Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-eo
July 14, 2005 - August 03, 2005
>
> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a
> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always
> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the
issues
> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I
settled
> on an A-65.
> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a
> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about
> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of these
> > machines?
> >
> > --
> > IBA# 11465
> > http://imagesdesavions.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST |
Piet fuselage
Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design
questions answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or
motorcycle wheels. Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by
building it to provide the proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the
data from your Piet as it sounds like you built yours right on the money.
Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand
for?
Thanks again
Rick
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
>
> *Rick,*
> **
> *What kind of wheels?*
> **
> *You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle
> up a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick
> and all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good
> deck angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of
> things like deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also
> use a specific part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis
> for determining the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc.*
> **
> *Need those numbers....*
> **
> *Chris*
> **
> Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rick Holland
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the
> longEST Piet fuselage
>
> Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and
> I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating
> that building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13
> degrees works well. I believe I will design to this.
>
> Rick H.
>
>
> On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
> >
> > Rick,
> > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic
> > posting that
> > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost
> > to the
> > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5
> > hours
> > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some
> > controversy.
> > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I
> > sent
> > it to him but he never came out with the next edition.
> > ........
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST |
Piet fuselage
I am planning on using hydraulic disk brakes. The 7" sweep you measured
today, is that for a longEST?
RIck
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
>
> *Rick,*
> **
> *Dale and I measured today and it looks like they used 7" for the sweep.
> This is a good, empirically derived location and would be good for brake
> equipped as well. What kind of brakes?*
> **
> *Chris*
> **
> **
> Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rick Holland
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:42 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the
> longEST Piet fuselage
>
> Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make
> you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST
> fuselage we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash
> cross strut (9" sweep).
>
> I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have
> brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of
> BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if
> brakes and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation?
>
> Thanks Chris
>
> Rick H (rookie landing gear designer)
>
> On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
> >
> > Rick,
> > The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic
> > posting that
> > is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost
> > to the
> > day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5
> > hours
> > of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some
> > controversy.
> > This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter. I
> > sent
> > it to him but he never came out with the next edition.
> > ...
> >
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: anydoy spin it? |
Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a
fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents
pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins
safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most
fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all that
can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This has
happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying
hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. ANYONE
can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot
can recover from a spin safely and in a timely
fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an
experienced pilot or instructor and then practice them
until you can do them without having to think about
them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft are
safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than I
have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and
depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall
break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than
certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough
different variables, even certified aircraft, that the
spin characteristics may change some. However, almost
all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft can
recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward the
tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an
aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, to
me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking for
trouble. In spite of the fact that no two Pietenpols
are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they
shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin
tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then could
teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins
safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is afraid
of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. I
don't care what the FAA says about this matter, spins
should be an intergal part of all flight training.
That is my two cents, so take it for what it is worth.
Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to
flying safely, there is no substitute for experience.
Doc H.
Do No Archive
--- Mark wrote:
>
>
> Jim Ash wrote:
>
> > There are really two questions here; what are the
> plane's spin
> > characteristics, and do you know how to do it?
> >
> > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under
> planned
> > circumstances, than find out under unplanned
> circumstances. The
> > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries)
> has saved my bacon at
> > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all
> happened so fast there
> > wasn't much time to even think about it.
> >
> > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in
> any plane if I'm not
> > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I
> prefer.
> >
> >
> > Jim Ash
> >
> Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is
> spinning under
> planned circumstances. With an experimental
> airplanes there is no such
> thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally
> change the spin
> characteristics. A certificated airplane is built
> and tested to be both
> predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same
> as the next will
> have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet
> or any other
> airplane. Each is different. The thing that would
> bother me about
> spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so
> near the rearward CG
> point. That means it is far more likely to flatten
> out as one person
> has already pointed out.
>
> Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude
> that is high enough
> for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned
> situation. The
> usual place is the base to final turn and one thing
> is for sure. Anyone
> sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin,
> especially at low
> altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from
> happening in the
> first place.
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<003101c588c4$a900b2d0$0301a8c0@north>
| Subject: | Three different fuselages exist |
Did you not read the dissertation?
Here it is again:
The 1932 fuselage (Hoopman drawings and 1932 Flying and Glider Manual) is 161 inches
long. The 1933 Improved Air Camper fuselage is 163 inches long. The longEST
fuselage is 172.375 inches long. This is the one I understand you have
built.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design questions
answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or motorcycle wheels.
Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by building it to provide the
proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the data from your Piet as it sounds
like you built yours right on the money.
Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand for?
Thanks again
Rick
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
What kind of wheels?
You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle up
a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick and
all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good deck
angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of things like
deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also use a specific
part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis for determining
the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc.
Need those numbers....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and
I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that
building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees
works well. I believe I will design to this.
Rick H.
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting
that
is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost
to the
day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours
of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy.
This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter.
I sent
it to him but he never came out with the next edition.
........
--
Rick Holland
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<003101c588c4$a900b2d0$0301a8c0@north>
| Subject: | Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST |
Piet fuselage
longEST because it is the longest. For emphasis...
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
Haven't decided on wheel type yet, am trying to get all these design questions
answered first. Will go with either 6x6 aircraft wheels or motorcycle wheels.
Figure I will kind of reverse engineer the gear by building it to provide the
proper deck angle. So I really appreciate the data from your Piet as it sounds
like you built yours right on the money.
Also, which fuselage do you have? And what does the 'EST' in longEST stand for?
Thanks again
Rick
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
What kind of wheels?
You may want to increase the length of the struts to get the deck angle up
a little. With the spoked wheels, the plane will full stall at aft stick and
all three will kiss simultaneously so it looks like this ship has a good deck
angle. I will bring my smart level tomarrow and measure a bunch of things like
deck angle in three point, deck angle in cruise, and I will also use a specific
part of the underside of the centersection to use as a basis for determining
the angle of the wing to level when in cruise etc.
Need those numbers....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
Just one more variable in this landing gear design thing is deck angle and
I think Mike Cuy answered this one in a couple archive messages indicating that
building your gear to result in a top longeron deck angle of 12-13 degrees
works well. I believe I will design to this.
Rick H.
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting
that
is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost
to the
day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours
of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy.
This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter.
I sent
it to him but he never came out with the next edition.
........
--
Rick Holland
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<001d01c588c3$ec927a70$0301a8c0@north>
| Subject: | Re: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST |
Piet fuselage
yes. It is for the longEST fuselage. I will send you pictures.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 7:27 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
I am planning on using hydraulic disk brakes. The 7" sweep you measured today,
is that for a longEST?
RIck
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
Dale and I measured today and it looks like they used 7" for the sweep. This
is a good, empirically derived location and would be good for brake equipped
as well. What kind of brakes?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 8:42 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: PhD Dissertation on axle placement for the longEST
Piet fuselage
Wow! Yes this helps a whole bunch. And yes Christian, I would vote to make
you a PhD in Pietology after a dissertation like this. So with my longEST fuselage
we are talking about putting the axles 9" behind the front ash cross strut
(9" sweep).
I hate to add another independent variable to our algorithm by people have
brought up the issue of brakes and tail wheel before, mentioning that all of
BP's plans are without them and that the gear needs to move forward some if brakes
and tail wheel are used. Any opinion how this fits into the equation?
Thanks Chris
Rick H (rookie landing gear designer)
On 7/14/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
The following is related to your issue and I hope becomes a classic posting
that
is referenced by many for years to come. I wrote it 6.5 years ago almost
to the
day in response to a question posed by Greg Cardinal. It was about 5 hours
of research and headscratching. Of course, it will prompt some controversy.
This was supposed to have been published in MacLaren's BPA newsletter.
I sent
it to him but he never came out with the next edition.
...
--
Rick Holland
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | we need to do 40 on account of the prop |
Pieters,
I flew 5 hours in Greg and Dale's Piet today and 3 yesterday for a total of 8 in
two days for those in Rio Linda. I did about 40 Circuit and Bumps as well.
I came up with good numbers: 40 on approach and over the hedge. Vx and Vy are
about the same at 37 and the thing stalls at 30 power off or on. These are
all indicated airspeed as shown on the highly calibrated Johnson Airspeed Indicator.
We have 24 hours on the ship now and 6 days to go until it heads out to Brodhead....
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
Sounds good but we will be "afoot".
--- Dennis Engelkenjohn wrote:
> Engelkenjohn"
>
> There is a pretty good coffee/sandwich shop in
> downtown Brodhead, just past
> the square.
> Dennis in St.Louis...who will be wearing a tie dyed
> shirt. It is too late to
> get my motto printed on a shirt: " Sanity is highly
> overrated!"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Last year, my buds and me starved whilst many were
> > feasting. Why? Because we neglected to buy our
> meal
> > tickets. So, this year, we don't want that to
> happen.
> > As I recall, the local chapter serves meals all
> day
> > with one big feast. Yes?
> >
> > I will be flying my C-195 but my heart will be
> with
> > N444MH, Howard Henderson's old plane which I own,
> but
> > have yet to fly, although I have completed the
> > relocation of the wing 3" aft. My name is also
> Larry
> > and I always have "Larry" written on MY forehead,
> so
> > please don't mistake me for the better looking
> Larry
> > who may also have "Larry" written on HIS forehead.
> >
> > We will be there Friday afternoon. Save some food.
> > Then it is to OSH Sunday morning.
> >
> >
> >
> > Larry Nelson
> > Springfield, MO
> > Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
> > Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
> > 1963 GMC 4106-1618
> > SV/ Spirit of America
> > ARS WB0JOT
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> protection around
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Larry Nelson
Springfield, MO
Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
1963 GMC 4106-1618
SV/ Spirit of America
ARS WB0JOT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
<004201c588c5$142d5fe0$0301a8c0@north>
Chris
I looked at those options in the past. With all that I have going on now,
I'm not building anything else now.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
> Dick,
>
> Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck
> a
> valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long
> way....
>
> No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a
> two
> banger....You are going down now....
>
> Chris
>
> Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
>
>>
>> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a
>> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always
>> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the
> issues
>> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I
> settled
>> on an A-65.
>> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a
>> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about
>> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right.
>> Dick N.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM
>> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of
>> > these
>> > machines?
>> >
>> > --
>> > IBA# 11465
>> > http://imagesdesavions.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
<001401c58898$7a25c7b0$6401a8c0@the48194bd3804>
Mike
Just looking at this engine, it doesn't appear heavy enough to balance.
What does it weigh?
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
> BMW R100
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<004201c588c5$142d5fe0$0301a8c0@north> <002d01c588e8$79a6c550$0700a8c0@DICKLAPTOP>
that is why you went with a radial!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
> Chris
> I looked at those options in the past. With all that I have going on now,
> I'm not building anything else now.
> Dick
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 5:39 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
> >
> >
> > Dick,
> >
> > Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65
stuck
> > a
> > valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long
> > way....
> >
> > No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a
> > two
> > banger....You are going down now....
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a
> >> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue
always
> >> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the
> > issues
> >> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I
> > settled
> >> on an A-65.
> >> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a
> >> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for
about
> >> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right.
> >> Dick N.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM
> >> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines...
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of
> >> > these
> >> > machines?
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > IBA# 11465
> >> > http://imagesdesavions.com
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
<001401c58898$7a25c7b0$6401a8c0@the48194bd3804> <004901c588e9$2c32a040$0700a8c0@DICKLAPTOP>
I'm not sure of the specs on the various BMW motorcycle engine conversions.
There are three sites I've found: two in the UK at
http://www.microlightsport.co.uk/Catalogue/bmwengine.htm (R1100 Oil head)
and http://www.bmw.flyer.co.uk/
and one here in the US at
http://www.airdale.com/bmw_engines.htm
These last folks claim 78 Hp from an R100 air cooled boxer but I can't find
a weight...it took some fooling around to read their web pages. The font
was the same color as the background in my browser.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
> Mike
> Just looking at this engine, it doesn't appear heavy enough to balance.
> What does it weigh?
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:21 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
> > BMW R100
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com> |
Robert Gow wrote:
> I've wondered the same about my K100 engine (BMW motorcycle). It's a small
> water-cooled package that provides over 100 HP in later versions.
If yer K100 is anything like my K11 you'd certainly need a reduction
unit. My K11 doesn't start hitting its power until it's spinning at
4000 RPM... When it does, though, you'd better hang on! ;)
I was thinking the boxer engine would work well because it has so much
more lower end torque. It's also a rather simple engine so maintenance
and repair issues should be fairly easy...
--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com> |
<001401c58898$7a25c7b0$6401a8c0@the48194bd3804>
bike.mike wrote:
> BMW R100
Heh... THERE ya go!
Nice...
:)
--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: anydoy spin it? |
I didn't want to fuel a religious war here, but I'm with Doc.
The one unintentional spin I'd done was right after transitioning to a
single-seat glider (a SGS 1-26) and I wasn't comfortably familiar the the
aircraft yet. I was trying to wring a little life out of a weak thermal at
a low altitude, so I was set up for the classic spin; slow and turning with
a pretty good bank angle. The spin cracked so fast I didn't know what hit
me, and my left wing dropped like it had broken off. I mashed the rudder
fast enough I don't even think I got a half-turn out of it, but it honestly
was all so quick I don't remember. Other than finding myself a little too
low and having to do an abbreviated pattern, it wasn't really that big a
deal. I would have been toast were it not for the drilling of spin recovery
at the insistence of my instructor.
Experimental or not, I'm not a perfect person and I screw up more
frequently than I care to admit. I'm not an aerobatic pilot, but knowing
how to spin and knowing the plane I'm in can recover from one gives me an
option if/when I do screw up. I try to know where my margins are, and
assuming I can't fly the perfect pattern every time, I have to understand
the circumstances when I overshoot that base-to-final turn and I'm trying
to fix the mess I've just made. Knowing this is one of the classic places
to make a bad mistake, I really watch my airspeed at this point, and maybe
even make the turn a bit hotter than some, just in case, then bleed it off
on final.
As for the Piet (or any other airplane), where your CG is when you fly is a
personal choice, not necessarily a fact of the particular design (although
it's admittedly more problematic with some designs than others). Some
gliders have big steel blocks they can stuff in the front to pull the CG
forward when a lightweight flys in them. Come time for me to fly any plane
I build, I'll have weights or sandbags or something up front if need be to
prevent my CG from going too far aft. If I can't pull my CG forward enough
to be safe without going over gross, I don't plan on building or getting in
one.
As for flight testing a Piet that I build, I'll have a good CG and a
parachute, then run it up to a serious altitude and make it happen. I guess
I'd rather wreck my plane than my physiology. I also took some lessons and
did a few parachute jumps to understand what that's about, in case I had to
bail out of a plane some time in the future. Like spinning, I figured it
might be handy to know the dynamics of it so I could remove that element of
the unknown from a potentially complicated problem while in the heat of battle.
Pardon me if this sounds like a bunch of over-zealous safety crap. Many
years ago a close friend was PIC carrying three passengers that crashed and
burned in a landing accident, all fatal. The plane was magnesium (a Grunman
Tiger), so the fire was amazingly intense. I was the one to ID a couple of
the charred bodies, help the coroner sort out the mess, and help his
parents with a lot of the arrangements afterwards. It kinda left a lasting
impression. The final report (which I knew in the first few hours, after
talking to a few witnesses) from the NTSB was pilot error. I was rated a
few years before that, and I've continued to fly, but with much more of an
eye towards safety.
Jim Ash
>
>Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a
>fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents
>pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins
>safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most
>fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all that
>can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This has
>happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying
>hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. ANYONE
>can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot
>can recover from a spin safely and in a timely
>fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an
>experienced pilot or instructor and then practice them
>until you can do them without having to think about
>them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft are
>safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than I
>have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and
>depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall
>break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than
>certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough
>different variables, even certified aircraft, that the
>spin characteristics may change some. However, almost
>all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft can
>recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward the
>tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an
>aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, to
>me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking for
>trouble. In spite of the fact that no two Pietenpols
>are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they
>shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin
>tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then could
>teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins
>safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is afraid
>of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. I
>don't care what the FAA says about this matter, spins
>should be an intergal part of all flight training.
>
>That is my two cents, so take it for what it is worth.
>Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to
>flying safely, there is no substitute for experience.
>
>Doc H.
>
>Do No Archive
>
>--- Mark wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Jim Ash wrote:
> >
> > > There are really two questions here; what are the
> > plane's spin
> > > characteristics, and do you know how to do it?
> > >
> > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under
> > planned
> > > circumstances, than find out under unplanned
> > circumstances. The
> > > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries)
> > has saved my bacon at
> > > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all
> > happened so fast there
> > > wasn't much time to even think about it.
> > >
> > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in
> > any plane if I'm not
> > > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I
> > prefer.
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Ash
> > >
> > Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is
> > spinning under
> > planned circumstances. With an experimental
> > airplanes there is no such
> > thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally
> > change the spin
> > characteristics. A certificated airplane is built
> > and tested to be both
> > predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same
> > as the next will
> > have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet
> > or any other
> > airplane. Each is different. The thing that would
> > bother me about
> > spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so
> > near the rearward CG
> > point. That means it is far more likely to flatten
> > out as one person
> > has already pointed out.
> >
> > Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude
> > that is high enough
> > for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned
> > situation. The
> > usual place is the base to final turn and one thing
> > is for sure. Anyone
> > sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin,
> > especially at low
> > altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from
> > happening in the
> > first place.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>____________________________________________________
>http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: anydoy spin it? |
Jim, I don't think that any of what you wrote sounds
like over-zealous safety crap, rather it is pure
common sense. Flying, as in many activities, has some
inherent danger. To enjoy our flying, we as pilots,
have to learn to correct bad situations we sometimes
get ourselves into while flying. A low altitude spin
is a very potentially dangerous situation that
requires quick reaction. If you have to think about
what is happening, then most likely you won't have the
time or altitude enough to recover before impacting
the ground. The only way you can recover quickly, as
you mentioned, is to be so comfortable with spins that
you can recover through almost pure reflex action. To
give one example, which I personally experienced, once
occured when I was flying an airshow doing a torque
roll with a tail-slide recovery. It was a hot, humid
day with a high density altitude so when I neared the
top of my vertical climb, rolling all the way up, I
did not have the altitude I needed to safely complete
the maneuver. The plane torqued, but when I started
the rolling tail slide recovery, the plane dropped on
its back and began an inverted flat spin. I was less
than 1000 ft. AGL (much less) when the spin started.
Without having to think about what was happening, I
was able to recover in about 3/4 of a rotation (I have
this captured on video tape) and was able to recover
without anyone really knowing what had happened. Had
it not been for the hundreds of spins I'd practiced,
both upright and inverted, I could have easily spun
into to ground. This is only one example of several,
where having practiced a recovery to some unusual
attitude, saved my life. I do wish to stress the
point that a pilot who is not comfortable doing spins
should not test them on his home-built without first
going out and gaining proficency with someone who is
qualified in spins and then practicing them until he
is comfortable before trying them solo in his own
plane.
Doc H.
--- Jim Ash wrote:
>
>
> I didn't want to fuel a religious war here, but I'm
> with Doc.
