA Chapter 82 and, of course, William Wynne.
I spoke with William Friday night, and we are "Go".
So, make your plans, get your parts, and come on up, out, or down
(depending on where you live) to NE Ohio in June for the first-ever
MIDWEST Corvair College.
Gawkers and over-the-shoulder watchers are welcome, but this is
mainly a chance for all us midwestern types to make some significant
progress on our individual projects under William's expert guidance.
There are motels and restaruants nearby in Alliance, and free camping
with limited bathroom and shower facilities is available at the
airport. As we get closer to the date, I may be able to arrange for
a block of discounted rooms at a local motel if there is sufficient
interest.
More details to come.....
Kip Gardner, President, EAA Chapter 82
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <rambog(at)erols.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss |
Gentlemen:
I have repeatedly asked that those of you with the desire to share photos do
so on a separate site and not swamp everyone's computer with multiple
long-download photos. With this latest group, together with the numerous
"way cool" responses to each and every comment, I must unsubscribe from this
group.
Good luck with all of your projects.
Gene Rambo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop loss
> Well Piet builders and pilots
>
> We had a mishap during our flying this weekend, the plane is officially
> ground till she has been repaired. As you can see from the pics enclosed
> the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
> broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places.
>
> Well now that she has to repaired let me ask this, on the pax cockpit
> has anyone installed a door similar to the old tigers (to assist with
> the entry?).
>
> Cheers for now
>
> Norman Stapelberg
>
> PS also enclosed is the fuel system shut off valve
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken & Lisa" <KL0914(at)cogeco.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Ohio Corvair College - Dates SET |
Great news Kip. Count me in. Let me know if you get a discount on rooms.
Ken
GN1 2992
Canada
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kip and Beth Gardner" <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ohio Corvair College - Dates SET
>
> Group,
>
> Corvair College #7 will take place on JUNE 18-20, 2004 at BARBER
> AIRPORT (2D1), Alliance, Ohio.
>
> Sponsored by EAA Chapter 82 and, of course, William Wynne.
>
> I spoke with William Friday night, and we are "Go".
>
> So, make your plans, get your parts, and come on up, out, or down
> (depending on where you live) to NE Ohio in June for the first-ever
> MIDWEST Corvair College.
>
> Gawkers and over-the-shoulder watchers are welcome, but this is
> mainly a chance for all us midwestern types to make some significant
> progress on our individual projects under William's expert guidance.
>
> There are motels and restaruants nearby in Alliance, and free camping
> with limited bathroom and shower facilities is available at the
> airport. As we get closer to the date, I may be able to arrange for
> a block of discounted rooms at a local motel if there is sufficient
> interest.
>
> More details to come.....
>
> Kip Gardner, President, EAA Chapter 82
> --
>
> North Canton, OH
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
Unfortunately I have to say it was a GSC 72" Dia, by the way my welder
just made a turn and recons it does not look as bad as we originally
thought,we'll replace the engine mount and do approved repairs to the
breaks in the fuselage.
Regards,
Norman
ZS-VJA (rebuilding)
-----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: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
In a message dated 2/21/04 1:43:01 PM Central Standard Time,
norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
<< As you can see from the pics enclosed
the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places. >>
Norman,
What brand prop is that ?? In your infomation list, it's a GSC 72" dia.
Is
this the one ? I've heard quite a bit of horror stroies about Ivo
props,
splitting and so on.
Chuck G.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cy Galley" <cgalley(at)qcbc.org> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
Have you looked in the wing for damage yet?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
>
> Unfortunately I have to say it was a GSC 72" Dia, by the way my welder
> just made a turn and recons it does not look as bad as we originally
> thought,we'll replace the engine mount and do approved repairs to the
> breaks in the fuselage.
>
>
> Regards,
> Norman
> ZS-VJA (rebuilding)
>
> -----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
> Sent: 22 February 2004 09:59 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
>
>
> In a message dated 2/21/04 1:43:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
>
> << As you can see from the pics enclosed
> the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
> broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places. >>
>
> Norman,
> What brand prop is that ?? In your infomation list, it's a GSC 72" dia.
> Is
> this the one ? I've heard quite a bit of horror stroies about Ivo
> props,
> splitting and so on.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
No not as yet will however do as soon as fuselage is repaired and given
clean bill of health i.e.: x-rayed etc.
Will keep you posted as things progress, have been offered a lot of
assistance by all my friends, but the fuselage is the priority at the
moment, what also concerns me is the flying struts, considering the
replacement just for my own sanity.
Regards,
Norman
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Cy
Galley
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
Have you looked in the wing for damage yet?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
>
> Unfortunately I have to say it was a GSC 72" Dia, by the way my welder
> just made a turn and recons it does not look as bad as we originally
> thought,we'll replace the engine mount and do approved repairs to the
> breaks in the fuselage.