>
> The one unintentional spin I'd done was right after
> transitioning to a
> single-seat glider (a SGS 1-26) and I wasn't
> comfortably familiar the the
> aircraft yet. I was trying to wring a little life
> out of a weak thermal at
> a low altitude, so I was set up for the classic
> spin; slow and turning with
> a pretty good bank angle. The spin cracked so fast I
> didn't know what hit
> me, and my left wing dropped like it had broken off.
> I mashed the rudder
> fast enough I don't even think I got a half-turn out
> of it, but it honestly
> was all so quick I don't remember. Other than
> finding myself a little too
> low and having to do an abbreviated pattern, it
> wasn't really that big a
> deal. I would have been toast were it not for the
> drilling of spin recovery
> at the insistence of my instructor.
>
> Experimental or not, I'm not a perfect person and I
> screw up more
> frequently than I care to admit. I'm not an
> aerobatic pilot, but knowing
> how to spin and knowing the plane I'm in can recover
> from one gives me an
> option if/when I do screw up. I try to know where my
> margins are, and
> assuming I can't fly the perfect pattern every time,
> I have to understand
> the circumstances when I overshoot that
> base-to-final turn and I'm trying
> to fix the mess I've just made. Knowing this is one
> of the classic places
> to make a bad mistake, I really watch my airspeed at
> this point, and maybe
> even make the turn a bit hotter than some, just in
> case, then bleed it off
> on final.
>
> As for the Piet (or any other airplane), where your
> CG is when you fly is a
> personal choice, not necessarily a fact of the
> particular design (although
> it's admittedly more problematic with some designs
> than others). Some
> gliders have big steel blocks they can stuff in the
> front to pull the CG
> forward when a lightweight flys in them. Come time
> for me to fly any plane
> I build, I'll have weights or sandbags or something
> up front if need be to
> prevent my CG from going too far aft. If I can't
> pull my CG forward enough
> to be safe without going over gross, I don't plan on
> building or getting in
> one.
>
> As for flight testing a Piet that I build, I'll have
> a good CG and a
> parachute, then run it up to a serious altitude and
> make it happen. I guess
> I'd rather wreck my plane than my physiology. I also
> took some lessons and
> did a few parachute jumps to understand what that's
> about, in case I had to
> bail out of a plane some time in the future. Like
> spinning, I figured it
> might be handy to know the dynamics of it so I could
> remove that element of
> the unknown from a potentially complicated problem
> while in the heat of battle.
>
> Pardon me if this sounds like a bunch of
> over-zealous safety crap. Many
> years ago a close friend was PIC carrying three
> passengers that crashed and
> burned in a landing accident, all fatal. The plane
> was magnesium (a Grunman
> Tiger), so the fire was amazingly intense. I was the
> one to ID a couple of
> the charred bodies, help the coroner sort out the
> mess, and help his
> parents with a lot of the arrangements afterwards.
> It kinda left a lasting
> impression. The final report (which I knew in the
> first few hours, after
> talking to a few witnesses) from the NTSB was pilot
> error. I was rated a
> few years before that, and I've continued to fly,
> but with much more of an
> eye towards safety.
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
>
>
> Hutcheson
> >
> >Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a
> >fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents
> >pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins
> >safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most
> >fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all
> that
> >can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This
> has
> >happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying
> >hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro.
> ANYONE
> >can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot
> >can recover from a spin safely and in a timely
> >fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an
> >experienced pilot or instructor and then practice
> them
> >until you can do them without having to think about
> >them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft
> are
> >safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than
> I
> >have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and
> >depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall
> >break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than
> >certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough
> >different variables, even certified aircraft, that
> the
> >spin characteristics may change some. However,
> almost
> >all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft
> can
> >recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward
> the
> >tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an
> >aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG,
> to
> >me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking
> for
> >trouble. In spite of the fact that no two
> Pietenpols
> >are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they
> >shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin
> >tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then
> could
> >teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins
> >safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is
> afraid
> >of spins needs to do something to get proficiency.
> I
> >don't care what the FAA says about this matter,
> spins
> >should be an intergal part of all flight training.
> >
> >That is my two cents, so take it for what it is
> worth.
> >Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to
> >flying safely, there is no substitute for
> experience.
> >
> >Doc H.
> >
> >Do No Archive
> >
> >--- Mark wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jim Ash wrote:
> > >
> > > > There are really two questions here; what are
> the
> > > plane's spin
> > > > characteristics, and do you know how to do it?
> > > >
> > > > As for me, I would rather know how to spin
> under
> > > planned
> > > > circumstances, than find out under unplanned
> > > circumstances. The
> > > > knowledge of having done spins (and
> recoveries)
> > > has saved my bacon at
> > > > least once (in a certificated airplane). It
> all
> > > happened so fast there
> > > > wasn't much time to even think about it.
> > > >
> > > > As for the plane, I personally am not getting
> in
>
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
The story goes that J2 Cub salesmen would pull of one spark plug wire and do
a circuit. They'd tell the customer to ask the Aeronca (C3) salesman to do
the same. ;-). The truth is one sticking valve on a 65 can bring you down.
It did on my Chief. It all started when I cleaned the plugs and didn't
properly tighten one plug. In flight the intake valve on that cylinder
started to carbon up and stopped closing properly. That caused a lot of
blow back into the induction system and a loss of power. Full throttle was
the worse case - no restriction to the blow-back. Idle throttle stopped the
blow back but wasn't too helpful in keeping aloft. About mid throttle was
where I found max power - good enough for about -200 fpm. It allowed me to
pick a field close to a main road for hitchhiking. Winds were about 20k
that day so the landing was short.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
Dick,
Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck a
valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long
way....
No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a two
banger....You are going down now....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
> I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a
> variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue always
> came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the
issues
> of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I
settled
> on an A-65.
> Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a
> Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for about
> $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of these
> > machines?
> >
> > --
> > IBA# 11465
> > http://imagesdesavions.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
Years ago when I started aerobatic training, of which I did little, My
instructor insisted in starting with spin entries. Being a new private
pilot I knew everything about spins. We had done them in our training.
Well guess what; I didn't know squat. He showed me the typical low level
spin entries that kill people, steep turn, too slow cross controlled. Who
knew a 150 would flip over on it's back to enter a spin (top rudder to keep
the nose up) or sneak in to a spin on the inside (bottom rudder to hurry the
turn). Relevant spin training is important.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Galen
Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: anydoy spin it?
Well, I guess I can add my two cents. Spins are a
fact of life in aviation. Fear of spins prevents
pilots from becoming proficient in executing spins
safely and refexley. At low altitudes, where most
fatal spins occur, reflex recovery is about all that
can save you if you enter an incipient spin. This has
happened to me and I have over ten thousand flying
hours with over 1000 of those hours in acro. ANYONE
can get into a spin accidently, but not every pilot
can recover from a spin safely and in a timely
fashion. The only way to learn spins is through an
experienced pilot or instructor and then practice them
until you can do them without having to think about
them. I disagree that only certificated aircraft are
safe to spin. I have spun more experimentals than I
have certified aircraft. As a general rule, and
depending on the wing airfoil, experimentals stall
break quicker and therefore are easier to spin than
certified aircraft. Each airplane can have enough
different variables, even certified aircraft, that the
spin characteristics may change some. However, almost
all aircraft can spin, and therefor those aircraft can
recover from spins (if the CG isn't too far toward the
tail to prevent it). No Pilot should ever fly an
aircraft knowing it has a significient reward CG, to
me that is a no-brainer. To do so is just asking for
trouble. In spite of the fact that no two Pietenpols
are exactly the same, that doesn't mean that they
shouldn't be spun. But they should only be spin
tested by a pilot experienced in spins. He then could
teach the more in-experienced pilot how to do spins
safely in his personal plane. A pilot who is afraid
of spins needs to do something to get proficiency. I
don't care what the FAA says about this matter, spins
should be an intergal part of all flight training.
That is my two cents, so take it for what it is worth.
Dicussion is a healthy thing, but when it comes to
flying safely, there is no substitute for experience.
Doc H.
Do No Archive
--- Mark wrote:
>
>
> Jim Ash wrote:
>
> > There are really two questions here; what are the
> plane's spin
> > characteristics, and do you know how to do it?
> >
> > As for me, I would rather know how to spin under
> planned
> > circumstances, than find out under unplanned
> circumstances. The
> > knowledge of having done spins (and recoveries)
> has saved my bacon at
> > least once (in a certificated airplane). It all
> happened so fast there
> > wasn't much time to even think about it.
> >
> > As for the plane, I personally am not getting in
> any plane if I'm not
> > comfortable I can get out of it in a manner I
> prefer.
> >
> >
> > Jim Ash
> >
> Well Jim I would respectivefully disagree. First is
> spinning under
> planned circumstances. With an experimental
> airplanes there is no such
> thing. An 1/8 of an inch somewhere may totally
> change the spin
> characteristics. A certificated airplane is built
> and tested to be both
> predictable and consistent. One J3 loaded the same
> as the next will
> have simular spins. That does not apply with a Piet
> or any other
> airplane. Each is different. The thing that would
> bother me about
> spinning a Piet is that most of them are flown so
> near the rearward CG
> point. That means it is far more likely to flatten
> out as one person
> has already pointed out.
>
> Rarely will anyone get into a spin at an altitude
> that is high enough
> for a reasonable chance of recovery in an unplanned
> situation. The
> usual place is the base to final turn and one thing
> is for sure. Anyone
> sharp enough to recover from an accidental spin,
> especially at low
> altitude, is easily sharp enough to prevent it from
> happening in the
> first place.
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Bob,
I have been there too.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
> The story goes that J2 Cub salesmen would pull of one spark plug wire and
do
> a circuit. They'd tell the customer to ask the Aeronca (C3) salesman to
do
> the same. ;-). The truth is one sticking valve on a 65 can bring you
down.
> It did on my Chief. It all started when I cleaned the plugs and didn't
> properly tighten one plug. In flight the intake valve on that cylinder
> started to carbon up and stopped closing properly. That caused a lot of
> blow back into the induction system and a loss of power. Full throttle
was
> the worse case - no restriction to the blow-back. Idle throttle stopped
the
> blow back but wasn't too helpful in keeping aloft. About mid throttle was
> where I found max power - good enough for about -200 fpm. It allowed me
to
> pick a field close to a main road for hitchhiking. Winds were about 20k
> that day so the landing was short.
>
> Bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
> Bobka
> Sent: July 14, 2005 6:40 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
>
> Dick,
>
> Just think of what a good day you would have if one jug on your A-65 stuck
a
> valve or swallowed one. Just think how far you could fly. Quite a long
> way....
>
> No just think what a better day you would have if you lost one jug on a
two
> banger....You are going down now....
>
> Chris
>
> Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 14, 2005 11:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: engines...
>
>
>
> >
> > I'm not aware of a BMW installation. I did some checking into using a
> > variety of 4 cyl motorcycle engines a few years ago. I main issue
always
> > came back to them being too light and turning too fast. Between the
> issues
> > of extending the mount way out and engineering a reduction drive, I
> settled
> > on an A-65.
> > Now however there is a company called Hog Air that has a package with a
> > Harley Davidson engine. Engine, mount and reduction drive goes for
about
> > $11k. With all accessories that should weigh in about right.
> > Dick N.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com>
> > To:
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 11:21 PM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines...
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Has anyone tried putting a BMW motorcycle boxer engine in one of
these
> > > machines?
> > >
> > > --
> > > IBA# 11465
> > > http://imagesdesavions.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
I was thinking of going commercial to the nearest major airport. Would
Chicago be the best option?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
Larry, You can always bum a sandwich off the Big Piet Builders, We are
bringing home grown tomatoes.
Barry Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>
> Sounds good but we will be "afoot".
>
> --- Dennis Engelkenjohn wrote:
>
>> Engelkenjohn"
>>
>> There is a pretty good coffee/sandwich shop in
>> downtown Brodhead, just past
>> the square.
>> Dennis in St.Louis...who will be wearing a tie dyed
>> shirt. It is too late to
>> get my motto printed on a shirt: " Sanity is highly
>> overrated!"
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Last year, my buds and me starved whilst many were
>> > feasting. Why? Because we neglected to buy our
>> meal
>> > tickets. So, this year, we don't want that to
>> happen.
>> > As I recall, the local chapter serves meals all
>> day
>> > with one big feast. Yes?
>> >
>> > I will be flying my C-195 but my heart will be
>> with
>> > N444MH, Howard Henderson's old plane which I own,
>> but
>> > have yet to fly, although I have completed the
>> > relocation of the wing 3" aft. My name is also
>> Larry
>> > and I always have "Larry" written on MY forehead,
>> so
>> > please don't mistake me for the better looking
>> Larry
>> > who may also have "Larry" written on HIS forehead.
>> >
>> > We will be there Friday afternoon. Save some food.
>> > Then it is to OSH Sunday morning.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry Nelson
>> > Springfield, MO
>> > Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
>> > Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
>> > 1963 GMC 4106-1618
>> > SV/ Spirit of America
>> > ARS WB0JOT
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> protection around
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Larry Nelson
> Springfield, MO
> Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
> Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
> 1963 GMC 4106-1618
> SV/ Spirit of America
> ARS WB0JOT
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
I know someone who's driving up to Brodhead who will gladly give up his truck keys
to anyone willing to give up an airplane ride......
Life's too short to take things like cars and such too seriously, so I don't.
Please feel free to come get the keys if you need them.
I plan on being there from late afternoon Thursday until Sunday morning.....
Actually, I'm VERY ready to go right now.....
jm
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>
> Sounds good but we will be "afoot".
>
> --- Dennis Engelkenjohn wrote:
>
>> Engelkenjohn"
>>
>> There is a pretty good coffee/sandwich shop in
>> downtown Brodhead, just past
>> the square.
>> Dennis in St.Louis...who will be wearing a tie dyed
>> shirt. It is too late to
>> get my motto printed on a shirt: " Sanity is highly
>> overrated!"
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 5:21 PM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Last year, my buds and me starved whilst many were
>> > feasting. Why? Because we neglected to buy our
>> meal
>> > tickets. So, this year, we don't want that to
>> happen.
>> > As I recall, the local chapter serves meals all
>> day
>> > with one big feast. Yes?
>> >
>> > I will be flying my C-195 but my heart will be
>> with
>> > N444MH, Howard Henderson's old plane which I own,
>> but
>> > have yet to fly, although I have completed the
>> > relocation of the wing 3" aft. My name is also
>> Larry
>> > and I always have "Larry" written on MY forehead,
>> so
>> > please don't mistake me for the better looking
>> Larry
>> > who may also have "Larry" written on HIS forehead.
>> >
>> > We will be there Friday afternoon. Save some food.
>> > Then it is to OSH Sunday morning.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry Nelson
>> > Springfield, MO
>> > Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
>> > Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
>> > 1963 GMC 4106-1618
>> > SV/ Spirit of America
>> > ARS WB0JOT
>> >
>> > __________________________________________________
>> protection around
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> browse
>> Subscriptions page,
>> FAQ,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Larry Nelson
> Springfield, MO
> Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
> Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
> 1963 GMC 4106-1618
> SV/ Spirit of America
> ARS WB0JOT
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
I prefer Milwaukee. It's a little closer and it has a small museum.
>I was thinking of going commercial to the nearest major airport.
>Would Chicago be the best option?
>
>Bob
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Assistant Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M&M Stanley" <tomiya(at)di.mbn.or.jp> |
| Subject: | Spin testing & training |
Hi Pieters,
Just reading everyone's comments regarding spinning. I have to say that I
agree with Doc & Jim Ash.
My profession is performing major repairs to damaged sailplanes and
subsequent test flying through the aircrafts normal flight envelope.
I have also worked as a full time,professional gliding instructor in
Australia and taught both basic flight and aerobatics (gliders).
I taught allot of people how to both get into and out of spins.
I whole heartedly agree that pilots should not attempt spins without first
doing formal training with a qualified instructor who is comfortable with
spin training. (I know of instructors who themselves are not comfortable
spinning).
I feel that studying and fully understanding the theory of exactly what is
happening to the aircraft prior to, during the incipient phase, during the
fully developed spin and finally how to apply the correct recovery technique
is vitally important to successful spin training.
Spins should not be feared, they are just the result of a series of actions
to which the aircraft responds. Once understood and practiced, they are both
a fun and safe maneuver..........if the aircraft is loaded ( Cof G within
it's limit's) and the pilot is fully trained to handle the maneuver.
I agree that even in certified aircraft, small variations can turn an
aircraft with normally docile spin characteristics into one that wants to
do nasty things. An example is a training sailplane which was normally
excellent for spin training had 3lb wing tip skids attached to each tip.
With the 3lb skids sitting on the end of 18meter long wings, the rotational
forces increased such that the aircraft used approximately 4000ft to recover
from a fully developed test spin. ( the C/G was well within it's limits).
The skids were removed (ie; back to the factory configuration ) and the test
was performed by the same pilot/loading conditions on the same day and the
aircraft was immediately back to it's normal 1/2 rotation to stop the spin
then recover from the resultant dive.
I feel that the spin testing of a new aircraft for the first time should be
approached very slowly and carefully. Obviously, a pilot with ample
experience in spinning, wearing a chute, and with lot's of altitude should
perform the testing.
The following would be my version of testing, anyone is welcome to disagree
and it is not meant to overide proper training etc.
First, basic straight ahead stalls should be fully explored in varying C/G
positions.(all with the limit's of course)
Secondly, if basic stall testing is successful with no nasty surprises, then
the 'Incipient phase' (ie; stall with wing drop to a max of 1/2 a rotation &
recovery) could be explored, once again with varying C/G positions. (still
the limit's of course!!)
Lastly, and only after the aircraft has proven itself safe in the last two
phases, should the full spin be allowed to develop.
I would perhaps try one turn then recover, and if successful, climb and try
one turn in the opposite direction, recover and so on.
The number of turns could be gradually increased to the number desired,
testing in both directions...............step by step.
An aircraft designer/engineer friend of mine in Australia, said that the
fully developed spin can take anything up to 17 turns (yep, 17 turns!!) to
'stabilize' into a state of equilibrium, where the relevant forces involved
are balanced.
I have no idea if this is correct or not but I have never performed a 17
turn spin to find out !
I fully agree that ANYONE can get into an unintentional spin, and when it
happens in the pattern at low altitude, especially on the final turn, you
need to get the recovery right the first time and do it with a reflexed
action..........if not, it may very well be the final turn.
If testing the spin characteristics of a new aircraft, understanding exactly
what is happening may just get you out of a bind if things don't quite go
smoothly.
In gliding in Australia, spin training is not an option prior to solo
flight, it is mandatory. However, during spin training, we emphasize the
"understanding and recognition" of the events that occur PRIOR to the actual
spin occurring. By becoming aware of the symptoms prior to the actual event,
pilots are able to correct the situation before it develops into a
potentially dangerous situation.
This was only going to be a short note stating my agreence with Doc & Jim, I
apologize for dragging it out but I love safety in flight. My ideas above
should not be used as a substitute for actual hands on experience with a
suitable qualified instructor, So, go and do the training, and enjoy your
flying even more comfortable in the knowledge that you have a good chance to
save your bacon should the little thing called a spin occur to you
sometime!!
Safe flying to all.