>
>
> Regards,
> Norman
> ZS-VJA (rebuilding)
>
> -----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
> Sent: 22 February 2004 09:59 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
>
>
> In a message dated 2/21/04 1:43:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
>
> << As you can see from the pics enclosed
> the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount is
> broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places. >>
>
> Norman,
> What brand prop is that ?? In your infomation list, it's a GSC 72"
dia.
> Is
> this the one ? I've heard quite a bit of horror stroies about Ivo
> props,
> splitting and so on.
>
> Chuck G.
>
>
> ==
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | John Myers <jmyers(at)powernet.org> |
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
<006401c3f94b$3e89d670$3b3b2c42@office>
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop>
Just a reminder, many of us don't live in the burbs and don't have high
speed access nor will even be offered anything but simple dial up for many
years to come. I guess satellite service would be a possibility but not a
very good alternative for this user. I download once or twice a day and
not a week goes by but what my ISP sends out a notice that email server
limits are exceeded and emails will be lost if not downloaded
immediately. The only other ISP's available require long distance access
or webmail only type services.
I guess I will be glad to be uninformed and out in the boondocks as long as
I can live within 100 feet of my planes and also have my own runway. If
that is what I have to pay for not having a high speed line, then so be it.
I am with you Gene, wishing photoshare would suffice.
Good luck all and not intending to criticize, just sharing what some of us
are faced with.
John
Low and Slow both flying and internet ;-)
downloaded for me in seconds.... maybe you seriously ought to consider a
>high speed connection. if download time is of such importance to you (and
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | a great fly-in "reminder" site |
Don't remember where I heard of this, most likely on this group, but this site
reminds you of upcomming fly-ins, for any catagory and state/states that you want.
http://www.flyins.com/flyins/index.po
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
In a message dated 2/22/04 12:41:20 PM SA Pacific Standard Time,
hpvs(at)southwind.net writes:
> I have added a new "message rule" to my computer to not download any
> "Pietenpol List" attachments -- maybe you can let me know what I'm
> missing!;-)
>
> Mike
> Pretty Prairie, KS
Thats what I suggest too. I don't automatically download any attachments.
That can be dangerous to your computer anyways. I download the picture if I
want to see them otherwise just hit "next" message. Not a big deal for me, just
turn the attachment auto-download off.
-dennis E.TN.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: Fuel Guage ! |
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:51:34 EST
Subject: Re: Fuel Guage !
In a message dated 2/21/2004 7:34:32 PM Central Standard Time,
a11111(at)localnet.com writes:
> Ck out early V.W. mechanical fuel level -----cable operated guage .
> Cable is same as used on multiple SPEED kids bicycles . Can be made
> various lengths ! Tim a4266(at)localnet.com KC8WBJ
>
>
Pieters:
Are any of you familiar with this VW cable operated fuel gauge that Tim is
referring to. It sounds really neat and just like what I am looking for,
unfortunately, I can't locate a source and I am not familiar with it myself. It
would be helpful to know a year model range on the cars that had this, at least.
All the VW fuel gauges I can find are electric and will not be suitable for
my application.
Pietenplumbing in Arlington, TX.,
Max
In a message dated 2/21/2004 7:34:32 PM Central Standard Time, a11111(at)localnet.com
writes:
Ck out early V.W. mechanical fuel level -----cable operated guage . Cable is same
as used on multiple SPEED kids bicycles . Can be made various lengths ! Tim
a4266(at)localnet.com KC8WBJ
Pieters:
Are any of you familiar with this VW cable operated fuel gauge that Tim is referring
to. It sounds really neat and just like what I am looking for, unfortunately,
I can't locate a source and I am not familiar with it myself. It would be
helpful to know a year model range on the cars that had this, at least. All
the VW fuel gauges I can find are electric and will not be suitable for my application.
Pietenplumbing in Arlington, TX.,
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ken Anderson" <piet4ken(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Fwd: Fuel Guage ! |
The mechanical VW fuel guage was used in the early to mid 60's 61 to 66
probably
Ken
> [Original Message]
> From: <Andimaxd(at)aol.com>
> To:
> Date: 2/22/2004 3:59:59 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fwd: Fuel Guage !
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop> <6.0.1.1.0.20040222104435.01cc63e8(at)mail.powernet.org>
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
I've been watching this exchange now for a couple of days. The answer to
high speed for "Rural" areas is the satellite. I moved about 18 months ago
to this home which is out in the boonies in California.. I can only get
28800 on dial up. I signed up with earthlink to do the satellite connection
and have nothing but praise for it. Uploads aren't as fast as downloads but
most of us download a lot more than upload. I'm not thrilled with the cost
but I'm sure with time it will come down. I pay $69 a month but don't have
any phone lines used for the computer. The amount of time it saves me more
than pays the bill. If you value the information/pictures that are available
AS WELL AS YOUR TIME..... It's a bargin. I encourage anyone living outside
the DSL/Wireless/Cable areas to give it a try.
Good Luck and have fun,
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Myers" <jmyers(at)powernet.org>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: was prop loss now high speed connection
>
> Just a reminder, many of us don't live in the burbs and don't have high
> speed access nor will even be offered anything but simple dial up for many
> years to come. I guess satellite service would be a possibility but not a
> very good alternative for this user. I download once or twice a day and
> not a week goes by but what my ISP sends out a notice that email server
> limits are exceeded and emails will be lost if not downloaded
> immediately. The only other ISP's available require long distance access
> or webmail only type services.
>
> I guess I will be glad to be uninformed and out in the boondocks as long
as
> I can live within 100 feet of my planes and also have my own runway. If
> that is what I have to pay for not having a high speed line, then so be
it.
>
> I am with you Gene, wishing photoshare would suffice.
>
> Good luck all and not intending to criticize, just sharing what some of us
> are faced with.
>
> John
> Low and Slow both flying and internet ;-)
>
>
> downloaded for me in seconds.... maybe you seriously ought to consider a
> >high speed connection. if download time is of such importance to you
(and
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop> <009e01c3f96b$2dcf8ee0$57c5fea9@mke>
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
Mike,
How do you set up the rule to remove the attachment? I would like to do
that too.
Life was so much better when members would post the pictures and notify us
they were available.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
> I have added a new "message rule" to my computer to not download any
> "Pietenpol List" attachments -- maybe you can let me know what I'm
> missing!;-)
>
> Mike
> Pretty Prairie, KS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Re: one more question |
Dick,
I use 4 oz. per 10 gallons. Not sure it works, but not willing to find out by
stopping.
Ted
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 9:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: one more question
Thanks all for the kind words and the input on the fuel valve. I corrected that
this morning and since it was a beautiful, clear, 40 degree day in Minnesota,I
went out for my first taxi test around the airport.
It works good so far.
Now the question. I have been told that when 80/87 fuel is not available 100
ll can be used adding Marvel Mystery Oil to the fuel to cut octane. How much
per gal?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ted Brousseau" <nfn00979(at)naples.net> |
| Subject: | Center secton fuel gauges |
Max
I have that fuel gauge on fuselage tank. I will look at the dial part and let
you know if I looks like it will come apart easily.
Ted
I am looking for a center section solution for the one I am building too. Keep
me posted as to what you come up with.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 11:12 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spring Struts & Center secton fuel gauges
Pieter's and wannabe's
I need a drawing, or diagram of how to install the as per plans bunji cords on
my landing gear. After a year or two of fooling around with bunji's, I too
will probably want to refit with springs. I don't feel like changing them right
now, however, I would like to have the best plans, pictures and ideas about
how to go about it. I could not get the link that Jim Markle posted on this
subject to launch.
On another topic -- I have just about ruled out the electric (mag. operated)
fuel gauge as not right for my plane. I don't like the idea of having a five
or six inch sight gauge hanging down for a number of reasons, mainly safety in
the event of an accident. The model A ford and older cessna wing float gauges
look great, but that will mean a lot of redesigning of the bottom of my tank.
In the '98-'99 AS&S catalogue they listed a 6", 4-1/4" travel spiral action
float type fuel gauge that is sealed and the dial is operated magnetically (No
leaks possible in case of an accident). That seems like it would really fit
the bill. Except that it is made to be mounted only from the top, and they don't
carry it anymore. They carry the 15" and the 19" but not the 6". I called
AS&S and asked who manufactured them. It turns out they are made by Rochester
Gauges right here in Dallas, TX. So I called them and they still make them
but they have a $125.00 minimum PO. At which time he asked what the application
was for, and I assured him it was for a three wheel off road vehicle. He
then gave me a number for a supplier in Arkansas, He was still wondering why
the gauge needed to be mounted inverted, which he said you could not do. I asked
why, and he said because it says so. It's a float and a magnet, he agreed
and we concluded I could mount it upside down, but it will register completely
backward. The full mark will register empty etc...
So, do any of you know if I can take a hermetically sealed dial apart and change
the numbers and letters or better yet if anyone makes an inverted 360 degree
inverted spiral action float type fuel gauge with a 4-1/4" travel.
Still in Pietenpol College,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Dave and Connie <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
<006401c3f94b$3e89d670$3b3b2c42@office>
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop>
<6.0.1.1.0.20040222104435.01cc63e8(at)mail.powernet.org>
<024001c3f9b9$e0459b70$ab31020a@CPQ17340127742>
Sat is OK except for two things. The price is right up there. $69 vs $40
for cable/DSL vs $10-20 for dialup. Second problem is latency if you are
doing online gaming. The round trip to a sat and back down is about 50,000
miles which works out to a noticable amount of time, a little under 1/3
second just for the electrons to fly around. My kids gripe about the
11mbps for the wireless in the house. One thing to watch is that the cable
guys want to hook your cable modem to the USB port. Hook it to a network
card and you can push a bit more throughput. It shows when you download a
Linux distro or other big thing.