Regards
Mark S
Japan...........still hot & sweaty!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Chicago is good if you are coming a long way. Milwakee is also a good major airport.
Both of them are roughly 150 mi to Broadhead. Madison is only 50 mi away
but the wait for connecting flights can eat up that time. I just drove thru
Madison last week, caution on construction on 90/94, there are some big backups
at times. From Milwakee I-43 is shorter and better.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Gow
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead.
I was thinking of going commercial to the nearest major airport. Would Chicago
be the best option?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robert Gow" <rgow(at)avionicsdesign.ca> |
I'm out of Toronto - nearest at my end. Of course there is always the
Cherokee but Customs can get nasty these days since 9/11.
Bob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick Navratil
Sent: July 15, 2005 12:37 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead.
Chicago is good if you are coming a long way. Milwakee is also a good
major airport. Both of them are roughly 150 mi to Broadhead. Madison is
only 50 mi away but the wait for connecting flights can eat up that time.
I just drove thru Madison last week, caution on construction on 90/94, there
are some big backups at times. From Milwakee I-43 is shorter and better.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Gow
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead.
I was thinking of going commercial to the nearest major airport. Would
Chicago be the best option?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Chicago or Madison.
I used to go into madison (MSN) but rental cars can be a problem there due to Oshkosh.
Same with Milwaukee (MKE). ORD and MDW have tons of rental cars but
it is more of a drive with some tolls too.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Gow
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 15, 2005 9:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead.
I was thinking of going commercial to the nearest major airport. Would Chicago
be the best option?
Bob
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted |
I don't know if Janesville, Wis., still has air service -- I'd be surprised
if they didn't. American Eagle or one of the other commuter lines. Much closer
to Brodhead than O'Hare or Milwaukee.
Spins. Two years ago I signed up for an hour of flight instruction in an SNJ
with the Warbird Adventure folks in Kissimmee, FL. Was basically my Father's
Day gift for the next 10 years! They stick you in the front seat -- great
experience and I recommend it!
Anyway, my dad had flown SNJs at Pensacola in 1950 and one of his best
friends was killed in what sounds to me like the classic too slow, too steep
turn-to-final approach situation. The first thing my WA instructor and I did was
stalls, power on/power off, flaps/gear up and down and then accelerated stalls.
In a turn to the left, when the stall broke you could recover with the nose
down, of course, and the wings essentially level. To the right, it happened so
fast -- the right wing snapped underneath and the next thing I knew, I was
inverted, looking "up" at the ground...a dramatic demonstration of what inattentive
flying can do. Of course, we were at 5000 feet and recovery was no
problem...however, recovery did use up about 1500 feet. Imagine this stall/spin
at 800
or 1000 feet -- the math is quite easy -- you come up about 700 feet -- or
shall I say six feet -- short! Both my dad's friend and his instructor were killed
-- said they were both splattered on the inside of the canopy.
You may have heard that Warbird Adventures had a fatal accident this past May
-- lost a wing on one of their SNJs and killed instructor John Hedgecock and
his "student." (I had met John when I was there -- wonderful person!) Wasn't
the plane I flew, but resulting in an emergency AD for all T-6, SNJ, and
Harvard operators to inspect wing attach fittings. Anyway, brings to mind what
Assen Jordanoff wrote in one of his books, "Never, never ever, ever, never stall
close to the ground!"
Looking forward to Brodhead next weekend -- hopefully the warm weather we've
been having in Wisconsin will break by then -- mid-90s for more than a week
now. Of course, that's a cool wave for you Arizona or West Texas folks!
BTW, if anyone has good metal fittings, parts for a Piet that they want to
sell, let me know and if it fits my budget, we can make a deal next week at
Brodhead! And if anyone is looking for a good, rebuildable 1600cc Superbug VW
engine, let me know (I was once considering building a VP Volksplane, but came
back to the Piet).
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 12 Msgs - 07/15/05 |
Yup... I've done ONE spin... or my instructor did,
because I asked him to show me. Yes, a 150 WILL flip
on it's back and then enter the spin, or it sure feels
that way anyhow. VERY disorienting! (but kinda fun
too!)
Years ago when I started aerobatic training, of which
I did little, My
instructor insisted in starting with spin entries.
Being a new private
pilot I knew everything about spins. We had done them
in our training.
Well guess what; I didn't know squat. He showed me
the typical low
level
spin entries that kill people, steep turn, too slow
cross controlled.
Who
knew a 150 would flip over on it's back to enter a
spin (top rudder to
keep
the nose up) or sneak in to a spin on the inside
(bottom rudder to
hurry the
turn). Relevant spin training is important.
Bob
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Engine question of another sort. |
Gents,
I'm not looking to build a Piet, although I like the
aircraft. I'm wanting to do a WWI replica, and need
an inline engine, which is why I'm on here.
I'm interested in the Model A conversion, and have
some questions if anyone can help.
What is the reliability of this conversion like? I'm
not talking about TBO, because as a "sport" flyer it
will take several years of flying to matter. I mean
is it reliable as long as it is maintained and within
reasonable TBO limits?
Has anyone hooked one up to measure static thrust?
What prop size?
How about weight of the conversion?
Brad
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Another landing gear question |
A note on the bottom flying strut fitting plate (1934 plans drawing 3) says
"Bend Up 20 degrees Here". According to my precise calculations the flying
strut angle is actually close to 30 degrees (arctan of 45"/80.5"). Making
the upper plate bend around 120 degrees. Should I just build it to the plans
or maybe find another trig calculator?
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN |
Just got off the phone with Tiffany at Prairie Home Companion, Minnesota
Public Radio. She called to interview me about my earliest memories of Prairie
Home Companion. I heard some of the very first broadcasts in 1974. What they use
of my interview will air in two weeks on the August 6th program. She was also
interested in the fact that I'm building a Pietenpol Air Camper -- another
Minnesota original, of course. Don't know if she'll use that on the air -- I
quipped that someday we Piet builders may hold a Pietenpol fly in at Lake Wobegon.
I'm sure they have some lovely grass fields suitable for Piets to fly in and
out of... ; )
Anyway, tune in to PHC on Saturday, August 6 at 5:00 p.m. CDST.
See you all at Brodhead a week from yesterday/today!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ron Franck <franck(at)geneseo.net> |
| Subject: | Brodhead Seminars |
There was some recent discussion about what might be a good topic for a
seminar at Brodhead.
I know time is growing short ,so maybe next year, but I don't have a clue
as to how to use plasti-gage during engine assembly, specifically a corvair
engine. It would be great to see it actually used and perhaps some
discussion as to how to correct a situation where the fit-up is out of
tolerance. Any takers?
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Arrivals |
Last year I arrived by bus/motorhome. This year I am
flying in on Friday afternoon. Am I wrong in thinking
that the field is "closed" during some part of the
day, or am I confusing that concept with the "closed
runways"?????
Should be arriving before 5pm. Anyone recall the
airport "closing"????
Larry Nelson
Springfield, MO
Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
1963 GMC 4106-1618
SV/ Spirit of America
ARS WB0JOT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Turrell" <emtyit(at)3web.net> |
| Subject: | The longest fuselage |
It has been mentioned that there are plans for a 172 3/8" fuselage and being 6'1"
tall these are the plans I would like to purchase as I would benefit from the
extra leg room.The only thing is I have not read where this plan can be purchased
from.As I understand it there are 3 lengths to choose from and Don Pietenpol
has the original or short for the Ford "A" engine and one that is 6" longer
for the A65 and corvair engine.If there is indeed a longest fuselage,where
do I order this from? Thanks in advance.
This is a great site,I have been working my way through the archives and enjoying
it immensely.
Regadrs,Mike Turrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: The longest fuselage |
Mike,
the 172 3/8" long fuselage plans are available from Don pietenpol. he might refer
to it as the Corvair fuselage. If you talk to him, he will know what you
mean.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Turrell
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: The longest fuselage
It has been mentioned that there are plans for a 172 3/8" fuselage and being
6'1" tall these are the plans I would like to purchase as I would benefit from
the extra leg room.The only thing is I have not read where this plan can be purchased
from.As I understand it there are 3 lengths to choose from and Don Pietenpol
has the original or short for the Ford "A" engine and one that is 6" longer
for the A65 and corvair engine.If there is indeed a longest fuselage,where
do I order this from? Thanks in advance.
This is a great site,I have been working my way through the archives and enjoying
it immensely.
Regadrs,Mike Turrell
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Arrivals |
Larry,
They usually close the NW/SE runway and the NE/SW runway leaving the E/W
runway at the airports north side open. I have never seen the airport
closed for any reason during the flyin. The closed runways should be X'd
off with a yellow X at each end. I believe the E/W is the longest. Two
years ago, it was incredible windy and hot and it got to the point where the
E/W runway was unuseable for almost all aircraft which created problems for
arrivals. As a result, they opened the NE/SW runway. It was so windy, it
only took a few hundred feet to roll out so it did not impinge too much on
normal operations.
Cheers,
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Nelson" <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Arrivals
>
>
> Last year I arrived by bus/motorhome. This year I am
> flying in on Friday afternoon. Am I wrong in thinking
> that the field is "closed" during some part of the
> day, or am I confusing that concept with the "closed
> runways"?????
>
> Should be arriving before 5pm. Anyone recall the
> airport "closing"????
>
> Larry Nelson
> Springfield, MO
> Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
> Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
> 1963 GMC 4106-1618
> SV/ Spirit of America
> ARS WB0JOT
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine question of another sort. |
Brad, I'm building a 75% scale Curtiss Jenny of sorts
and will be powering it with a converted Model A.
Though I haven't flown behind the "A" I've heard good
things about them. Ken Perkins is building my engine
for me and he is tops. The engine has been used to
power Pietenpols since the late 1920's and is a sound
engine if converted properly. What kind of plane are
your building, if I may ask?
I'm interested in the Model A conversion, and have
> some questions if anyone can help.
>
> How about weight of the conversion?
I think mine is supposed to put out 72 hp (with the
high compression pistons and other modifications and
is supposed to weigh around 210 lbs or so.
>
>Doc H.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Javier Cruz <javcr(at)prodigy.net.mx> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
hlink.net>
Hi Friends
This year give me the chance for visit Brodhead and OSK..i have flight
reservations, just waiting for me chief sign my vacationes, maybe this time
i can see a flying Piet... if something here needs something from Mexico
City, please advice me.....
Javier Cruz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<009f01c58a8a$cd5755e0$230110ac@gateway.2wire.net>
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
Javier,
We will look for you!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Javier Cruz" <javcr(at)prodigy.net.mx>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead Sustinence
>
> Hi Friends
>
> This year give me the chance for visit Brodhead and OSK..i have flight
> reservations, just waiting for me chief sign my vacationes, maybe this
time
> i can see a flying Piet... if something here needs something from Mexico
> City, please advice me.....
> Javier Cruz
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted |
Fred,
I will be flying overhead La Crosse on the way from Minneapolis to Brodhead. Look
for me!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: TBYH(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Fred,
Look for me with a pile of drawings next weekend at Brodhead. I would like you
to see the plans for the Flitzer variants which you may really like better
than the Pietenpol. I will have them with me to show to Larry Williams.
It is the same construction style as the Pietenpol except that the design will
fit you, yet it is small, and it looks cool. Engine choices range from VW to
Corvair to Continental A-65 through O-200 and also the Rotec R2800 radial....
http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
There are a multitude of single seat variants and one two seater....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
I don't know if Janesville, Wis., still has air service -- I'd be surprised
if they didn't. American Eagle or one of the other commuter lines. Much closer
to Brodhead than O'Hare or Milwaukee.
Spins. Two years ago I signed up for an hour of flight instruction in an SNJ
with the Warbird Adventure folks in Kissimmee, FL. Was basically my Father's
Day gift for the next 10 years! They stick you in the front seat -- great experience
and I recommend it!
Anyway, my dad had flown SNJs at Pensacola in 1950 and one of his best friends
was killed in what sounds to me like the classic too slow, too steep turn-to-final
approach situation. The first thing my WA instructor and I did was stalls,
power on/power off, flaps/gear up and down and then accelerated stalls.
In a turn to the left, when the stall broke you could recover with the nose down,
of course, and the wings essentially level. To the right, it happened so
fast -- the right wing snapped underneath and the next thing I knew, I was inverted,
looking "up" at the ground...a dramatic demonstration of what inattentive
flying can do. Of course, we were at 5000 feet and recovery was no problem...however,
recovery did use up about 1500 feet. Imagine this stall/spin at 800
or 1000 feet -- the math is quite easy -- you come up about 700 feet -- or shall
I say six feet -- short! Both my dad's friend and his instructor were killed
-- said they were both splattered on the inside of the canopy.
You may have heard that Warbird Adventures had a fatal accident this past May
-- lost a wing on one of their SNJs and killed instructor John Hedgecock and
his "student." (I had met John when I was there -- wonderful person!) Wasn't
the plane I flew, but resulting in an emergency AD for all T-6, SNJ, and Harvard
operators to inspect wing attach fittings. Anyway, brings to mind what Assen
Jordanoff wrote in one of his books, "Never, never ever, ever, never stall
close to the ground!"
Looking forward to Brodhead next weekend -- hopefully the warm weather we've
been having in Wisconsin will break by then -- mid-90s for more than a week
now. Of course, that's a cool wave for you Arizona or West Texas folks!
BTW, if anyone has good metal fittings, parts for a Piet that they want to
sell, let me know and if it fits my budget, we can make a deal next week at Brodhead!
And if anyone is looking for a good, rebuildable 1600cc Superbug VW engine,
let me know (I was once considering building a VP Volksplane, but came
back to the Piet).
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
<10271326.1121440901603.JavaMail.root@wamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.eart
hlink.net> <009f01c58a8a$cd5755e0$230110ac@gateway.2wire.net>
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead Sustinence |
Excllent! Have fun!
>
>Hi Friends
>
>This year give me the chance for visit Brodhead and OSK..i have flight
>reservations, just waiting for me chief sign my vacationes, maybe this time
>i can see a flying Piet... if something here needs something from Mexico
>City, please advice me.....
>Javier Cruz
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN |
What hoot! Well, I've marked my calendar! This is neat.....
Having Powdermilk Buscuits....heavens their tasty....... sponsor my Air Camper
(the way companies sponsored airplanes in the 20'-30's) would be a dream come
true!!! :-)
JM
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
Just got off the phone with Tiffany at Prairie Home Companion, Minnesota Public
Radio. She called to interview me about my earliest memories of Prairie Home
Companion. I heard some of the very first broadcasts in 1974. What they use
of my interview will air in two weeks on the August 6th program. She was also
interested in the fact that I'm building a Pietenpol Air Camper -- another Minnesota
original, of course. Don't know if she'll use that on the air -- I quipped
that someday we Piet builders may hold a Pietenpol fly in at Lake Wobegon.
I'm sure they have some lovely grass fields suitable for Piets to fly in and
out of... ; )
Anyway, tune in to PHC on Saturday, August 6 at 5:00 p.m. CDST.
See you all at Brodhead a week from yesterday/today!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted |
Chris
Are you leaving Fri morning? If so, where are you stopping for fuel? Maybe we
can meet up along the way.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: Pietenpol
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Fred,
I will be flying overhead La Crosse on the way from Minneapolis to Brodhead.
Look for me!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: TBYH(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Fred,
Look for me with a pile of drawings next weekend at Brodhead. I would like
you to see the plans for the Flitzer variants which you may really like better
than the Pietenpol. I will have them with me to show to Larry Williams.
It is the same construction style as the Pietenpol except that the design will
fit you, yet it is small, and it looks cool. Engine choices range from VW
to Corvair to Continental A-65 through O-200 and also the Rotec R2800 radial....
http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
There are a multitude of single seat variants and one two seater....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
I don't know if Janesville, Wis., still has air service -- I'd be surprised
if they didn't. American Eagle or one of the other commuter lines. Much closer
to Brodhead than O'Hare or Milwaukee.
Spins. Two years ago I signed up for an hour of flight instruction in an
SNJ with the Warbird Adventure folks in Kissimmee, FL. Was basically my Father's
Day gift for the next 10 years! They stick you in the front seat -- great experience
and I recommend it!
Anyway, my dad had flown SNJs at Pensacola in 1950 and one of his best friends
was killed in what sounds to me like the classic too slow, too steep turn-to-final
approach situation. The first thing my WA instructor and I did was
stalls, power on/power off, flaps/gear up and down and then accelerated stalls.
In a turn to the left, when the stall broke you could recover with the nose
down, of course, and the wings essentially level. To the right, it happened so
fast -- the right wing snapped underneath and the next thing I knew, I was inverted,
looking "up" at the ground...a dramatic demonstration of what inattentive
flying can do. Of course, we were at 5000 feet and recovery was no problem...however,
recovery did use up about 1500 feet. Imagine this stall/spin at 800
or 1000 feet -- the math is quite easy -- you come up about 700 feet -- or
shall I say six feet -- short! Both my dad's friend and his instructor were killed
-- said they were both splattered on the inside of the canopy.
You may have heard that Warbird Adventures had a fatal accident this past
May -- lost a wing on one of their SNJs and killed instructor John Hedgecock
and his "student." (I had met John when I was there -- wonderful person!) Wasn't
the plane I flew, but resulting in an emergency AD for all T-6, SNJ, and Harvard
operators to inspect wing attach fittings. Anyway, brings to mind what
Assen Jordanoff wrote in one of his books, "Never, never ever, ever, never stall
close to the ground!"
Looking forward to Brodhead next weekend -- hopefully the warm weather we've
been having in Wisconsin will break by then -- mid-90s for more than a week
now. Of course, that's a cool wave for you Arizona or West Texas folks!
BTW, if anyone has good metal fittings, parts for a Piet that they want to
sell, let me know and if it fits my budget, we can make a deal next week at
Brodhead! And if anyone is looking for a good, rebuildable 1600cc Superbug VW
engine, let me know (I was once considering building a VP Volksplane, but came
back to the Piet).
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN |
Garrison K, Prairie Home and PBS are the only entertaining counterbalance we get
here in AK, considering our daily dose of 3 hrs of Rush's "news" talk commerical
radio. If there's to be a fly-in at Lake Wobegon, count me in even if I
have to commerical fly down to FL and get ole quasi-Piete N-1033B. I'll be listening
on 6 August, just like every saturday. "We'll keep the light on for you",
Tom Bodette got his start in radio here in Homer as a volunteer for our local
PBS.
Gordon Bowen Homer AK
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
What hoot! Well, I've marked my calendar! This is neat.....
Having Powdermilk Buscuits....heavens their tasty....... sponsor my Air Camper
(the way companies sponsored airplanes in the 20'-30's) would be a dream come
true!!! :-)
JM
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
Just got off the phone with Tiffany at Prairie Home Companion, Minnesota Public
Radio. She called to interview me about my earliest memories of Prairie Home
Companion. I heard some of the very first broadcasts in 1974. What they use
of my interview will air in two weeks on the August 6th program. She was also
interested in the fact that I'm building a Pietenpol Air Camper -- another Minnesota
original, of course. Don't know if she'll use that on the air -- I quipped
that someday we Piet builders may hold a Pietenpol fly in at Lake Wobegon.