The big advantage of sat for some folks is that it is the only game in town
(or out of town as the case may be).
Dave
At 10:05 PM 2/22/2004, you wrote:
>
>I've been watching this exchange now for a couple of days. The answer to
>high speed for "Rural" areas is the satellite. I moved about 18 months ago
>to this home which is out in the boonies in California.. I can only get
>28800 on dial up. I signed up with earthlink to do the satellite connection
>and have nothing but praise for it. Uploads aren't as fast as downloads but
>most of us download a lot more than upload. I'm not thrilled with the cost
>but I'm sure with time it will come down. I pay $69 a month but don't have
>any phone lines used for the computer. The amount of time it saves me more
>than pays the bill. If you value the information/pictures that are available
>AS WELL AS YOUR TIME..... It's a bargin. I encourage anyone living outside
>the DSL/Wireless/Cable areas to give it a try.
>Good Luck and have fun,
>Weav
---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Fred Weaver" <Mytyweav(at)earthlink.net> |
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop> <6.0.1.1.0.20040222104435.01cc63e8(at)mail.powernet.org>
<024001c3f9b9$e0459b70$ab31020a@CPQ17340127742>
<6.0.0.22.1.20040222221901.01da5010@pop-server.rochester.rr.com>
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
You're right on the money Dave... I forgot about the "gamers".... One of
the greatest things that did happen out here at my airport was the addition
of High Speed Wireless. We can now be online inside the hangar with speeds
faster than DSL or cable. The gaming guys are doing just fine with that
arrangement with no complaints. As soon as I can figure out a way to "beam"
it to my house, I will make the change. Not only is it screaming fast but
it's only $49 a month...
Sure works for me...
Weav
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave and Connie" <dmatthe1(at)rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: was prop loss now high speed connection
> Sat is OK except for two things. The price is right up there. $69 vs $40
> for cable/DSL vs $10-20 for dialup. Second problem is latency if you are
> doing online gaming. The round trip to a sat and back down is about
50,000
> miles which works out to a noticable amount of time, a little under 1/3
> second just for the electrons to fly around. My kids gripe about the
> 11mbps for the wireless in the house. One thing to watch is that the
cable
> guys want to hook your cable modem to the USB port. Hook it to a network
> card and you can push a bit more throughput. It shows when you download a
> Linux distro or other big thing.
>
> The big advantage of sat for some folks is that it is the only game in
town
> (or out of town as the case may be).
>
> Dave
>
> At 10:05 PM 2/22/2004, you wrote:
>
> >
> >I've been watching this exchange now for a couple of days. The answer to
> >high speed for "Rural" areas is the satellite. I moved about 18 months
ago
> >to this home which is out in the boonies in California.. I can only get
> >28800 on dial up. I signed up with earthlink to do the satellite
connection
> >and have nothing but praise for it. Uploads aren't as fast as downloads
but
> >most of us download a lot more than upload. I'm not thrilled with the
cost
> >but I'm sure with time it will come down. I pay $69 a month but don't
have
> >any phone lines used for the computer. The amount of time it saves me
more
> >than pays the bill. If you value the information/pictures that are
available
> >AS WELL AS YOUR TIME..... It's a bargin. I encourage anyone living
outside
> >the DSL/Wireless/Cable areas to give it a try.
> >Good Luck and have fun,
> >Weav
>
----
>
> ---
>
________________________________________________________________________________
<006401c3f94b$3e89d670$3b3b2c42@office>
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop>
<009e01c3f96b$2dcf8ee0$57c5fea9@mke>
<00d501c3f9bb$05f5c7e0$f13c4e0c@cacjis20.jud20.flcourts.org>
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
>
>Mike,
>
>How do you set up the rule to remove the attachment? I would like to do
>that too.
>
>Life was so much better when members would post the pictures and notify us
>they were available.
>
>Ted
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
>To:
>
>> I have added a new "message rule" to my computer to not download any
>> "Pietenpol List" attachments -- maybe you can let me know what I'm
> > missing!;-)
> >
> > Mike
> Pretty Prairie, KS
List,
Two issues here for some of us.
First, my household is on a serious budget, and $60/mo for
high-speed, satellite, what-have-you vs. $10.00/mo for the limited
service I buy is a big difference.
Second, even if I turn off attachment delivery, I still have to go to
my ISP's web site & delete all your attachment-filleed emails about
once a week or my mailbox capacity gets exceeded, Just because they
aren't delivered doesn't mean they aren't still on the ISP's server,
filling up my account
I'm in complete sympathy with Gene Rambo, and sorry to see him
unsubscribe. Photoshare was fine by me, I could log on at work & see
what I wanted to; this attachment business is a pain.
BTW - Cy Galley, didn't we agree to not be political on this list?
Regards,
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
I was just going to comment something like this... the vibration from a
missing blade like the one in your plane is SEVERE... is not just a
broken tip. The damage you see, might happen like in some car "minor"
accidents, sometimes when you get hit from the rear, and see your
bumper with no damage, you think the car is Ok and just let the other
driver go home... later when you check it out well, the fender(s) are
bowed and the rear doors dont close, etc... several hundred dollars in
damage you didnt see...
In a plane hidden damage could be HIGHLY more dangerous, could break
in flight. Just my thoughts, If it was my plane I will look all around
as closely as I value my life... you just had a chance from Above,
dont take it lightly.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
--- Cy Galley wrote:
>
> Have you looked in the wing for damage yet?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 11:19 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
>
>
>
> >
> > Unfortunately I have to say it was a GSC 72" Dia, by the way my
> welder
> > just made a turn and recons it does not look as bad as we
> originally
> > thought,we'll replace the engine mount and do approved repairs to
> the
> > breaks in the fuselage.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Norman
> > ZS-VJA (rebuilding)
> >
> > -----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
> > Sent: 22 February 2004 09:59 AM
> > To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l
> >
> >
> > In a message dated 2/21/04 1:43:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> > norshel(at)mweb.co.za writes:
> >
> > << As you can see from the pics enclosed
> > the blade let go, causing such a vibration that the engine mount
> is
> > broken in two places, the fuselage also broke in two places. >>
> >
> > Norman,
> > What brand prop is that ?? In your infomation list, it's a GSC 72"
> dia.
> > Is
> > this the one ? I've heard quite a bit of horror stroies about Ivo
> > props,
> > splitting and so on.
> >
> > Chuck G.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> > ==
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Proper Propeller Position |
Group:
We have a cont. 75 h.p. engine with a wooden prop. and we got our new
propeller bushings in the other day and are getting ready to put them in. My
question to you; is there a special way to orient the propeller? There is a key
way
in the prop. hub. Should the prop. be in line with this key, perpendicular to
it or does it matter at all? If not, should we position it so it is on the
compression stroke at the 10 o'clock position or does it matter at all. It has
six bolts in it so I guess we can position it in six different places on the
hub.
I have learned a lot about building air frames, but am just getting started
on the engine chapter !!
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Proper Propeller Position |
Max,
If you are hand propping, then you need the 10:00 position. It's the only way
my 65 would be able to be started by hand.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Proper Propeller Position
Group:
We have a cont. 75 h.p. engine with a wooden prop. and we got our new propeller
bushings in the other day and are getting ready to put them in. My question
to you; is there a special way to orient the propeller? There is a key way
in the prop. hub. Should the prop. be in line with this key, perpendicular to
it or does it matter at all? If not, should we position it so it is on the compression
stroke at the 10 o'clock position or does it matter at all. It has
six bolts in it so I guess we can position it in six different places on the
hub.
I have learned a lot about building air frames, but am just getting started on
the engine chapter !!
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Proper Propeller Position |
In a message dated 2/23/2004 9:09:33 AM Central Standard Time,
wbeevans(at)verizon.net writes:
> Max,
> If you are hand propping, then you need the 10:00 position. It's the only
> way my 65 would be able to be started by hand.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
>
Walt:
Yes, I am hand propping, I thought maybe I could orient it from the key in
the hub. Joe is correct, this is addressed in the engines section of the
flybaby website.
Thanks guys,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 02/22/04 |
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
I sympathize with Gene on the issue of photo attachments, but for a
different reason. I get the Piet Digest rather than the individual
messages. The reason is--it is quicker to get through all of the
messages and I can spend more time on building---but you don't get the
attachments when you subscribe to the digest and I would like to see some
of the pictures. Satellite connection is the only thing available in
High Speed Internet for a lot of people--and it is very expensive for
most, considering the amount of time spent on-line. If your Internet use
consists of the Pietenpol List and sending a few e-mail messages per
month---satellite, cable and DSL are an extravagant expense. Three
things would make the Piet List more friendly. (1) Use photoshare for
pictures (2) When you reply to a message--- copy and paste just a few
lines from the message you are responding to instead of replying with the
whole thread. Many responses consist of 2 or 3 lines, but they also
include 30 or 40 or more lines from the original message. (3) When you
want to congratulate someone with a "Way to go!!" just click on that
person's e-mail link and send it to the person rather than the whole
list.
Every message we send to the Piet List is archived and takes up space on
the server. It would do all of us good to read the Pietenpol List Usage
Guidelines once a month at the end of the page at
http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Pietenpol-List.htm .