I'm sure they have some lovely grass fields suitable for Piets to fly in and
out of... ; )
Anyway, tune in to PHC on Saturday, August 6 at 5:00 p.m. CDST.
See you all at Brodhead a week from yesterday/today!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted |
Dick,
I am planning to go on thursday and looking for friday to be a reserve day in case
thursday's weather is bad.
With Oshkosh starting on Monday, I think Brodhead might empty out pretty early
on Saturday as everyone jockeys for position.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Chris
Are you leaving Fri morning? If so, where are you stopping for fuel? Maybe
we can meet up along the way.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: Pietenpol
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Fred,
I will be flying overhead La Crosse on the way from Minneapolis to Brodhead.
Look for me!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: TBYH(at)aol.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
Fred,
Look for me with a pile of drawings next weekend at Brodhead. I would like
you to see the plans for the Flitzer variants which you may really like better
than the Pietenpol. I will have them with me to show to Larry Williams.
It is the same construction style as the Pietenpol except that the design
will fit you, yet it is small, and it looks cool. Engine choices range from
VW to Corvair to Continental A-65 through O-200 and also the Rotec R2800 radial....
http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer/
There are a multitude of single seat variants and one two seater....
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead, Spins, Piet Parts wanted
I don't know if Janesville, Wis., still has air service -- I'd be surprised
if they didn't. American Eagle or one of the other commuter lines. Much closer
to Brodhead than O'Hare or Milwaukee.
Spins. Two years ago I signed up for an hour of flight instruction in an
SNJ with the Warbird Adventure folks in Kissimmee, FL. Was basically my Father's
Day gift for the next 10 years! They stick you in the front seat -- great
experience and I recommend it!
Anyway, my dad had flown SNJs at Pensacola in 1950 and one of his best
friends was killed in what sounds to me like the classic too slow, too steep
turn-to-final approach situation. The first thing my WA instructor and I did was
stalls, power on/power off, flaps/gear up and down and then accelerated stalls.
In a turn to the left, when the stall broke you could recover with the nose
down, of course, and the wings essentially level. To the right, it happened
so fast -- the right wing snapped underneath and the next thing I knew, I was
inverted, looking "up" at the ground...a dramatic demonstration of what inattentive
flying can do. Of course, we were at 5000 feet and recovery was no problem...however,
recovery did use up about 1500 feet. Imagine this stall/spin at
800 or 1000 feet -- the math is quite easy -- you come up about 700 feet -- or
shall I say six feet -- short! Both my dad's friend and his instructor were
killed -- said they were both splattered on the inside of the canopy.
You may have heard that Warbird Adventures had a fatal accident this past
May -- lost a wing on one of their SNJs and killed instructor John Hedgecock
and his "student." (I had met John when I was there -- wonderful person!) Wasn't
the plane I flew, but resulting in an emergency AD for all T-6, SNJ, and
Harvard operators to inspect wing attach fittings. Anyway, brings to mind what
Assen Jordanoff wrote in one of his books, "Never, never ever, ever, never stall
close to the ground!"
Looking forward to Brodhead next weekend -- hopefully the warm weather
we've been having in Wisconsin will break by then -- mid-90s for more than a week
now. Of course, that's a cool wave for you Arizona or West Texas folks!
BTW, if anyone has good metal fittings, parts for a Piet that they want
to sell, let me know and if it fits my budget, we can make a deal next week at
Brodhead! And if anyone is looking for a good, rebuildable 1600cc Superbug
VW engine, let me know (I was once considering building a VP Volksplane, but came
back to the Piet).
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Engine questions continued... |
>Brad, I'm building a 75% scale Curtiss Jenny of
sorts
>and will be powering it with a converted Model A.
>Though I haven't flown behind the "A" I've heard good
>things about them. Ken Perkins is building my engine
>for me and he is tops. The engine has been used to
>power Pietenpols since the late 1920's and is a sound
>engine if converted properly. What kind of plane are
>your building, if I may ask?
Well, IF I can get this whole engine thing sorted out,
a 75% scale (may tweak that size figure slightly
depending on factors like engine size, weight and HP)
Albatros DIII.
Funny as it sounds, I just can't find a modern engine
as well suited, at least in a direct-drive
application. Should come in around 500# empty and
800-850# gross, so I think we're ok with the model A.
>I think mine is supposed to put out 72 hp (with the
>high compression pistons and other modifications and
>is supposed to weigh around 210 lbs or so.
>
>Doc H.
Interesting... that is even lighter than I thought.
Are you using an aluminum head? What other sorts of
mods? Are you running insert bearings? What RPM is
that HP figure for? Have you figured out the proper
prop size yet?
Sorry, I'm full of questions on this one... I joined
the Pietenpol list to learn more about the A
conversions actually!
Brad
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine questions continued... |
--- Brad Smith wrote:
>
>
>
> Albatros DIII.
Sounds like a fun plane to build. I have a friend who
is building a Nieuport replica.
>
> Funny as it sounds, I just can't find a modern
> engine
> as well suited, at least in a direct-drive
> application. Should come in around 500# empty and
> 800-850# gross, so I think we're ok with the model
> A.
The Model A should handle that size nicely.
>
> Interesting... that is even lighter than I thought.
> Are you using an aluminum head? What other sorts of
> mods? Are you running insert bearings? What RPM is
> that HP figure for? Have you figured out the proper
> prop size yet?
It does have the aluminum heads and higher compression
pistons. It has a Model B grind on the cam, inserts
on the bearings and copper babbiting. Ken builds a
larger water pump I think. It runs a Slick mag too.
Of course it has the internal pressure oiling and the
usual mods for flight. The prop flying on Ken's Piet,
which has the same engine he's building for me, has a
Falin 77 1/4 inch by I think 44 or 47 pitch. It turns
1800 rpms static and 2250 rpms in climb. These are
Ken's stats. I'm not sure I can use that prop since I
have a totally different airplane, but that will be a
starting point.
Hope this as been of some help and I will be happy to
answer any questions you have if I can. Are you
building from plans or is it your own design? I am
doing my on engineering so it is taking me a little
longer.
Doc H.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN |
Ah Gordon...
Homer, where you can't see the West end of the runway from the East
end! I used to fly a c150, c152 and Cherokee 180 down there from
Merrill on the weekends with my wife. It's where she learned to
hitchhike (nobody would ever stop for me - too ugly). What a wonderful,
wonderful place...
John
John Ford
john(at)indstate.edu
812-237-8542
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
>>> gbowen(at)ptialaska.net Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:04:09 PM >>>
Garrison K, Prairie Home and PBS are the only entertaining
counterbalance we get here in AK, considering our daily dose of 3 hrs of
Rush's "news" talk commerical radio. If there's to be a fly-in at Lake
Wobegon, count me in even if I have to commerical fly down to FL and get
ole quasi-Piete N-1033B. I'll be listening on 6 August, just like every
saturday. "We'll keep the light on for you", Tom Bodette got his start
in radio here in Homer as a volunteer for our local PBS.
Gordon Bowen Homer AK
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:33 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
What hoot! Well, I've marked my calendar! This is neat.....
Having Powdermilk Buscuits....heavens their tasty....... sponsor my
Air Camper (the way companies sponsored airplanes in the 20'-30's) would
be a dream come true!!! :-)
JM
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
Just got off the phone with Tiffany at Prairie Home Companion,
Minnesota Public Radio. She called to interview me about my earliest
memories of Prairie Home Companion. I heard some of the very first
broadcasts in 1974. What they use of my interview will air in two weeks
on the August 6th program. She was also interested in the fact that I'm
building a Pietenpol Air Camper -- another Minnesota original, of
course. Don't know if she'll use that on the air -- I quipped that
someday we Piet builders may hold a Pietenpol fly in at Lake Wobegon.
I'm sure they have some lovely grass fields suitable for Piets to fly in
and out of... ; )
Anyway, tune in to PHC on Saturday, August 6 at 5:00 p.m. CDST.
See you all at Brodhead a week from yesterday/today!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 07/17/05 |
>The typical model A prop seems to be a 76 x 42 or a
>44. I have the former on my A. They tend to spin
>this prop from 1700 to 1850 static, depending on
>the engine. Mine has a weber carb and some other
>things done and spins at 1900 to 1950 static (on a
>cool day).
That is good info. It helps me know more about how
much thrust they are making. Sounds like they move
some air...
>I really researched the A before I went that
>direction, by interviewing as many people who
>have actually flown behind them and thus had real
>experience. I can email you my interviews if you
>like. Most people were happy, the ones that
>experienced problems were ALWAYS accessories,
>except for someone who used an improperly repaired
>crank, and a prop that flew off which upon
>inspection had been flying on two bolts for some
>time. Fuel seems to be the most common problem,
> and icing.
Accessories is not an issue for me... I'm thinking a
mag (maybe 2, since there is an aluminum 2-plug head
available!) and that's it. I might add a water pump
since they don't use one normally... but maybe not. I
would like to have a starter, but don't want an
electrical system... so I might try to copy the
chainsaw starters from the "Dawn Patrol" guys and
adapt it to Model A use- but then again maybe not.
I WOULD like to see those interviews if you don't
mind.
>It's a good engine, produces 35 to 40 hp stock, and
>up to 65 from guys like Perkins or Ron Kelly.
Hmmm... that would probably work! 65 is better than
40, but even 40 might do the trick with that big stick
on the front.
>I myself just finished a chevy inline six conversion
>with a planetary redrive to reproduce the performance
>of the 185 Mercedes DIII of 1918.
>It'll spin the original 9 foot prop at the correct
>1600 rpm. Can send photos of that too. I'm thinking
>of an Albatross DII for this one, as soon as my Piet
>is done (hopefully this year, in time for Brodhead
06)
Thanks Douwe, the info is very helpful. I'd be
interested in seeing the Chevy too. Interestingly,
one of the guys on the Baslee builders' list and on
the Nieuport lists is doing a Ford 6 conversion with a
planetary drive. He's putting it in a 7/8 Fokker
DVII.
Brad
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | playing with the mixture control |
FAMILY>
Chuck G.....did you get to do any experiments with your mixture control on
your Stromberg ?
I did ground tests Sunday with full power, full rich, then slowly leaned
out the mixture and got
an initial rise from 2150 rpm static but on subsequent leanings that didn't
occur. I was surprised
to see how far I had to move the mixture arm though to get the rpm's to
drop off. Wired it back
to 'almost full rich'. Only reason I'm tinkering is that even after
setting the float level I'm producing
dusty black chalk in the exhaust pipes.....and on all 8 plugs.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Maybe somebody has already posted this, but in case not- there is an
excellent write-up on testing and modifying the A engine, at this link:
http://users.aol.com/gmaclaren/dyno.html
I pass this along in part due to the recent posts in connection with the A
engine, but also somewhat in response to John Dilatush's recent analysis of
service ceiling for the Piet. In that quick analysis, John used an
assumption for horsepower required to keep the Piet aloft and I raised an
eyebrow at the value he stated (was it 45 HP?), knowing that the Fords that
were used in the first Piets didn't have a prayer of putting out that kind
of HP because of this statement from the link given above:
"This carefully rebuilt, completely stock Ford Model "A" engine produced
only 35.6 HP @ 2250 RPM!". My other eyebrow raised because I thought there
was a definition of "service ceiling" that said it was the altitude above
which an aircraft could not maintain some nominal rate of climb (was it 50
FPM? 100?)... not zero rate of climb as you would think.
Not to impugn John... but simply to encourage more fireside chat here,
regarding performance with different engines.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Service Ceiling is defined as the point where a plane cannot maintain a
rate of climb of at least 100 fpm. For my somewhat heavy Continental 65
powered Piet my calculations indicate that would be somewhere around
7500 feet on a "standard day (62 F at sea level, with pressure 29.92").
I think we could stretch the definition somewhat for Pietenpols since
the best rate of climb I've seen out of mine on a cold day was about 400
fpm and in the summer I'm lucky to get 250 fpm. Stopping the climb at
100 fpm would be like saying an RV-4 was at its service ceiling when it
couldn't do better than 500 fpm (25% of its sea level ROC)
Jack Phillips
Praying for good weather to get over the mountains to Brodhead on Friday
Maybe somebody has already posted this, but in case not- there is an
excellent write-up on testing and modifying the A engine, at this link:
http://users.aol.com/gmaclaren/dyno.html
I pass this along in part due to the recent posts in connection with the
A
engine, but also somewhat in response to John Dilatush's recent analysis
of
service ceiling for the Piet. In that quick analysis, John used an
assumption for horsepower required to keep the Piet aloft and I raised
an
eyebrow at the value he stated (was it 45 HP?), knowing that the Fords
that
were used in the first Piets didn't have a prayer of putting out that
kind
of HP because of this statement from the link given above:
"This carefully rebuilt, completely stock Ford Model "A" engine produced
only 35.6 HP @ 2250 RPM!". My other eyebrow raised because I thought
there
was a definition of "service ceiling" that said it was the altitude
above
which an aircraft could not maintain some nominal rate of climb (was it
50
FPM? 100?)... not zero rate of climb as you would think.
Not to impugn John... but simply to encourage more fireside chat here,
regarding performance with different engines.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN |
John,
It's still a long hike from the airport or Beluga Lake float plane base to
the end of the spit. You never needed to see the other end of the runway as
long as you keep the nose lined up on the volcano aross Cook Inlet 80 miles
away. We're not hitchhiking (summer kids cuttin' fish at the salmon
processing plant still are) as much now the road has a paved hiking trail
that you can rollerblade or bike from your plane to the harbor. This
concession to modernization helped cut down on the number of
aviators/fishermen being run over by 40' touristy motorhomes, driven by guys
in there 80's.. Still a wonderful place that god spends his summers and the
devil spends the winter.
We'll keep the light on for you--------Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Ford" <Jford(at)indstate.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
>
> Ah Gordon...
>
> Homer, where you can't see the West end of the runway from the East
> end! I used to fly a c150, c152 and Cherokee 180 down there from
> Merrill on the weekends with my wife. It's where she learned to
> hitchhike (nobody would ever stop for me - too ugly). What a wonderful,
> wonderful place...
>
> John
>
> John Ford
> john(at)indstate.edu
> 812-237-8542
> "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler."
> -- Albert Einstein
>
> >>> gbowen(at)ptialaska.net Sunday, July 17, 2005 1:04:09 PM >>>
> Garrison K, Prairie Home and PBS are the only entertaining
> counterbalance we get here in AK, considering our daily dose of 3 hrs of
> Rush's "news" talk commerical radio. If there's to be a fly-in at Lake
> Wobegon, count me in even if I have to commerical fly down to FL and get
> ole quasi-Piete N-1033B. I'll be listening on 6 August, just like every
> saturday. "We'll keep the light on for you", Tom Bodette got his start
> in radio here in Homer as a volunteer for our local PBS.
> Gordon Bowen Homer AK
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Markle
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2005 6:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
>
>
> What hoot! Well, I've marked my calendar! This is neat.....
>
> Having Powdermilk Buscuits....heavens their tasty....... sponsor my
> Air Camper (the way companies sponsored airplanes in the 20'-30's) would
> be a dream come true!!! :-)
>
> JM
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TBYH(at)aol.com
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2005 2:36 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
>
>
> Just got off the phone with Tiffany at Prairie Home Companion,
> Minnesota Public Radio. She called to interview me about my earliest
> memories of Prairie Home Companion. I heard some of the very first
> broadcasts in 1974. What they use of my interview will air in two weeks
> on the August 6th program. She was also interested in the fact that I'm
> building a Pietenpol Air Camper -- another Minnesota original, of
> course. Don't know if she'll use that on the air -- I quipped that
> someday we Piet builders may hold a Pietenpol fly in at Lake Wobegon.
> I'm sure they have some lovely grass fields suitable for Piets to fly in
> and out of... ; )
>
> Anyway, tune in to PHC on Saturday, August 6 at 5:00 p.m. CDST.
>
> See you all at Brodhead a week from yesterday/today!
>
> Fred B.
> La Crosse, WI
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 17 Msgs - 07/16/05 |
Douwe,
I, too would appreciate the email with comments on the 'A'. I was only
seeing 1600 static and.. the first couple of flights were ...well, let's say
interesting ! I have since installed a 5.5-1 cast iron head and am seeing 1750
static, but due to weather and other diversions have not had a chance to see what
it will do with my 76/42 prop unloaded. The other 'A' powered owners comments
should be helpful Thanks
Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BernadetteTS <docfont(at)voyager.net> |
| Subject: | Wobegon to Possum Lodge first international air race |
>From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Fly In at Lake Wobegon, MN
>
>What hoot! Well, I've marked my calendar! This is neat.....
>
>Having Powdermilk Buscuits....heavens their tasty....... sponsor my Air Camper
>(the way companies sponsored airplanes in the 20'-30's) would be a dream come
>true!!! :-)
>JM
>
If there is a Prarie Home Companion sponsered Aircamper, perhaps we
can get Red Green to sponser a Canadian entry and have an
international air race.
DocFont
The Possum Lodge, Canadian pilot's oath; I'm a pilot, I can fly, if
I have to, I guess.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford "A" engine |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Ford "A" engine
================================
Jack and Oscar,
I estimate that the power to keep a Piet aloft at 10,000 feet should be
about 45 hp. Power required to maintain flight increases somewhat with
altitude, but have no formula for this, if there is one. So I have guessed
at the 45 hp number. And of course the weight of the plane is a major
factor and I again assumed that Chuck would be at about 900 lbs solo. The
main point to realize is that you lose about 3% of your SL hp for each 1,000
feet of altitude. So at 10,000 feet Chuck loses almost 20 hp leaving only
about 45 hp!
In estimating the ceiling for Chuck's 65 hp Piet, I assumed this would be
the absolute, staggering, button biting, "Oh my God!" max altitude possible,
not the officially defined service ceiling which is 100 fpm rate of climb
still available for the plane. I just assumed standard temp and pressure.
It will be interesting to hear from him when he has tried it, supposedly
this last weekend.
John
=====================================
>
>
> Service Ceiling is defined as the point where a plane cannot maintain a
> rate of climb of at least 100 fpm. For my somewhat heavy Continental 65
> powered Piet my calculations indicate that would be somewhere around
> 7500 feet on a "standard day (62 F at sea level, with pressure 29.92").
> I think we could stretch the definition somewhat for Pietenpols since
> the best rate of climb I've seen out of mine on a cold day was about 400
> fpm and in the summer I'm lucky to get 250 fpm. Stopping the climb at
> 100 fpm would be like saying an RV-4 was at its service ceiling when it
> couldn't do better than 500 fpm (25% of its sea level ROC)
>
> Jack Phillips
> Praying for good weather to get over the mountains to Brodhead on Friday
>
>
>
>
> Maybe somebody has already posted this, but in case not- there is an
> excellent write-up on testing and modifying the A engine, at this link:
> http://users.aol.com/gmaclaren/dyno.html
>
> I pass this along in part due to the recent posts in connection with the
> A
> engine, but also somewhat in response to John Dilatush's recent analysis
> of
> service ceiling for the Piet. In that quick analysis, John used an
> assumption for horsepower required to keep the Piet aloft and I raised
> an
> eyebrow at the value he stated (was it 45 HP?), knowing that the Fords
> that
> were used in the first Piets didn't have a prayer of putting out that
> kind
> of HP because of this statement from the link given above:
> "This carefully rebuilt, completely stock Ford Model "A" engine produced
>
> only 35.6 HP @ 2250 RPM!". My other eyebrow raised because I thought
> there
> was a definition of "service ceiling" that said it was the altitude
> above
> which an aircraft could not maintain some nominal rate of climb (was it
> 50
> FPM? 100?)... not zero rate of climb as you would think.
>
> Not to impugn John... but simply to encourage more fireside chat here,
> regarding performance with different engines.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Ford "A" engine |
Why is it that when you get up around 5 to 6 thousand feet, that you
suddenly realize that you are pretty high and that you could get hurt if you
fall?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Dilatush" <dilatush(at)amigo.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Ford "A" engine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:48 AM
> Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Ford "A" engine
> ================================
> Jack and Oscar,
>
> I estimate that the power to keep a Piet aloft at 10,000 feet should be
> about 45 hp. Power required to maintain flight increases somewhat with
> altitude, but have no formula for this, if there is one. So I have
guessed
> at the 45 hp number. And of course the weight of the plane is a major
> factor and I again assumed that Chuck would be at about 900 lbs solo. The
> main point to realize is that you lose about 3% of your SL hp for each
1,000
> feet of altitude. So at 10,000 feet Chuck loses almost 20 hp leaving only
> about 45 hp!
>
> In estimating the ceiling for Chuck's 65 hp Piet, I assumed this would be
> the absolute, staggering, button biting, "Oh my God!" max altitude
possible,
> not the officially defined service ceiling which is 100 fpm rate of climb
> still available for the plane. I just assumed standard temp and pressure.
> It will be interesting to hear from him when he has tried it, supposedly
> this last weekend.
>
> John
> =====================================
>
> >
> >
> > Service Ceiling is defined as the point where a plane cannot maintain a
> > rate of climb of at least 100 fpm. For my somewhat heavy Continental 65
> > powered Piet my calculations indicate that would be somewhere around
> > 7500 feet on a "standard day (62 F at sea level, with pressure 29.92").
> > I think we could stretch the definition somewhat for Pietenpols since
> > the best rate of climb I've seen out of mine on a cold day was about 400
> > fpm and in the summer I'm lucky to get 250 fpm. Stopping the climb at
> > 100 fpm would be like saying an RV-4 was at its service ceiling when it
> > couldn't do better than 500 fpm (25% of its sea level ROC)
> >
> > Jack Phillips
> > Praying for good weather to get over the mountains to Brodhead on Friday
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Maybe somebody has already posted this, but in case not- there is an
> > excellent write-up on testing and modifying the A engine, at this link:
> > http://users.aol.com/gmaclaren/dyno.html
> >
> > I pass this along in part due to the recent posts in connection with the
> > A
> > engine, but also somewhat in response to John Dilatush's recent analysis
> > of
> > service ceiling for the Piet. In that quick analysis, John used an
> > assumption for horsepower required to keep the Piet aloft and I raised
> > an
> > eyebrow at the value he stated (was it 45 HP?), knowing that the Fords
> > that
> > were used in the first Piets didn't have a prayer of putting out that
> > kind
> > of HP because of this statement from the link given above:
> > "This carefully rebuilt, completely stock Ford Model "A" engine produced
> >
> > only 35.6 HP @ 2250 RPM!". My other eyebrow raised because I thought
> > there
> > was a definition of "service ceiling" that said it was the altitude
> > above
> > which an aircraft could not maintain some nominal rate of climb (was it
> > 50
> > FPM? 100?)... not zero rate of climb as you would think.
> >
> > Not to impugn John... but simply to encourage more fireside chat here,
> > regarding performance with different engines.
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: playing with the mixture control & Flight Plan |
In a message dated 7/18/2005 2:30:26 PM Central Standard Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
Chuck G.....did you get to do any experiments with your mixture control on
your Stromberg ?
I still haven't got to flight test my mixture control. It usually takes
me at least twice as long as I anticipate it should take. I built a bracket,
and arm...twice. Also, In preparation of my trek to Brodhead, I installed the
CHT / EGT, painted the exhaust, improved the carb heat muff, re-secured a lot
of cables & wires under the cowl - using the double Adel Clamp method,
re-secured wiring in the instrument panel, installed a few more cockpit amenities,
changed the front windshield, building hard points for the Pig Bombs, plus
quite a bit of routine maintenance. I'm off work tomorrow, so I can finish up
the
loose ends, but everything is pretty much buttoned up. Well...I'll just do
this, or do that before I take 'er back up. It just goes on and on !!
I'm going to 'Stretch 'er Legs' at some higher altitudes, on this cross
country, as opposed to how I did a lot of the trip the past two
summers...airport hopping about every hour or two. I'll keep a close eye on fuel
burn, if
I'm not shivering too much up there !! I'm planning on Wednesday morning
departure, with the first fuel stop at Amelia Earhart field in Atchenson KS - about
175 mile leg. Then to either Kirksville Regional, or Northwest Regional (near
Maryville Missouri. On to Centerville Iowa to find out about Antique Field,
near Ottumwa Iowa. I hope to pitch the tent at Antique Field, Wednesday
night. Probably one fuel stop at Maquoeta Iowa, and on in to Brodhead on Thursday.
I'll be using the 'Corky Sponsored Flight Following' again this year !!
Thanks Corky !!
Mike,
Do you get to Brodhead with one fuel stop ?
Jack,
What is your flight plan ?
Anyone else with a flight plan ?
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Cooper <blugoos1(at)direcway.com> |
| Subject: | Eyebrow Patterns |
Thanks to Corky and Dick Gillespie I now have the eyebrow patterns for the Continental
65 (&85). Appreciate your help. Jim Cooper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
For those that want to know, Greg and Dale's Piet with the wire wheels and the
tail skid sits at a 12.5 degree deck angle (smartlevel on rear cockpit top longeron)
when fully loaded on three points.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Yep - for a Pietenpol, the service ceiling should be defined as the
point where Vx, Vy and Vso all intersect - flying right on the verge of
a stall. Just like an A310 at FL 360
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Ford "A" engine
================================
Jack and Oscar,
I estimate that the power to keep a Piet aloft at 10,000 feet should be
about 45 hp. Power required to maintain flight increases somewhat with
altitude, but have no formula for this, if there is one. So I have
guessed
at the 45 hp number. And of course the weight of the plane is a major
factor and I again assumed that Chuck would be at about 900 lbs solo.
The
main point to realize is that you lose about 3% of your SL hp for each
1,000
feet of altitude. So at 10,000 feet Chuck loses almost 20 hp leaving
only
about 45 hp!
In estimating the ceiling for Chuck's 65 hp Piet, I assumed this would
be
the absolute, staggering, button biting, "Oh my God!" max altitude
possible,
not the officially defined service ceiling which is 100 fpm rate of
climb
still available for the plane. I just assumed standard temp and
pressure.
It will be interesting to hear from him when he has tried it, supposedly
this last weekend.
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | playing with the mixture control & Flight Plan |
| From: | "Textor, Jack" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Chuck,
You can check out Antique Airfield and the AAA/APM at http://www.aaa-apm.org/. It's a neat area but can be tricky to land. I can fax you a layout of the field if you would like. The fly-in there is member only, so you might call ahead to see if you can camp for the night (641-938-2773). If you need a "member sponsor" feel free to use me. I hope to depart (via Suburban) Friday. Would like to arrive early afternoon. After OSH I plan to drive through Madison to pick up some wood at McCormick. Have a safe flight!
Jack Textor
Des Moines
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: playing with the mixture control & Flight Plan
In a message dated 7/18/2005 2:30:26 PM Central Standard Time, Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov
writes:
Chuck G.....did you get to do any experiments with your mixture control
on
your Stromberg ?
I still haven't got to flight test my mixture control. It usually takes me
at least twice as long as I anticipate it should take. I built a bracket, and
arm...twice. Also, In preparation of my trek to Brodhead, I installed the CHT
/ EGT, painted the exhaust, improved the carb heat muff, re-secured a lot of
cables & wires under the cowl - using the double Adel Clamp method, re-secured
wiring in the instrument panel, installed a few more cockpit amenities, changed
the front windshield, building hard points for the Pig Bombs, plus quite
a bit of routine maintenance. I'm off work tomorrow, so I can finish up the loose
ends, but everything is pretty much buttoned up. Well...I'll just do this,
or do that before I take 'er back up. It just goes on and on !!
I'm going to 'Stretch 'er Legs' at some higher altitudes, on this cross country,
as opposed to how I did a lot of the trip the past two summers...airport
hopping about every hour or two. I'll keep a close eye on fuel burn, if I'm
not shivering too much up there !! I'm planning on Wednesday morning departure,
with the first fuel stop at Amelia Earhart field in Atchenson KS - about 175
mile leg. Then to either Kirksville Regional, or Northwest Regional (near Maryville
Missouri. On to Centerville Iowa to find out about Antique Field, near
Ottumwa Iowa. I hope to pitch the tent at Antique Field, Wednesday night.
Probably one fuel stop at Maquoeta Iowa, and on in to Brodhead on Thursday.
I'll be using the 'Corky Sponsored Flight Following' again this year !! Thanks
Corky !!
Mike,
Do you get to Brodhead with one fuel stop ?
Jack,
What is your flight plan ?
Anyone else with a flight plan ?
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Brodhead FLight Plan |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Hi Chuck,
I'm planning on leaving Thursday morning, heading from Raleigh to
Cleveland, Ohio, to meet up with Mike Cuy. I'm planning on stops at
Blacksburg, VA; Summerwinds, WV; and New Philadelphia, OH on the way to
Mike's home field at Columbia Station. Should be around 7 hours of
flying
Friday morning Mike and I will depart Columbia Station heading to
Brodhead, with stops at Bryan, OH; Valparaiso, IN; and Poplar Grove, IL.
Again, about 7 hours flying time, depending on wind. We should get
there sometime around 4 or 5 Friday afternoon.
I'll head to OSH Sunday morning and stay there until Wednesday, when
I'll depart for Jackson, Tennessee with stops at Poplar Grove, IL;
Pontiac, IL; Shelbyville, IL; and Metropolis, IL (Illinois is an awfully
long state). This will be a long day with 9 or 10 hours of flying.
I'll spend a day or two in Jackson visiting family, then fly another
long day all the way back to Raleigh, with stops in Pulaski, TN; Rome,
GA; Pickens, SC; and Lincolnton, NC. Again 9 or 10 hours, depending on
winds.
Altogether 2,145 miles. Hope the weather will be good.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----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: playing with the mixture control & Flight
Plan
I'm planning on Wednesday morning departure, with the first fuel stop at
Amelia Earhart field in Atchenson KS - about 175 mile leg. Then to
either Kirksville Regional, or Northwest Regional (near Maryville
Missouri. On to Centerville Iowa to find out about Antique Field, near
Ottumwa Iowa. I hope to pitch the tent at Antique Field, Wednesday
night. Probably one fuel stop at Maquoeta Iowa, and on in to Brodhead
on Thursday. I'll be using the 'Corky Sponsored Flight Following' again
this year !! Thanks Corky !!
Mike,
Do you get to Brodhead with one fuel stop ?
Jack,
What is your flight plan ?
Anyone else with a flight plan ?
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | flight plans to Brodhead |
Chuck-- Good to hear you are finishing up the details. I just about ended
up doing a condition inspection on my Air Camper
this past week. Good though--it needed it. I can't make Brodhead in one
fuel stop. Very close though with a range of
450 miles with one stop. Just too long in the saddle for 3+ hour legs.
Jack and I will basically head due west from Cleveland, hang a right around
Joliet, Illinois or thereabouts and hit Poplar
Grove, Illinois as he mentioned before the 30 minute or so flight to
Brodhead over southern Beloit. Pickup State Highway
81 to Brodhead Airport. (actually follow the gps is more like it)
Look forward to seeing you and all the others on the list who are able to
make the fly-in.
MIke C.
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05 |
>> Albatros DIII.
>Sounds like a fun plane to build. I have a friend
who
>is building a Nieuport replica.
That is where the inspiration comes from... and I have
a set of Graham Lee Nieuport plans. :) Cool planes!
>It does have the aluminum heads and higher
compression
>pistons. It has a Model B grind on the cam, inserts
>on the bearings and copper babbiting. Ken builds a
>larger water pump I think. It runs a Slick mag too.
>Of course it has the internal pressure oiling and the
>usual mods for flight. The prop flying on Ken's
Piet,
>which has the same engine he's building for me, has a
>Falin 77 1/4 inch by I think 44 or 47 pitch. It
turns
>1800 rpms static and 2250 rpms in climb. These are
>Ken's stats. I'm not sure I can use that prop since I
>have a totally different airplane, but that will be a
>starting point.
It sounds like a mildly modified A has even more
torque than I thought... This engine is sounding
better and better.
>Hope this as been of some help and I will be happy to
>answer any questions you have if I can. Are you
>building from plans or is it your own design? I am
>doing my on engineering so it is taking me a little
>longer.
>Doc H.
Hmmm... there's no straight answer to that question.
It is partly from plans, partly my design, and partly
the design of a "professional." I don't feel
qualified to do everything myself... so I have a
retired aerospace engineer from NASA helping me...
he'll probably sell plans when we're done. I have no
interest in the "airplane business."
Current plans are to use wings done like the Graham
Lee Nieuport (easy and not too expensive, and VERY
light!) but everything else designed from scratch.
Tail surfaces also aluminum tube and fabric, fuselage
is open to a couple of methods, one of which is of
course wood, the other aluminum tube with a foam and
fiberglass shell. (I think the one that Frank Ryder
did was welded steel tube with a foam and 'glass
shell.) I'm leaning toward wood, but that is a LOT of
bending and scarfing plywood!
If everything goes as planned, it will be able to be
changed from a DIII to a DI or DII by changing the
wings and struts- I'm planning to have lower spar
carry throughs for both configurations, so it would be
a "bolt on" change... and of course changing the tip
of the cowl and adding/removing the spinner changes
from the German to Austrian varients. :)
Brad
__________________________________
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Charles Mullins" <cmmullins(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05 |
Brad,
Sorry to but-in on the discussion but I had a chance to examine Frank's
plane in question. If I remember right (you have to remember that that was
along time ago) it was a plywood covered fuselage. The plane was a little on
the heavy side and underpowered.
I had the privilege to get personal tours of the museum and to talk to Frank
on several occasions. He jumped all over me for smoking since he lost his
parents from smoking related diseases and it was all because he cared.
He is still missed. He was a fantastic guy and engineer.
Moon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Smith" <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05
>
>
> >> Albatros DIII.
>
> >Sounds like a fun plane to build. I have a friend
> who
> >is building a Nieuport replica.
>
> That is where the inspiration comes from... and I have
> a set of Graham Lee Nieuport plans. :) Cool planes!
>
> >It does have the aluminum heads and higher
> compression
> >pistons. It has a Model B grind on the cam, inserts
> >on the bearings and copper babbiting. Ken builds a
> >larger water pump I think. It runs a Slick mag too.
> >Of course it has the internal pressure oiling and the
> >usual mods for flight. The prop flying on Ken's
> Piet,
> >which has the same engine he's building for me, has a
> >Falin 77 1/4 inch by I think 44 or 47 pitch. It
> turns
> >1800 rpms static and 2250 rpms in climb. These are
> >Ken's stats. I'm not sure I can use that prop since I
> >have a totally different airplane, but that will be a
> >starting point.
>
> It sounds like a mildly modified A has even more
> torque than I thought... This engine is sounding
> better and better.
>
> >Hope this as been of some help and I will be happy to
> >answer any questions you have if I can. Are you
> >building from plans or is it your own design? I am
> >doing my on engineering so it is taking me a little
> >longer.
>
> >Doc H.
>
> Hmmm... there's no straight answer to that question.
> It is partly from plans, partly my design, and partly
> the design of a "professional." I don't feel
> qualified to do everything myself... so I have a
> retired aerospace engineer from NASA helping me...
> he'll probably sell plans when we're done. I have no
> interest in the "airplane business."
>
> Current plans are to use wings done like the Graham
> Lee Nieuport (easy and not too expensive, and VERY
> light!) but everything else designed from scratch.
> Tail surfaces also aluminum tube and fabric, fuselage
> is open to a couple of methods, one of which is of
> course wood, the other aluminum tube with a foam and
> fiberglass shell. (I think the one that Frank Ryder
> did was welded steel tube with a foam and 'glass
> shell.) I'm leaning toward wood, but that is a LOT of
> bending and scarfing plywood!
>
> If everything goes as planned, it will be able to be
> changed from a DIII to a DI or DII by changing the
> wings and struts- I'm planning to have lower spar
> carry throughs for both configurations, so it would be
> a "bolt on" change... and of course changing the tip
> of the cowl and adding/removing the spinner changes
> from the German to Austrian varients. :)
>
> Brad
>
>
> __________________________________
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
>
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05 |
>>Chuck G.....did you get to do any experiments with
>>your mixture control on your Stromberg ?
>I did ground tests Sunday with full power, full rich,
>then slowly leaned out the mixture and got
>an initial rise from 2150 rpm static but on
>subsequent leanings that didn't occur. I was
>surprised to see how far I had to move the mixture
>arm though to get the rpm's to drop off. Wired it
>back to 'almost full rich'. Only reason I'm
>tinkering is that even after setting the float level
>I'm producing dusty black chalk in the exhaust
>pipes.....and on all 8 plugs.
>Mike C.
Mike,
Is this on an "A" engine with dual plugs??
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05 |
>Maybe somebody has already posted this, but in case
>not- there is an
>excellent write-up on testing and modifying the A
>engine, at this link:
>http://users.aol.com/gmaclaren/dyno.html
Oscar,
Thanks for the info. I've seen that one before, and
have it bookmarked, but I bet a lot of other folks
haven't!
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Brad Smith <rx7_ragtop(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 07/18/05 |
>I bought one of the dual ignition aluminum heads and
>I'm working on a dual mag installation.
I don't know what mags you are planning to use... but
the ones from the 4A084 military genset engine can be
had for $125 each from Saturn Surplus. They run at
full crank speed.
>The Chevy six sounds interesting. Do you know about a
>man named Ryder (Frank I think). He had a WWI museum
in
>Guntersville, AL about 30 miles away.
>He had a beautiful Albitross in his collection.
>However, it was powered with a Ford Pinto engine
which
>wasn't enough. Ryder and his family were killed in a
>crash near Chicago (icing) several years ago. I don't
>know the disposition of his collection, but if you're
>interested, I could find out. Carl
I think that aircraft was supposed to be kitted, but
his death stopped all of that. The collection was
sold off and is scattered all over the world from what
I understand.
I was looking long and hard at the Pinto engine too...
as well as the new Duratec. The problem is that
neither equals the A in low-rpm torque (because
they're only 2.3 liter engines.) The Duratec would be
really close to the A in weight, the Pinto would be
heavier! Either of those could make a nice conversion
with a reduction drive... but I don't want to deal
with all that.
Brad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Broadhead shuttle |
For any of you Broadhead attendees who are flying in and are too wimpy (like
me) to camp out, I am staying at a hotel in Monroe (15 miles) and will have
a rental car. Can drive anyone that wants a ride Friday evening, back
Saturday morning, Saturday evening then back Sunday morning. Just look for
the guy measuring everyone's landing gear and asking dumb landing gear build
questions. (By the way, I have never had a ride in a Piet, sure would be
fun).