Dick Hartwig
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Norman: prop loss-- what will you replace it with ? |
<006401c3f94b$3e89d670$3b3b2c42@office>
<004501c3f961$90b99050$d2a86d44@Desktop>
<009e01c3f96b$2dcf8ee0$57c5fea9@mke>
Norman-- will you be replacing the one blade that you lost or replacing the
entire assy. with a solid/laminated two-bladed prop or metal one ?
Was the prop/hub you were using new or quite old ? Any idea what made it
part company with the hub?
Forgive me if you've answered these questions.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
it with ?
| Subject: | Norman: prop loss-- what will you replace it with |
?
CAA picked up the remanats of my prop and are going to analyse it, once
its returned it becomes a very expensive wall clock, to answer some
questions I"ve been getting once the tubes have cut out and spliced, she
will going for a full ex-ray, as she had been done before the last
covering. I will be ordering a new prop, the fuselage is sitting in mw
garage stripped of the covering, at the end she will be completely
recovered and resprayed.
I'll send pic's as she progresses but as there has been offence taken
due to the snap shots, I'll refrain and try to post them somewhere.
Regards
Norman
ZS-VJA (rebuilding)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Norman: prop loss-- what will you replace it
with ?
Norman-- will you be replacing the one blade that you lost or replacing
the
entire assy. with a solid/laminated two-bladed prop or metal one ?
Was the prop/hub you were using new or quite old ? Any idea what made
it
part company with the hub?
Forgive me if you've answered these questions.
Mike C.
==
==
==
==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net> |
| Subject: | Walt Evan's Pietenpol NX140DL |
The Spring 2004 issue of "To Fly" magazine (Sport Aviation Association,
Oshkosh, WI) has a 1/2 page display of photos of Walt Evans and his
beautiful Piet, NX140DL. One shot shows Walt weighing his airplane,
another of Walt in the cockpit ready for flight, and a third shows the
plane in flight. The accompanying captions were written by Paul P.
The same issue shows Lloyd Spannagel of Strasburg,IL with his partially
built Piet, which should be completed this year. Lloyd's two grandsons are
trying out the cockpits.
For you Corvair guys, the latest issue of "Contact" magazine (Issue #75,
Nov/Dec 2003) is entirely devoted to the Corvair engine, with a cover photo
of William Wynne's Piet from a year or two ago. Usually, "Contact" covers
a broad base of automobile engines converted for aircraft use, but this
time, it's all Corvair. The centerfold features Pat Panzera's showpiece
Corvair in full color. Interestingly, the engine has a staple in midpage.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Walt Evan's Pietenpol NX140DL |
Doc,
This is very exciting. Do you know when it will be out? Can't wait till
I see that , and I can't wait to see spring! It's been a looooong winter.
Thanks for the heads up.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doc Mosher" <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Walt Evan's Pietenpol NX140DL
>
> The Spring 2004 issue of "To Fly" magazine (Sport Aviation Association,
> Oshkosh, WI) has a 1/2 page display of photos of Walt Evans and his
> beautiful Piet, NX140DL. One shot shows Walt weighing his airplane,
> another of Walt in the cockpit ready for flight, and a third shows the
> plane in flight. The accompanying captions were written by Paul P.
>
> The same issue shows Lloyd Spannagel of Strasburg,IL with his partially
> built Piet, which should be completed this year. Lloyd's two grandsons
are
> trying out the cockpits.
>
> For you Corvair guys, the latest issue of "Contact" magazine (Issue #75,
> Nov/Dec 2003) is entirely devoted to the Corvair engine, with a cover
photo
> of William Wynne's Piet from a year or two ago. Usually, "Contact" covers
> a broad base of automobile engines converted for aircraft use, but this
> time, it's all Corvair. The centerfold features Pat Panzera's showpiece
> Corvair in full color. Interestingly, the engine has a staple in midpage.
>
> Doc Mosher
> Oshkosh USA
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 24 Msgs - 02/22/04 |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==
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Netters;
Very good information on the Corvair conversion in the current issue of
Contact! magazine (No. 75). This is the so-called "all Corvair" issue and
contains info on many aspects of the engine and conversion, including
"philosophy", sources of supply for parts and services, and some interesting
articless on redrives, thrust bearings, and the UltraVair 1/3 conversion
(among others). Those on the KRNet and CorvAIRCRAFT list are already
familiar with the work done by Mark Langford on his "Big Boy" conversion,
but if you're not- there is an article in the magazine on that, too.