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Rudder issue appears solved |
We have only a few more hours to fly off on the Pietenpol. Then off to Brodhead
on Thursday. I have been wrestling with the right-rudder-needing- to-be-held
problem now for 36 or so flight hours. The answer was still elusive until today.
My leg was cramping from always having to hold right rudder. Anyway, I
fly today from Stanton down to Faribault and notice that Cliff Hatz was down
below so now knowing I could get a start when it was time to leave, I elected
to land and chat with him. While there, I decided I would grab the tiedown kit,
folding chair, and pillow from the Cessna 140 as I would need the stuff at
Brodhead. I wedged the pillow down to the left of the stick assembly in the front
cockpit and then folded the left rudder pedal aft and put the chair down
on the pillow fore and aft with one end at the firewall and the other end just
forward of full extension on the left rudder input for the aft cockpit's rudder
bar. I took off and there was no need to hold right rudder. Like magic, the
need to hold it disappeared.
I then flew over to Stanton and started to unload. And then I found them. Dale
had put springs between the front cockpit's rudder pedals and the firewall.
They were incredibly big too. No wonder! As it turns out, he sized them to
match the size of spring normally found between the rudder and the tailwheel arms!
Yikes!
We disconnected the cables between the rudder bar and the front rudder pedals and
there must have been a 5 pound pull on the cable due to the spring.
Could you imagine if one rudder cable broke or otherwise became disconnected?
You would have had a hard over rudder with no way for it to aerodynamically streamline
itself. Yikes! I told him "no springs at all". I should have looked
sooner. I am embarrassed!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder issue appears solved |
Excellent, timely find. Congrats, good luck, and have fun at B'head.
>We have only a few more hours to fly off on the Pietenpol. Then off
>to Brodhead on Thursday. ... I told him "no springs at all". ...
>
>Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: playing with the mixture control & Flight Plan |
In a message dated 7/19/2005 12:40:33 PM Central Standard Time,
jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com writes:
Chuck,
You can check out Antique Airfield and the AAA/APM at
http://www.aaa-apm.org/. It's a neat area but can be tricky to land. I can fax you a layout of the
field if you would like. The fly-in there is member only, so you might call
ahead to see if you can camp for the night (641-938-2773). If you need a
"member sponsor" feel free to use me. I hope to depart (via Suburban) Friday.
Would like to arrive early afternoon. After OSH I plan to drive through Madison
to pick up some wood at McCormick. Have a safe flight!
Jack Textor
Des Moines
Thanks, Jack !!
I'll give them a call tomorrow. I am very interested in the museum there,
too, so that would be a really great stop. See ya at Brodhead !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mixture & Altitude |
I did my first flight with the new mixture control, and CHT & EGT, this
evening. I kept track of all the paramaters, but I don't have it with me now.
I
climbed full power to 5000 feet, the pulled power back to 1900 rpm, and climbed
on up to 6400 feet, and tried the mixture control at each 1000 foot
incriment, and it didn't give any increase in rpm. Kind of disapointing for the
first
flight test. This was just the first flight test, with many more to come.
The sun wouldn't wait for me, so I had to return to earth...
I've never had my ol' Pietenpol up any higher than 3500 - 4000. The earth
sure looks different up there, and it wasn't too cold, about 95=BA on the ground,
and about 70=BA.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
Hey Chuck
I am just curious about your performance at 95 degrees on climb. It has been quite
hot here also and I've not wanted to go out in it. I tried it at about 89
last year with full fuel and 80 lb in the front seat and I didn't climb all
that well. I was also a bit concerned about the heat bubble on our paved runway.
I'll be leaving Fri am. See ya'll mid aft.
Dick N.
NX2RN
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
I did my first flight with the new mixture control, and CHT & EGT, this evening.
I kept track of all the paramaters, but I don't have it with me now. I climbed
full power to 5000 feet, the pulled power back to 1900 rpm, and climbed
on up to 6400 feet, and tried the mixture control at each 1000 foot incriment,
and it didn't give any increase in rpm. Kind of disapointing for the first
flight test. This was just the first flight test, with many more to come. The
sun wouldn't wait for me, so I had to return to earth...
I've never had my ol' Pietenpol up any higher than 3500 - 4000. The earth sure
looks different up there, and it wasn't too cold, about 95=BA on the ground,
and about 70=BA.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Rudder issue appears solved |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Good that you found it! I was wondering about all the right rudder you
were having to hold. I have to hold a tiny bit to keep mine straight,
but certainly not enough to cause a cramp. If I fly it feet off, the
nose will slowly wander off to the left. Not enough to warrant "uglying
it up" with a trim tab on the rudder.
Finished my 25 hours last night. No squawks on the airplane. I leave
for Brodhead via Cleveland tomorrow morning.
I'm looking forward to meeting a bunch of the folks I've corresponded
with over the years I've been building this thing.
Jack Phillips
"Icarus Plummet", NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rudder issue appears solved
We have only a few more hours to fly off on the Pietenpol. Then off to
Brodhead on Thursday. I have been wrestling with the
right-rudder-needing- to-be-held problem now for 36 or so flight hours.
The answer was still elusive until today. My leg was cramping from
always having to hold right rudder. Anyway, I fly today from Stanton
down to Faribault and notice that Cliff Hatz was down below so now
knowing I could get a start when it was time to leave, I elected to land
and chat with him. While there, I decided I would grab the tiedown kit,
folding chair, and pillow from the Cessna 140 as I would need the stuff
at Brodhead. I wedged the pillow down to the left of the stick assembly
in the front cockpit and then folded the left rudder pedal aft and put
the chair down on the pillow fore and aft with one end at the firewall
and the other end just forward of full extension on the left rudder
input for the aft cockpit's rudder bar. I took off and there was no
need to hold right rudder. Like magic, the need to hold it disappeared.
I then flew over to Stanton and started to unload. And then I found
them. Dale had put springs between the front cockpit's rudder pedals
and the firewall. They were incredibly big too. No wonder! As it
turns out, he sized them to match the size of spring normally found
between the rudder and the tailwheel arms! Yikes!
We disconnected the cables between the rudder bar and the front rudder
pedals and there must have been a 5 pound pull on the cable due to the
spring.
Could you imagine if one rudder cable broke or otherwise became
disconnected? You would have had a hard over rudder with no way for it
to aerodynamically streamline itself. Yikes! I told him "no springs at
all". I should have looked sooner. I am embarrassed!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mixture & Altitude |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Dick, I can tell you that at 95 degrees mine doesn't thrill me with the climb.
I fly out of a 2,000' strip with tall trees at the end. Flew it last night with
a half tank of fuel and me alone. By the end of the runway I cleared the
trees by about 25'. I get about 200 fpm climb out of it (density altitude was
about 2400'). Haven't tried taking a heavy load yet at those temperatures.
If it is that hot at Brodhead I will be limiting my "ride giving" to 18 to 20
year old females, as long as they aren't wearing too many heavy clothes.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
Hey Chuck
I am just curious about your performance at 95 degrees on climb. It has been quite
hot here also and I've not wanted to go out in it. I tried it at about 89
last year with full fuel and 80 lb in the front seat and I didn't climb all
that well. I was also a bit concerned about the heat bubble on our paved runway.
I'll be leaving Fri am. See ya'll mid aft.
Dick N.
NX2RN
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
I did my first flight with the new mixture control, and CHT & EGT, this
evening.
I kept track of all the paramaters, but I don't have it with me now. I climbed
full power to 5000 feet, the pulled power back to 1900 rpm, and climbed
on up to 6400 feet, and tried the mixture control at each 1000 foot incriment,
and it didn't give any increase in rpm. Kind of disapointing for the first flight
test. This was just the first flight test, with many more to come. The
sun wouldn't wait for me, so I had to return to earth...
I've never had my ol' Pietenpol up any higher than 3500 - 4000. The earth
sure
looks different up there, and it wasn't too cold, about 95=BA on the ground,
and about 70=BA.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
Are all the parts inside the carb? Two brass discs, gasket underneath the bottom
disk, screw, spring, and shaft?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 11:40 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
I did my first flight with the new mixture control, and CHT & EGT, this evening.
I kept track of all the paramaters, but I don't have it with me now. I climbed
full power to 5000 feet, the pulled power back to 1900 rpm, and climbed
on up to 6400 feet, and tried the mixture control at each 1000 foot incriment,
and it didn't give any increase in rpm. Kind of disapointing for the first
flight test. This was just the first flight test, with many more to come. The
sun wouldn't wait for me, so I had to return to earth...
I've never had my ol' Pietenpol up any higher than 3500 - 4000. The earth sure
looks different up there, and it wasn't too cold, about 95=BA on the ground,
and about 70=BA.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
Chuck-- in ground tests of your mixture control, you should be able to lean
out the mixture until the engine
begins to falter/drop RPM. Mine did this about 1/4" to 3/8" travel on the
arm sweep radius. I could easily have
shut the engine down with the control (like most others do with mixture
control). If you do have all the parts in there
as Chris says, even though you are not showing an rpm increase, you are
leaning the mixture some with the movement
aft before the rpms show any indication. In wiring my mixture just a bit
lean of full rich I stopped the carbon dust on
my plugs and exhaust stack ID's.
See you in the land of cheese and cows,
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | What kind of pulleys to use? |
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
FILETIME=[DCEFDE80:01C58D43]
My question concerns control pulleys. Is there a preferred pulley type
to use for the controls? Material type? I plan to drive to Broadhead
and Oshkosh and ask more questions and take photos. When you place two
pulleys next to each other as on the torque tube assembly, do you place
a washer between them and on the outside of the pulleys where they would
contact the mounting flange? Are good used pulleys o.k. I have some.
I'm still new at this and do not currently fly. Relocated from the east
coast to Wisconsin last fall and am building.
Also, Do people use head sets in a Piet? I have 5 David Clark head
sets, and need to know if I should try to sell all five in the EAA Fly
Market, or keep two of them. I plan to hear Corvair noise from my Piet
if that makes a difference.
John
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Mixture & Altitude |
Jack,
Can I take pictures of those 19-20 year olds getting in the front
cockpit?
:-)
Jack Textor
Des Moines
Sweating already!
No not archive
________________________________
| From: | owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com |
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
Dick, I can tell you that at 95 degrees mine doesn't thrill me with the
climb. I fly out of a 2,000' strip with tall trees at the end. Flew it
last night with a half tank of fuel and me alone. By the end of the
runway I cleared the trees by about 25'. I get about 200 fpm climb out
of it (density altitude was about 2400'). Haven't tried taking a heavy
load yet at those temperatures. If it is that hot at Brodhead I will be
limiting my "ride giving" to 18 to 20 year old females, as long as they
aren't wearing too many heavy clothes.
Jack Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
Actually, for Weight and Balance purposes, it is necessary that they fly in the
rear cockpit.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Textor, Jack
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
Jack,
Can I take pictures of those 19-20 year olds getting in the front cockpit?
J
Jack Textor
Des Moines
Sweating already!
No not archive
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Phillips, Jack
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 6:46 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
Dick, I can tell you that at 95 degrees mine doesn't thrill me with the climb.
I fly out of a 2,000' strip with tall trees at the end. Flew it last night
with a half tank of fuel and me alone. By the end of the runway I cleared the
trees by about 25'. I get about 200 fpm climb out of it (density altitude was
about 2400'). Haven't tried taking a heavy load yet at those temperatures.
If it is that hot at Brodhead I will be limiting my "ride giving" to 18 to 20
year old females, as long as they aren't wearing too many heavy clothes.
Jack Phillips
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What kind of pulleys to use? |
SpamAssassin (score=-2.569, required 3, autolearn=not spam, AWL 0.03,
BAYES_00 -2.60)
>
>Also, Do people use head sets in a Piet? I have 5 David Clark head
>sets, and need to know if I should try to sell all five in the EAA Fly
>Market, or keep two of them. I plan to hear Corvair noise from my Piet
>if that makes a difference.
>
>John
>
>
John If you value your hearing you should use a headset in anything.
Noise levels are enough over time to do a great deal of damage. David
Clarks are excellent in noise cancellation and will protect you from
that problem. There are kits out there that can make them an active
noise cancelling and some offer greater comfort. The trick to making a
David Clark comfortable is to pick you out a set and never let anyone
else wear them. The band for me actually seemed to conform to my head
and was comfortable for a very long time. If someone else happened to
wear them for one reason or another, it would bother me for a flight or two.
What's confortable is so personal its up to you. Check out the new
Lightspeeds. For me they were very comfortable. If I were you though
got from selling the two headsets to invest in a good intercom to go in
the Piet so you can enjoy some conversation to who ever happens to get a
ride.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
report
This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb prop was
damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry A&P).
The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the hub
when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub, what
is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine crank?
Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way to make
an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is the
hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder to make
an adapter.
Thanks!
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
I'm not sure what tool is used on an A-65 hub but I do know that for make
shift torquing (sp?) of bolts that require odd tools you can't go wrong with
a steel pipe of known length slipped over the tool and a pull type spring
scale.
drill a hole in the pipe 24" (or so) from the end, slip the scale hook into
it and pull on the other end of the scale to desired reading. remember to
do the math to get the reading you need. It gets you pretty darned close.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
> This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
prop was
> damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
A&P).
> The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
hub
> when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
what
> is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
crank?
>
> Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way to
make
> an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
the
> hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder to
make
> an adapter.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
I just spent a bit of time with the A-65 manual and couldn't find thatat
torque spec. When I did mine we put a heavy tire iron thru the holes and
had a 6' piece of 1 1/2" pipe sleeve it. It was hard to remove.
Putting it back on we again cranked down pretty hard on it. I don't think
we ever came up with a figure for torque then either. I'm not aware of a
official tool for doing this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
> This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
> prop was
> damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
> A&P).
> The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
> hub
> when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
> what
> is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
> crank?
>
> Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way to
> make
> an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
> the
> hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder to
> make
> an adapter.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael Turrell" <emtyit(at)3web.net> |
| Subject: | Info on Continental engines |
Thought I would share a web site on Continental engine questions and trouble shooting.My understanding is you can query this gentleman with any problems you might be encountering.If I'm wrong it is still an interesting read for those with A65, 75's etc.http://www.bowersflybaby.com/tech/fenton.htm Hope it is useful.
Regards ,Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
In a message dated 7/20/2005 2:20:45 AM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Hey Chuck
I am just curious about your performance at 95 degrees on climb. It has been
quite hot here also and I've not wanted to go out in it.
Dick,
It's quite an anemic climb rate, when temps are that high. The density
altitude at the time was something like 3300', but I only had about 3/4 fuel load,
and was not at gross weight. It took 5 minutes between 1000' increments,
which puts it at about 200 fpm. When I pulled power at 5000', it took 10 minutes
to climb to 6000'.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
In a message dated 7/20/2005 8:02:16 AM Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
Are all the parts inside the carb? Two brass discs, gasket underneath the
bottom disk, screw, spring, and shaft?
Chris
Yep, they sure are. I got a very informative document from Oscar, about the
Stromberg carb, and built a longer arm so the movement isn't so sensitive. =20An
air leak in the bowl, or mixture control will disable the system, since it
depends on back suction from the venturi. My initial tests did make the EGT
raise about 1000=BA, so it must be doing something. However, it did NOT make the
RPM increase. I'll do some high altitude tests while en route to Brodhead
tomorrow, and give reports to Corky.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
In a message dated 7/20/2005 8:21:00 AM Central Standard Time,
jphillip(at)alarismed.com writes:
If it is that hot at Brodhead I will be limiting my =E2=80=9Cride giving=E2=80=9D
to 18 to
20 year old females, as long as they aren=E2=80=99t wearing too many heavy clothes.
Jack,
Those girls are at the skydive airports. Be sure to stop for fuel at one of
them. Trust me on this one !! :)
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
In a message dated 7/20/2005 10:39:35 AM Central Standard Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
Chuck-- in ground tests of your mixture control, you should be able to lean
out the mixture until the engine
begins to falter/drop RPM.
Mike,
In my ground run, the engine did drop in RPM, and it caused an instant
increase in EGT. Acording to the pamphlet from Oscar, there should be an Increase
in RPM at above 5000', if not, move it back to full rich. I'll bring this
pamphlet to Brodhead with me, for your inspection.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
In a message dated 7/20/2005 11:44:25 AM Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
Actually, for Weight and Balance purposes, it is necessary that they fly in
the rear cockpit.
works for me !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
I just did the load test on Greg and Dale's Piet today. I also finished up the
40 hours of testing. At 90 degree F. temp and a density altitude of exactly
3473' and a prop that mashes the air at merely 2100 rpm as that is all she will
do with four strong cylinders, I was good for only 200 fpm as well. Looking
at the chart in the manual, this equates to 50 horsepower. The dewpoint was
71 degrees F., altimeter setting at 29.88 in. hg., and the field elevation at
920 feet. Fuel consumption is by the book at 4 gph exactly. There is no provision
for leaning this NAS3 although I wish there was.
I carried the ship itself at 616 pounds, 70 pounds in the front baggage compartment,
165 pounds of lead strapped into the front seat, 66 pounds of gas, 7 pounds
in the glove locker, 7 pounds of oil, and my 230 pound fat ass. This totalled
1161 pounds. We have a MAUW of 1300 listed on the paperwork since one would
be dumb to self limit.
Cheers,
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
In a message dated 7/20/2005 2:20:45 AM Central Standard Time, horzpool(at)goldengate.net
writes:
Hey Chuck
I am just curious about your performance at 95 degrees on climb. It has been
quite hot here also and I've not wanted to go out in it.
Dick,
It's quite an anemic climb rate, when temps are that high. The density altitude
at the time was something like 3300', but I only had about 3/4 fuel load,
and was not at gross weight. It took 5 minutes between 1000' increments, which
puts it at about 200 fpm. When I pulled power at 5000', it took 10 minutes
to climb to 6000'.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Mixture & Altitude |
The C-85 in the Cessna 140 will rise about 50-75 rpm when I lean her out. The
motor sounds happier too.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Mixture & Altitude
In a message dated 7/20/2005 8:02:16 AM Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net
writes:
Are all the parts inside the carb? Two brass discs, gasket underneath the
bottom disk, screw, spring, and shaft?
Chris
Yep, they sure are. I got a very informative document from Oscar, about the
Stromberg carb, and built a longer arm so the movement isn't so sensitive. An
air leak in the bowl, or mixture control will disable the system, since it depends
on back suction from the venturi. My initial tests did make the EGT raise
about 1000=BA, so it must be doing something. However, it did NOT make the
RPM increase. I'll do some high altitude tests while en route to Brodhead tomorrow,
and give reports to Corky.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
I've now heard from several sources that the hub nut should be torqued to
200 to 225 FOOT/lbs. Everything is back on the plane now, except my wimpy
torque wrench only goes to 150 ft/lbs. I weigh 170lbs, I guess if I hung at
the end of a 14" rod, that should do the trick. Seems to be a popular way
to take care of it.
http://www.luscombesilvaire.info/pop_topics/propellertorquestandards.htm
Max, I'm going to go to a prop shop on the field tomorrow to have them do
the final torquing. I might take you up on that welder sometime though.
My solution was to go buy a cheap 1/2" socket, I was going to drill a hole
through the business end, then insert a rod that could also be inserted
through the hub nut. Should work well, but I'm not sure if I would be able
to drill a 7/16" or larger hole through a socket. The easy solution would
be to just weld a 1/2" or so nut to a bar that will fit in the hub. If you
think you'll need one in the future Max, maybe we should get together and
make a couple of them. I'm probably going to swap props again in a couple
of months. Maybe the prop shop has a smarter tool than that, I'll see
tomorrow.
Thanks for the help everybody! I have a 6hr cross country flight to make
this weekend! Need to get it done by then. Once again, couldn't have done
it without help from a lot of nice people.
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
I just spent a bit of time with the A-65 manual and couldn't find thatat
torque spec. When I did mine we put a heavy tire iron thru the holes and
had a 6' piece of 1 1/2" pipe sleeve it. It was hard to remove.
Putting it back on we again cranked down pretty hard on it. I don't think
we ever came up with a figure for torque then either. I'm not aware of a
official tool for doing this.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
> This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
> prop was
> damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
> A&P).
> The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
> hub
> when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
> what
> is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
> crank?
>
> Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way to
> make
> an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
> the
> hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder to
> make
> an adapter.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
Steve, looking at the current Continental Overhaul manual (form X-30010
dated April 1973) for the C-75 and C-85, which uses the same exact part
number crankshaft and hub nut as the A series motors, it says, on page 38,
section 6-4 PROPELLER INSTALLATION, paragraph j., "Install the propeller,
hub and nut assembly on the crankshaft, and screw the nut in. Torque to
200-225 foot pounds."
Stuff that was put out by the Luscombe Association about 20 years ago says
that a light film of oil should go on the tapered part of the shaft. I
would use 3 in 1 oil.
There is also a worthy note on page 113 of the same Continental manual after
the section listing the "tightening torques". It says, "Torque loads are
listed for use with oil on the threads, except for studs. Stud driving
torques apply when the threads are coated with Alcoa thread lube if hole is
blind, or with National Oil Seal compound if hole is through to a cavity
subject to oil." Interestingly, the prop hub nut is NOT on the list of
"tightening torques" so whether the oil rule applies, it is up to you to
decide... The comment on studs is talking of putting the studs into the
case, not the nut on the stud itself.
Welcome the world of "FAA Approved" manuals. If it did not need FAA
approval, it would have been corrected by now...
There may have been a service bulletin put out on this topic at one time.
You have to pay Continental for most SBs (a few a free). I will ask Cy
Galley at the Oshkosh Emergency repair building when I see him Monday. He
will know for sure.
Chris
Braumeister, Baumeister, und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
> I've now heard from several sources that the hub nut should be torqued to
> 200 to 225 FOOT/lbs. Everything is back on the plane now, except my wimpy
> torque wrench only goes to 150 ft/lbs. I weigh 170lbs, I guess if I hung
at
> the end of a 14" rod, that should do the trick. Seems to be a popular way
> to take care of it.
>
> http://www.luscombesilvaire.info/pop_topics/propellertorquestandards.htm
>
> Max, I'm going to go to a prop shop on the field tomorrow to have them do
> the final torquing. I might take you up on that welder sometime though.
>
> My solution was to go buy a cheap 1/2" socket, I was going to drill a hole
> through the business end, then insert a rod that could also be inserted
> through the hub nut. Should work well, but I'm not sure if I would be
able
> to drill a 7/16" or larger hole through a socket. The easy solution would
> be to just weld a 1/2" or so nut to a bar that will fit in the hub. If
you
> think you'll need one in the future Max, maybe we should get together and
> make a couple of them. I'm probably going to swap props again in a couple
> of months. Maybe the prop shop has a smarter tool than that, I'll see
> tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for the help everybody! I have a 6hr cross country flight to make
> this weekend! Need to get it done by then. Once again, couldn't have
done
> it without help from a lot of nice people.
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick
> Navratil
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:47 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
>
>
> I just spent a bit of time with the A-65 manual and couldn't find thatat
> torque spec. When I did mine we put a heavy tire iron thru the holes and
> had a 6' piece of 1 1/2" pipe sleeve it. It was hard to remove.
> Putting it back on we again cranked down pretty hard on it. I don't think
> we ever came up with a figure for torque then either. I'm not aware of a
> official tool for doing this.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:39 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
> >
> >
> > This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
> > prop was
> > damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
> > A&P).
> > The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> > entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
> > hub
> > when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
> > what
> > is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
> > crank?
> >
> > Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way
to
> > make
> > an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
> > the
> > hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder
to
> > make
> > an adapter.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Steve Ruse
> > N6383J - KFTW
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | more on Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
Steve,
Make sure you inspect the hub for cracks as the link below says to do. A
crack will go from the aft side of the key way to the nearest bolt hole it
can find...
Also, if you can, tell me how many holes are in the the end of the crank for
you to put the safety screw into. It is either 4 or 5. Make sure you look
at the end of the crank and not the hub nut...
Chris
Braumeister, Baumeister, und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
> I've now heard from several sources that the hub nut should be torqued to
> 200 to 225 FOOT/lbs. Everything is back on the plane now, except my wimpy
> torque wrench only goes to 150 ft/lbs. I weigh 170lbs, I guess if I hung
at
> the end of a 14" rod, that should do the trick. Seems to be a popular way
> to take care of it.
>
> http://www.luscombesilvaire.info/pop_topics/propellertorquestandards.htm
>
> Max, I'm going to go to a prop shop on the field tomorrow to have them do
> the final torquing. I might take you up on that welder sometime though.
>
> My solution was to go buy a cheap 1/2" socket, I was going to drill a hole
> through the business end, then insert a rod that could also be inserted
> through the hub nut. Should work well, but I'm not sure if I would be
able
> to drill a 7/16" or larger hole through a socket. The easy solution would
> be to just weld a 1/2" or so nut to a bar that will fit in the hub. If
you
> think you'll need one in the future Max, maybe we should get together and
> make a couple of them. I'm probably going to swap props again in a couple
> of months. Maybe the prop shop has a smarter tool than that, I'll see
> tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for the help everybody! I have a 6hr cross country flight to make
> this weekend! Need to get it done by then. Once again, couldn't have
done
> it without help from a lot of nice people.
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick
> Navratil
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:47 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
>
>
> I just spent a bit of time with the A-65 manual and couldn't find thatat
> torque spec. When I did mine we put a heavy tire iron thru the holes and
> had a 6' piece of 1 1/2" pipe sleeve it. It was hard to remove.
> Putting it back on we again cranked down pretty hard on it. I don't think
> we ever came up with a figure for torque then either. I'm not aware of a
> official tool for doing this.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:39 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
> >
> >
> > This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
> > prop was
> > damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
> > A&P).
> > The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> > entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
> > hub
> > when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
> > what
> > is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
> > crank?
> >
> > Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way
to
> > make
> > an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
> > the
> > hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder
to
> > make
> > an adapter.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Steve Ruse
> > N6383J - KFTW
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | more on Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque |
There are two rows of small "safety screw size" holes on the end of the
crank. There are four holes in the aft row, the front row is too far forward
to accept a safety screw, it won't line up with the hub nut holes.
I installed the hub last night, although my torque wrench doesn't go all the
way to 200ft/lbs, so I only torqued it to about 150-160ft/lbs.
Interestingly enough, that is where the holes in the hub and crank lined up.
I am planning on going to a prop shop today to have them torque it to
200ft/lbs, but I am nearly positive that will just make the holes NOT line
up. How do you deal with something like that? I should have marked the
hole the safety bolt was in before I took it apart. I bet that is the hole
that lined up at 150ft/lbs, as there are only two holes in the crank that
this bolt will fit in, and it was in one of them before I took it apart. I
don't think adding another 50ft/lbs is going to turn the hub exactly 90
degrees, which is what it would take to line up the other holes.
Hope that makes sense without reading it eight times...
I did coat the threads and tapered surface with anti-seize compound. That
was used last time it was assembled, and I saw that in a service manual
somewhere too. There were no cracks that I could see with the naked eye, I
did check it closely. Next time I'll probably magnaflux it.
Thanks for the tips, I'm not sure what to do at this point. Hopefully the
prop shop or someone here will shed some light on it.
Steve Ruse
N6383J - KFTW
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Christian
Bobka
Subject: Pietenpol-List: more on Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
Steve,
Make sure you inspect the hub for cracks as the link below says to do. A
crack will go from the aft side of the key way to the nearest bolt hole it
can find...
Also, if you can, tell me how many holes are in the the end of the crank for
you to put the safety screw into. It is either 4 or 5. Make sure you look
at the end of the crank and not the hub nut...
Chris
Braumeister, Baumeister, und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
> I've now heard from several sources that the hub nut should be torqued to
> 200 to 225 FOOT/lbs. Everything is back on the plane now, except my wimpy
> torque wrench only goes to 150 ft/lbs. I weigh 170lbs, I guess if I hung
at
> the end of a 14" rod, that should do the trick. Seems to be a popular way
> to take care of it.
>
> http://www.luscombesilvaire.info/pop_topics/propellertorquestandards.htm
>
> Max, I'm going to go to a prop shop on the field tomorrow to have them do
> the final torquing. I might take you up on that welder sometime though.
>
> My solution was to go buy a cheap 1/2" socket, I was going to drill a hole
> through the business end, then insert a rod that could also be inserted
> through the hub nut. Should work well, but I'm not sure if I would be
able
> to drill a 7/16" or larger hole through a socket. The easy solution would
> be to just weld a 1/2" or so nut to a bar that will fit in the hub. If
you
> think you'll need one in the future Max, maybe we should get together and
> make a couple of them. I'm probably going to swap props again in a couple
> of months. Maybe the prop shop has a smarter tool than that, I'll see
> tomorrow.
>
> Thanks for the help everybody! I have a 6hr cross country flight to make
> this weekend! Need to get it done by then. Once again, couldn't have
done
> it without help from a lot of nice people.
>
> Steve Ruse
> N6383J - KFTW
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick
> Navratil
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:47 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
>
>
> I just spent a bit of time with the A-65 manual and couldn't find thatat
> torque spec. When I did mine we put a heavy tire iron thru the holes and
> had a 6' piece of 1 1/2" pipe sleeve it. It was hard to remove.
> Putting it back on we again cranked down pretty hard on it. I don't think
> we ever came up with a figure for torque then either. I'm not aware of a
> official tool for doing this.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:39 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental A-65/75 prop hub torque
>
>
> >
> >
> > This evening I'm going to install a cruise prop on my plane (the climb
> > prop was
> > damaged when the spinner departed the plane in flight, thanks to a sorry
> > A&P).
> > The cruise prop needed a different size bolt, so I had to remove the hub
> > entirely. The only thing I don't know is how much I need to torque the
> > hub
> > when I put it back on. This is a standard A-65 style tapered shaft hub,
> > what
> > is the torque spec on the retaining piece that threads onto the engine
> > crank?
> >
> > Also, since there is no nut or bolt on this piece, is there an easy way
to
> > make
> > an adapter that will allow me to use my torque wrench on the hub? How is
> > the
> > hub typically torqued onto the engine? I don't have access to a welder
to
> > make
> > an adapter.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Steve Ruse
> > N6383J - KFTW
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> --
>
>
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Hello everyone!! |
0.01 SUB_HELLO Subject starts with "Hello"
Hello Pieters:
I am new in this list and I participate from Uruguay in the South of South
America.
Pietenpol is a fantastic machine. Since it can take a great weight in its
nose I think about using a modern diesel engine with reduction drive.
Somebody in the list has proven something similar?
Greetings from the sunny and cold south.
Juan D. Goyen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
"Pietenpol" ,
"Flitzer"
| Subject: | Fw: More Bombings in London |
London attacked again; police confirm 4 blasts
3 subway stations, bus hit by small explosions; Blair appeals for calm
MSNBC News Services
Updated: 11:51 a.m. ET July 21, 2005
LONDON - Explosions struck three London Underground stations and a bus at midday
Thursday in a chilling but less deadly replay of the suicide bombings that killed
56 people two weeks ago.
Only one person was reported wounded, but the lunch-hour explosions caused major
shock and disruption in the capital and were hauntingly similar to the July
7 bombings by four attackers.
The London police commissioner confirmed Thursday that four explosions took place
in what he described as =93a very serious incident.=94
=93We=92ve had four explosions =97 four attempts at explosions,=94 Metropolitan
Police Commissioner Ian Blair said outside police headquarters at Scotland Yard.
=93At the moment the casualty numbers appear to be very low ... the bombs appear
to be smaller=94 than those detonated July 7.
At a news gathering, Prime Minister Tony Blair appealed for calm. He said the people
behind the incidents are trying to "scare people" and "make them anxious."
Blair said police were hoping to get the city's transit system "back to normal
as quickly as possible."
Chase
Minutes before the prime minister spoke, police with their weapons drawn escorted
a man away from the gates at the end of Downing Street.
A police officer drew a firearm and aimed it at a target beyond the range of television
cameras. Another officer then led away a man whose black shirt was undone.
The man also wore black trousers and appeared to be of Asian or Middle Eastern
origin.
Meantime, police were searching a London hospital Thursday for a man wearing a
blue shirt with wires protruding from a hole in the back, a TV report said.
An internal memo at University College Hospital in north London urged staff to
watch for the man, described as a black or Asian male, about 6-feet-2, Sky News
television reported.
No chemicals
One witness told Sky TV that a fellow subway passenger told him a backpack exploded
at the Warren Street station and there were reports of smoke.
Sky TV reported that police said no chemical agents were involved in the explosions.
Explosions also were reported at the Shepherds Bush and Oval stations.
Emergency teams were sent to all three stations after the incidents, which began
at 12:38 p.m.
Witnesses said they had seen what could have been a would-be bomber running away
after dropping a rucksack on one of the trains.
=93We all got off on the platform and the guy just ran and started running up the
escalator,=94 one witness who gave her name as Andrea told the BBC.
=93Everyone was screaming for someone to stop him. He ran past me...and he ran
out of the station. In fact he left a bag on the train,=94 she said.
Bus blast
Passengers were evacuated off a bus in Hackney, east London, and police cordoned
off streets nearby. The bus company said a blast blew out the windows of the
bus but a police officer on the scene said there were no signs of damage.
A police officer told Reuters: =93The bus driver heard a bang at the back of the
bus. He thought it was probably a vehicle that had hit him.
=93He stopped at a nearby bus stop and saw a suspect package at the back of the
bus.=94
The fire brigade put on protective clothing before moving towards the bus.
Closed-circuit TV cameras on Hackney Road showed the No. 26 bus immobilized at
a stop with its indicator lights flashing. The area around the bus had been cordoned
off.
Haunting similarities
The incidents paralleled the blasts two weeks ago, which involved explosions at
three Underground stations simultaneously =97 quickly followed by a blast on
a bus. Those bombings, during the morning rush hour, also occurred in the center
of London, hitting the Underground railway from various directions.
Thursday=92s incidents, however, were more geographically spread out.
London Ambulance said it was called to the Oval station at 12:38 p.m. and Warren
Street at 12:45 p.m. The July 7 attacks began at 8:51 a.m.
=93People were panicking. But very fortunately the train was only 15 seconds from
the station,=94 witness Ivan McCracken told Sky news.
McCracken said another passenger at Warren Street claimed he had seen a backpack
explode. The bombs which killed 56 people on board three underground trains
and a bus in London on July 7 were carried in backpacks, police said.
Smell of smoke
McCracken said he smelled smoke and that people were panicking and coming into
his carriage. He said he spoke to an Italian man who was comforting a woman after
the evacuation.
=93He said that a man was carrying a rucksack and the rucksack suddenly exploded.
It was a minor explosion but enough to blow open the rucksack,=94 McCracken
said.
=93The man then made an exclamation as if something had gone wrong. At that point
everyone rushed from the carriage.=94
Services were shut across the Underground system, which serves 3 million Londoners
daily.
=93I was in the carriage and we smelt smoke -=97 it was like something was burning,=94
said Losiane Mohellavi, 35, who was evacuated at Warren Street.
=93Everyone was panicked and people were screaming. We had to pull the alarm. I
am still shaking,=94 Mohellavi said.
He told The Associated Press he did not see smoke but rather smelled something
similar to an electrical fire.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | engines (was Hello everyone!) |
Juan wrote-
>I am new in this list and I participate from Uruguay in the South of South
>America.
Bienvenido! Welcome!
>Pietenpol is a fantastic machine. Since it can take a great weight in its
>nose I think about using a modern diesel engine with reduction drive.
>Somebody in the list has proven something similar?
Don't know if anybody has tried a diesel, but they have tried everything up
to a Warner 145, which weighs 306 lbs. As a comparison, the "Dieselis"
(French conversion of a diesel for experimental aero use) will put out
something like 60 HP at 2600 RPM and weighs 298 lbs. If you run it at 3600
RPM and use a reduction drive, it only puts out another 5 HP but moves the
power peak.
Good luck!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rudder issue appears solved |
Jack,
Assuming that you have the original rudder bar in the back and pedals in the front,,,the
springs are only to keep the cables from flopping down between the bar
and forward to the pedals.
Ain't life Grand!
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Jack
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Rudder issue appears solved
Good that you found it! I was wondering about all the right rudder you were
having to hold. I have to hold a tiny bit to keep mine straight, but certainly
not enough to cause a cramp. If I fly it feet off, the nose will slowly wander
off to the left. Not enough to warrant "uglying it up" with a trim tab on
the rudder.
Finished my 25 hours last night. No squawks on the airplane. I leave for Brodhead
via Cleveland tomorrow morning.
I'm looking forward to meeting a bunch of the folks I've corresponded with over
the years I've been building this thing.
Jack Phillips
"Icarus Plummet", NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Rudder issue appears solved
We have only a few more hours to fly off on the Pietenpol. Then off to Brodhead
on Thursday. I have been wrestling with the right-rudder-needing- to-be-held
problem now for 36 or so flight hours. The answer was still elusive until
today. My leg was cramping from always having to hold right rudder. Anyway,
I fly today from Stanton down to Faribault and notice that Cliff Hatz was down
below so now knowing I could get a start when it was time to leave, I elected
to land and chat with him. While there, I decided I would grab the tiedown
kit, folding chair, and pillow from the Cessna 140 as I would need the stuff at
Brodhead. I wedged the pillow down to the left of the stick assembly in the
front cockpit and then folded the left rudder pedal aft and put the chair down
on the pillow fore and aft with one end at the firewall and the other end just
forward of full extension on the left rudder input for the aft cockpit's rudder
bar. I took off and there was no need to hold right rudder. Like magic,
the need to hold it disappeared.
I then flew over to Stanton and started to unload. And then I found them. Dale
had put springs between the front cockpit's rudder pedals and the firewall.
They were incredibly big too. No wonder! As it turns out, he sized them to
match the size of spring normally found between the rudder and the tailwheel
arms! Yikes!
We disconnected the cables between the rudder bar and the front rudder pedals
and there must have been a 5 pound pull on the cable due to the spring.
Could you imagine if one rudder cable broke or otherwise became disconnected?