I see in the EAA Experimenter from a month or two ago (I'm behind in my
reading) that someone has purchased the rights to the Rinker redrive and is
now marketing the redrive using new parts rather than relying on the old VW
"alpine" axle box parts. I have no other details but do have questions if
anyone knows... such as, does the new/improved box use a different cut of
gears than the stocker? I thought I'd heard that the stock gearset has a
bit of lash, and maybe the new gearset addresses that. The Rinker box does
have the potential to expand the suitability of the Corvair to other
airframes than in the direct-drive setup, but that's a whole 'nuther
discussion. For now, if you don't subscribe to Contact!, at least get the
all-Corvair issue. It's $8 until the next issue comes out, at which time it
drops to $5 but you'll probably order more than just that one backissue once
you see the listing of what's available. Ordering info at
http://www.contactmagazine.com/backissu.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee when you click here.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Haines" <robertsjunk(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: was prop loss now high speed connection |
Gene Rambo (if you are still receiving),
Go to the Matronics website and as opposed to unsubscribing, just change do
daily digest mode. You get one email with no attachments. It makes it a
little harder to respond to posts (you have to copy/paste the subject line)
but it will allow you to continue to participate with the list.
To all those that post pictures,
We who subscribe to the daily digest mode have no way to get those pictures
if you send them as an attachment. The Matronics server strips them from
the post before archiving, so unless you put them on a website, we have no
way to see them even after the fact.
Robert Haines
Du Quoin, Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Cours <piet-j(at)moriarti.org> |
| Subject: | Re: ZS-VJA No longer Flying Due to prop l |
Hi, Norman -
First of all, I'm glad you made it down safely!
Reading about the prop failure reminded me of an old Kitplanes(?)
article that mentioned that some (all?) pylon racers will use a cable to
secure the engine to the airframe. The idea is that, if they shed a
blade and the engine rips off the mount, the cable will at least keep
the center of gravity in the flyable range. I've been trying to track
down more specifics, but I've come up mostly empty so far.
One person sent me private e-mail saying he though the kind of failure
you experienced required supersonic tip speeds. I'd kind of like to
check the facts on that one. Do you know, offhand, what RPM range your
72" prop turned?
thanks much,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Wing tank side reading gauage |
Pieters:
I have been visiting with Rochester Gauges here in Dallas about turning the
cylinder inside their spiral action fuel gauge upside down so it will register
fuel quantity correctly in a center section wing tank application.
This is a precision magnetic gauge with a float traveling on a spiral rod to
record fuel level on hermetically sealed side-reading dial marked
E,1/4,1/2,3/4,F. All aluminum construction. Housing has 1-1/2" NPT male threads
for
connection to threaded bushing (they sell aluminum bushings and flanges for this
gauge as well). Length "L" 6", Float Travel 4-1/4". In the 1999 AS&S
catalogue they sold a top mounted one for $39.00.
They manufacture them here in Dallas. If I can talk them into making one
that will mount on the bottom of a tank, instead of only from the top, how many
of you would be interested in purchasing one. They have a $125.00 minimum
order for PO's. I have a tax I.D. # and could purchase them direct, if enough
of
you are interested. They are supposed to call me back and let me know if they
can or will make this gauge as per my request. I thought it might have a
greater influence on them if they could sell more than one. We have not got a
price yet, or if they will do it, but, I don't expect it would be a lot higher
than the 1999 AS&S price on the similarly built top mount fuel gauge.
If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining power will be
much better with numbers, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Leo Gates <leogates(at)allvantage.com> |
Netscape/7.01
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
Max,
Count me in.
Leo Gates
Marion, TX
Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
> Pieters:
>
> I
> If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining power
> will be much better with numbers, I'm sure.
>
> Thanks,
> Max
> Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <bobka(at)compuserve.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
Max,
Can you give the p/n and the page in the 1999 AS and S catalog. I am having trouble
trying to tell which one you are talking of.
chris bobka
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing tank side reading gauage
Pieters:
I have been visiting with Rochester Gauges here in Dallas about turning the cylinder
inside their spiral action fuel gauge upside down so it will register
fuel quantity correctly in a center section wing tank application.
This is a precision magnetic gauge with a float traveling on a spiral rod to
record fuel level on hermetically sealed side-reading dial marked E,1/4,1/2,3/4,F.
All aluminum construction. Housing has 1-1/2" NPT male threads for connection
to threaded bushing (they sell aluminum bushings and flanges for this gauge
as well). Length "L" 6", Float Travel 4-1/4". In the 1999 AS&S catalogue
they sold a top mounted one for $39.00.
They manufacture them here in Dallas. If I can talk them into making one that
will mount on the bottom of a tank, instead of only from the top, how many of
you would be interested in purchasing one. They have a $125.00 minimum order
for PO's. I have a tax I.D. # and could purchase them direct, if enough of
you are interested. They are supposed to call me back and let me know if they
can or will make this gauge as per my request. I thought it might have a greater
influence on them if they could sell more than one. We have not got a price
yet, or if they will do it, but, I don't expect it would be a lot higher than
the 1999 AS&S price on the similarly built top mount fuel gauge.
If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining power will be
much better with numbers, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Max
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
In a message dated 2/25/2004 10:35:12 AM Central Standard Time,
bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
> Max,
>
> Can you give the p/n and the page in the 1999 AS and S catalog. I am having
> trouble trying to tell which one you are talking of.
>
> chris bobka
>
Cris:
1998-1999 AS&S, pg. 152, bottom right corner of the page. P/N 05-16800. It
is right under the Stearman type float gauge. This gauge is made to mount
from the top down only. It is sealed from the fuel and operates magnetically.
They can't tell me at customer service why it would not work if you mounted
from the bottom side, but it would register opposite if you mount it from the
bottom up. You can pull it up straight from the Rochester Gauge web site and it
tells a little more about it.
Max,
Arlington, TX.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
In a message dated 2/25/2004 11:51:55 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:
If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining power will be
much better with numbers, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Max
Arlington, TX.
Max...sounds good to me and I would be interested if you find that it can be
converted. My center section- mounted tank is complete, covered and on the
plane so the extent of the alterations would also be a consideration. Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
I will buy at least two of them, will be great for wing tanks in our
701 instead of the electric ones... Hope that the price is not to
high.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
(To be shipped to Pharr or Houston TX)
--- Leo Gates wrote:
> Max,
>
> Count me in.
>
> Leo Gates
> Marion, TX
>
> Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> > Pieters:
> >
> > I
> > If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining
> power
> > will be much better with numbers, I'm sure.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Max
> > Arlington, TX.
>
>
>
__________________________________
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
Is in page 355 of the 2002-2003 catalog on the right lower side, also
below the Stearman gauge.
Probably the problem to install it upside down will be about sealing it
properly, same case as the Stearman gauge, but less protuding area.
Price in this cat is US$ 68.95 for the 15" travel and 69.95 for the
19" travel...
I still have 2 Stearman gauges bought several years ago and no project
to install them yet :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower
--- Andimaxd(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 2/25/2004 10:35:12 AM Central Standard Time,
> bobka(at)compuserve.com writes:
>
> > Max,
> >
> > Can you give the p/n and the page in the 1999 AS and S catalog. I
> am having
> > trouble trying to tell which one you are talking of.
> >
> > chris bobka
> >
>
> Cris:
>
> 1998-1999 AS&S, pg. 152, bottom right corner of the page. P/N
> 05-16800. It
> is right under the Stearman type float gauge. This gauge is made to
> mount
> from the top down only. It is sealed from the fuel and operates
> magnetically.
> They can't tell me at customer service why it would not work if you
> mounted
> from the bottom side, but it would register opposite if you mount it
> from the
> bottom up. You can pull it up straight from the Rochester Gauge web
> site and it
> tells a little more about it.
>
> Max,
> Arlington, TX.
>
__________________________________
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
Gary:
Rochester still makes the 6" gauge and it should still be a lot more
reasonable as far as price. I will add you to the list of people interested.
I may
go down there tomorrow and see if I can get a straight answer from someone.
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Funny quote (at least in retrospect) |
Found this while skimming some old magazines:
"We expect the ultra-conservative world of general aviation to take a while
to get up to speed in offering the Recreational license to students, but,
nevertheless, we expect Kent to be the first of what will eventually be the
largest category of licensed pilots. Don't be surprised if this summer sees
a lot of new players in the training game... new people who are tired of the
old conservative, obstructive thinking."
-EAA Sport Aviation, March 1990, page 8.
13 years later, according to AOPA, there are all of about 340 recreational
pilot certificate holders nationwide vs. almost 252,000 private pilots!
(I do think SP will really work out as hoped, though!)
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing tank side reading gauage |
We may need 6.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 11:01 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing tank side reading gauage
Pieters:
I have been visiting with Rochester Gauges here in Dallas about turning the cylinder
inside their spiral action fuel gauge upside down so it will register
fuel quantity correctly in a center section wing tank application.
This is a precision magnetic gauge with a float traveling on a spiral rod to
record fuel level on hermetically sealed side-reading dial marked E,1/4,1/2,3/4,F.
All aluminum construction. Housing has 1-1/2" NPT male threads for connection
to threaded bushing (they sell aluminum bushings and flanges for this gauge
as well). Length "L" 6", Float Travel 4-1/4". In the 1999 AS&S catalogue
they sold a top mounted one for $39.00.
They manufacture them here in Dallas. If I can talk them into making one that
will mount on the bottom of a tank, instead of only from the top, how many of
you would be interested in purchasing one. They have a $125.00 minimum order
for PO's. I have a tax I.D. # and could purchase them direct, if enough of
you are interested. They are supposed to call me back and let me know if they
can or will make this gauge as per my request. I thought it might have a greater
influence on them if they could sell more than one. We have not got a price
yet, or if they will do it, but, I don't expect it would be a lot higher than
the 1999 AS&S price on the similarly built top mount fuel gauge.
If any of you are interested let me know back ASAP. Bargaining power will be
much better with numbers, I'm sure.
Thanks,
Max
Arlington, TX.
February 06, 2004 - February 26, 2004
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ds