You would have had a hard over rudder with no way for it to aerodynamically
streamline itself. Yikes! I told him "no springs at all". I should have looked
sooner. I am embarrassed!
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters and Interested,
We all received Chuck's early morning e mail telling of his thorough
preparations for his flight to Brodhead.
I received a call from Chuck at 1043CDT when he told me he was preparing to
leave Wichita but still had a few things to do. Had his Baby Oil and 50 lbs of
baggage, full tanks of fuel and oil. Increased tire pressure to 15# as he
was to use the hard runway. Said he would probably gross out at about 1000#.
Told him to hurry before it got too hot but he won't.
Received another call from Chuck at 1610CDT from Atchison, Kansas. He had to
hanger his Piet for an afternoon thunderbumper for about 1 1/2 hrs. Said he
had called ahead and the folks at Blakesburg will save him a ham sandwich and
leave the lights on. Said the people at Atchison were great and helped him
with everything he needed. He has about 4 hrs to fly tomorrow to get to
Brodhead. Attached is a pic of Chuck before take off from Bluebird Hill last July
on
his way to Brodhead.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
Hi Juan
Welcome to the list. I dont have any info on the deisel but I think it
would be a good idea. Please keep us informed on what you find.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Juan D. Goyen" <goyeni(at)adinet.com.uy>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
>
>
> Hello Pieters:
> I am new in this list and I participate from Uruguay in the South of South
> America.
> Pietenpol is a fantastic machine. Since it can take a great weight in its
> nose I think about using a modern diesel engine with reduction drive.
> Somebody in the list has proven something similar?
> Greetings from the sunny and cold south.
> Juan D. Goyen
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: What kind of pulleys to use? |
If you are going to have a radio, you will need headsets. The wind alone is
loud. I couldnt imagine a open cockpit without one.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: What kind of pulleys to use?
>
>
>>
>>Also, Do people use head sets in a Piet? I have 5 David Clark head
>>sets, and need to know if I should try to sell all five in the EAA Fly
>>Market, or keep two of them. I plan to hear Corvair noise from my Piet
>>if that makes a difference.
>>
>>John
>>
> John If you value your hearing you should use a headset in anything.
> Noise levels are enough over time to do a great deal of damage. David
> Clarks are excellent in noise cancellation and will protect you from that
> problem. There are kits out there that can make them an active noise
> cancelling and some offer greater comfort. The trick to making a David
> Clark comfortable is to pick you out a set and never let anyone else wear
> them. The band for me actually seemed to conform to my head and was
> comfortable for a very long time. If someone else happened to wear them
> for one reason or another, it would bother me for a flight or two.
>
> What's confortable is so personal its up to you. Check out the new
> Lightspeeds. For me they were very comfortable. If I were you though Id
> keep 3 David Clarks (just in case one goes bad) and use the cash I got
> from selling the two headsets to invest in a good intercom to go in the
> Piet so you can enjoy some conversation to who ever happens to get a ride.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M&M Stanley" <tomiya(at)di.mbn.or.jp> |
| Subject: | Re; Hello everyone !! |
Hi Juan
Welcome to the Piet list.Hope that you find it as interesting as I do ! If
you have any problems, either the archives or someone on the list probably
has the answer.
I have a feeling that I saw a photo of a diesel powered Piet in the Tony
Bingelis's book, "Firewall Forward". I don't have a copy of the book here
with me at the moment to check it.
I don't recall there being many details but perhaps someone has some more
info about it.
Anyway, all the best and welcome!.
Mark S
Japan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Well, here's another one. I was reading "To Fly" last night and saw a piece
by local EAA 35 member Julius Junge about his 1912 Curtiss Gordon Bennet Cup
racer replica. Here's what he says about the engine he's putting in it.
Not a diesel, but another thought:
"I was put onto the GM Vortec 3000 industrial engine by Matt Naiva, an SAA
member in Wisconsin. When I saw the numbers on the engine, I was sold. It
is a 3 liter, four cylinder inline that produces 163 ft.-lbs. of torque at
1600 RPM. The torque curve is flat up to 3000 RPM. I did not know that
there was any modern engine that would do this. With an 82" prop (!) and
the engine turning about 1580 RPM at full throttle, I am measuring over 400
lbs. of thrust. If there is a shortcoming, it might be the weight of the
engine. Less flywheel and manifold it weighs 275 lbs., but the original
engine on the Curtiss weighed in at a hefty 390 lbs. stripped.
The engine comes with flywheel and manifold but no carb, fuel pump, nor
water pump pulley. The engine is an industrial engine and will run on
gasoline, propane, or natural gas so no carb nor fuel pump is provided.
This is up to the ultimate user. The engine is ued by Hyster forklifts,
Mercruiser, and has other ag and industrial uses. I got a fuel pump form
Hyster. A water pump pulley came from a wrecking yard. The engine comes
with an HEI system. I did not relish hand propping the engine with 8
degrees of advance. A search of the Internet turned up a 1967 Chevy II
distributor that is an exact replacement. This has both mechanical and
vacuum advance and so far has worked quite well. I have been using an HS6
SU carb on the engine. It works well on the upper end but I am not too
happy with the idle. I am going to try a Harley Davidson carb as soon as I
can take the engine outside to run it. I removed the heavy flywheel and
cast iron manifold. The flywheel was replaced with the prop hub and
adapter. Another, lighter manifold was built from tubing. Oh yes... the
engine cost $1595 in the crate."
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
The skies over Brodhead should be very smoky about now. Should have arrived
at 1540.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Smokey Gantzer |
Does anyone have any news from Brodhed?
I was wondering about new Piets with Corvair engines and also how many Piets?
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Smokey Gantzer
The skies over Brodhead should be very smoky about now. Should have arrived at
1540.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
Lynn,
The attendance numbers at Brodhead seem to be down quite a bit from last
year. Reason--gas prices???
I did not count the Piets in attendance, but I would guess about 10
transient Pietenpols. There was a project on display with a complete
William Wynne Corvair hanging on the firewall.
Dick Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "M&M Stanley" <tomiya(at)di.mbn.or.jp> |
Hi Juan
I had a look in Tony Bingelis 's book, "Firewall Forward" and the picture
that I wrote about is on page 21. There is a small round badge near the top
of the radiator which looks like it may be an early style Mercedes Benz
badge but I'm not certain, anyway, it looks interesting.
Mark S
Japan
( just another earthquake today and typhoon # 7 on the way...oh such fun!! )
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Richard deCosta <curiousspider(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories |
Available on eBay:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1,1&item=4564268161
Or outside of eBay for $1250.
I am selling it because I've decided to use a
Continental engine in my Piet instead.
Richard
Manager, Drummer
African Gospel Rhythms
www.AfricanGospelRhythms.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
| Subject: | Progressed to rear cockpit |
Hi Pieters
I've progressed to the rear cockpit today, not bad considering the wind
was 310/13 and I was flying of runway 03, had to cut the lesson short
(radio inaudible). Here is where I need some advice, It seems the has
gone on the blink that or the intercom, the intercom seems to be fine
between pilot and co-pilot, on transmit the other traffic can't make out
a word . on the first lesson the traffic says that a couple of words
come through then fade away, on the second lesson just a squeal came
through. What the hell could be the problem hope it is not the radio
(Micro Air 760 ) I am now considering fitting my hand held ICOM A20.
Thanks in advance
Norman
ZS-VJA
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Smokey Gantzer |
Corky,
They were.
Chuck had to buy another dozen bottles of baby oil.
19 ships.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 3:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Smokey Gantzer
The skies over Brodhead should be very smoky about now. Should have arrived at
1540.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Actually, Dick, there were 19.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: <rhartwig11(at)juno.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
>
> Lynn,
> The attendance numbers at Brodhead seem to be down quite a bit from last
> year. Reason--gas prices???
> I did not count the Piets in attendance, but I would guess about 10
> transient Pietenpols. There was a project on display with a complete
> William Wynne Corvair hanging on the firewall.
> Dick Hartwig
> Waunakee, WI
> rhartwig11(at)juno.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Textor, Jack" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Hi Dick and Lynn,
I just got back (Saturday). I would agree with Dick, it was a little light, but
quality, that's what counts! Mike Cuy and a couple more showed up later Friday.
Sorry I missed talking with you Mike. The reason for my early departure
was the cruddy weather Saturday, lots of thunderstorms. Jim Markle's demo on
vacuum bagging was excellent and the last I heard the Corvair guys were going
to meet at about 2:00 Saturday. Dick, I was sorry to miss you, I did see your
truck but couldn't find you. I did shoot some video last night and if I can
get it on the computer, would be glad to share. Will let you know. Night all,
I'm beat!
Jack Textor
Des Moines
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of rhartwig11(at)juno.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead
Lynn,
The attendance numbers at Brodhead seem to be down quite a bit from last
year. Reason--gas prices???
I did not count the Piets in attendance, but I would guess about 10
transient Pietenpols. There was a project on display with a complete
William Wynne Corvair hanging on the firewall.
Dick Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
Oscar,
Good that you are catching up on your reading while everybody is away. We
saw Jukius this morning but the motor was in Texas.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: engines
>
> Well, here's another one. I was reading "To Fly" last night and saw a
piece
> by local EAA 35 member Julius Junge about his 1912 Curtiss Gordon Bennet
Cup
> racer replica. Here's what he says about the engine he's putting in it.
> Not a diesel, but another thought:
>
> "I was put onto the GM Vortec 3000 industrial engine by Matt Naiva, an SAA
> member in Wisconsin. When I saw the numbers on the engine, I was sold.
It
> is a 3 liter, four cylinder inline that produces 163 ft.-lbs. of torque at
> 1600 RPM. The torque curve is flat up to 3000 RPM. I did not know that
> there was any modern engine that would do this. With an 82" prop (!) and
> the engine turning about 1580 RPM at full throttle, I am measuring over
400
> lbs. of thrust. If there is a shortcoming, it might be the weight of the
> engine. Less flywheel and manifold it weighs 275 lbs., but the original
> engine on the Curtiss weighed in at a hefty 390 lbs. stripped.
>
> The engine comes with flywheel and manifold but no carb, fuel pump, nor
> water pump pulley. The engine is an industrial engine and will run on
> gasoline, propane, or natural gas so no carb nor fuel pump is provided.
> This is up to the ultimate user. The engine is ued by Hyster forklifts,
> Mercruiser, and has other ag and industrial uses. I got a fuel pump form
> Hyster. A water pump pulley came from a wrecking yard. The engine comes
> with an HEI system. I did not relish hand propping the engine with 8
> degrees of advance. A search of the Internet turned up a 1967 Chevy II
> distributor that is an exact replacement. This has both mechanical and
> vacuum advance and so far has worked quite well. I have been using an HS6
> SU carb on the engine. It works well on the upper end but I am not too
> happy with the idle. I am going to try a Harley Davidson carb as soon as
I
> can take the engine outside to run it. I removed the heavy flywheel and
> cast iron manifold. The flywheel was replaced with the prop hub and
> adapter. Another, lighter manifold was built from tubing. Oh yes... the
> engine cost $1595 in the crate."
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Best event ever? |
It appears that this was the best Brodhead turnout in the nine years that Greg
Cardinal has been attending the event.
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
<004501c58723$1ee841f0$0301a8c0@north>
<003301c587b8$63514590$0301a8c0@north>
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear setup |
Long fuselage (per Don P.'s supplemental plans), A-65 engine, axle located 20"
aft of the firewall has resulted in
very good ground handling.
With the plane level there is 15# on the skid.
With a 220+ lb pilot the plane is quite maneuverable on the ground (no brakes,
tailskid equipped)
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:37 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear setup
Negative rick. That is not the placement that you would be happy with. I will
dig through the archives and find my post on the subject. Give me til tonight.
If Greg Cardinal were not on vacation, he would have chimed in already with
the details as he is right on top of the numbers.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2005 9:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear setup
How many "long fuselage" Piet plans are there? I am using the "Supplementary
Plans" long fuselage plans from Don Pietenpol. They show no landing gear position
so I assume the gear is to be identical to the 1933 "short" fuselage plans.
On 7/12/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick, Do you mean the longEST fuselage plans?
If you are using the fuselage that is the one that is the longEST at 7" over
the shortEST, then look at my post a few years back on how we decided where
the axle should be on Greg and Dale's Piet. The placement is perfect as the
taxiing with a skid on grass is absolutely superb.
As a good rule of thumb, go out to the field and hold up the tails on a bunch
of taildraggers like a Cub or a Taylorcraft. Hold it up until the longerons
are level (as if you were weighing it). The weight on the tail wheel is about
what you should have if you have the axle placed correctly, brakes or no
brakes. It should almost balance.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 9:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear setup
I am using the long fuselage plans.
On 7/11/05, Christian Bobka wrote:
Rick,
There are three fuselages. Which are you using?
the fuselage that appears in the Flying and Glider Manual. The drawings
show a wood gear.
the fuselage that is on the plans that DP sells. The drawings show the
split steel landing gear.
the fuselage that was used for the corvair piets. No gear is shown for
this fuselage but it is the one most build as it is 7 inches longer or so than
the early fuselages.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 8:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear setup
Am starting to plan my landing gear (split gear with the Cub style
triangle cabane at the top and springs instead of bungees) and after going through
the archives I think I have an idea how to design this but please give me
a sanity check. I am using the long fuselage plans.
1) Whether short of long fuselage, axle should be 2" forward of plans
location if adding brakes and tail wheel.
The short fuselage plans show the axle 17" behind the firewall, the
long fuselage plans have the firewall 2" further forward so the standard axle
location would be 19" back from the firewall. SO with brakes and tail wheel the
axle should be:
15" aft of firewall for short fuse
17" aft of firewall for long fuse
Correct?
Also since many people increase the front fuse length probably a better
measurement point would be the center of the front ash cross member. In that
case the axle position would be:
5" aft of the center of the front ash cross member for any fuselage.
2) When I get done with the gear the fuselage should sit on the ground
with about a 13 degree deck angle (measured on the top longeron), from the
archive info. So if I install the tailwheel and prop up the front of the fuse
to a 13 degree angle, place the wheel/tire that I am going to use on the floor
under the fuse at the correct 2" forward location THAT is the axle position
that I need to build my gear to correct? I can build a Bill Rewey-style jig to
hold the axles in that position.
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
--
Rick Holland
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Aluminum fuel tank |
A question for those of you with aluminum (aluminium to those of you in the UK)
fuel tanks in service.
What is the appropriate thickness and grade to use?
After 47 hours in service our riveted and soldered galvanized tank is developing
leaks.
Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum fuel tank |
Greg,
I built an 18 gal alum tank for 311CC, Repiet, from .040 5152 ?? material
and had the welder double the welds throughout. It shouldn't leak but who knows
as yet it has not felt fuel.
Corky in very hot Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum fuel tank |
Greg,
An afterthought, I ordered by mistake 12 ft of this .040 instead of 6 ft. I
have a lot in the corner of the shop. If you would decide to make a new tank
using this type material I would be happy to send you your requirements.
Simply design your tank, measure the 4 pieces you would require and send to me.
I
would cut the pieces and send flat. Let me know if I can help. A leaking
galv. tank ain't good.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
Brodhead was terrific, even if it did rain on Sunday. I personally counted 18
Piets and I think I missed a couple in hangars around the corner, and so the
19 figure I also saw in another post is correct... Had a great time, lot's to
see and do, the fly-bys on Friday evening were terrific. I hope to have my
film back this morning and will post some pics. (My son and I are home already
-- we took off about 3:00 on Saturday -- I got itchy to get home and get to
work on my Piet!).
Yep, Chuck G. and Mike C. did do a little skywriting -- Chuck likes to turn
his on on the ground which may have caused a little consternation for a couple
pilots -- probably the first time they had to go on instruments while taxiing!
All in good fun...
Again, a great time and many thanks to everyone for the tips and advice that
will help with my Piet! Keep cool and keep that water going -- supposed to be
in the upper 90s today! Keep cool!
Fred B.
La Crosse WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Johnson" <ddjohn(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
Hi Juan
There was a deisel pietenpol powered by a Mercedes-Benz 4 banger.It was
under powered.
I think a 5 banger would work.
Go for it.
Dale in Mpls Mn.
> [Original Message]
> From: Dick Navratil <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> To:
> Date: 7/21/2005 10:09:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
>
>
> Hi Juan
> Welcome to the list. I dont have any info on the deisel but I think it
> would be a good idea. Please keep us informed on what you find.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Juan D. Goyen" <goyeni(at)adinet.com.uy>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:14 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hello Pieters:
> > I am new in this list and I participate from Uruguay in the South of
South
> > America.
> > Pietenpol is a fantastic machine. Since it can take a great weight in
its
> > nose I think about using a modern diesel engine with reduction drive.
> > Somebody in the list has proven something similar?
> > Greetings from the sunny and cold south.
> > Juan D. Goyen
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Butch Pennewell" <kmodairy(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
I thought about the small Mercedes that they put on the Thermo-King
refrigeration trailers, but like you said it may be a little wimpy.
Butch
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dale Johnson" <ddjohn(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
>
> Hi Juan
> There was a deisel pietenpol powered by a Mercedes-Benz 4 banger.It was
> under powered.
> I think a 5 banger would work.
> Go for it.
> Dale in Mpls Mn.
>
>
> > [Original Message]
> > From: Dick Navratil <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
> > To:
> > Date: 7/21/2005 10:09:07 PM
> > Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
> >
>
> >
> > Hi Juan
> > Welcome to the list. I dont have any info on the deisel but I think it
> > would be a good idea. Please keep us informed on what you find.
> > Dick N.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Juan D. Goyen" <goyeni(at)adinet.com.uy>
> > To:
> > Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 11:14 AM
> > Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hello everyone!!
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello Pieters:
> > > I am new in this list and I participate from Uruguay in the South of
> South
> > > America.
> > > Pietenpol is a fantastic machine. Since it can take a great weight in
> its
> > > nose I think about using a modern diesel engine with reduction drive.
> > > Somebody in the list has proven something similar?
> > > Greetings from the sunny and cold south.
> > > Juan D. Goyen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello,
Well, had a great time at Brodhead, wonderful to see so many Piets!!
I am doing a model A and came away (after seeing Alan Rudolf's 580 lbs model A
piet) that I need to look at everything I can to save weight.
The two biggest I can see that I can change are the very heavy (but beautiful)
brass radiator I have and the solid axle landing gear.
My question is this. How much weight (assuming I keep the large spoke tires)
would one actually save by using the improved landing gear? From my observation,
it looks as if the only major savings would be no axle, (which is pretty hefty).
I was also thinking , if i did change, I'd like to try something along the lines
of the Scout landing gear as I've always loved that thirties look.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Pietspeir(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
In a message dated 7/24/2005 5:02:53 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ddjohn(at)earthlink.net writes:
Hi Juan
There was a deisel pietenpol powered by a Mercedes-Benz 4 banger.It was
under powered.
I think a 5 banger would work.
Go for it.
Dale in Mpls Mn.
Interesting. I have been thinking more along the lines a VW tuodo-diesel.
Comments?
Tom Speir (back to lurking)
________________________________________________________________________________
Pietenpol-List message posted by: "Oscar Zuniga"
> Bienvenido! Welcome!
Oscar,
Muchas gracias por tu bienvenida y la informaci=F3n.
Thank you very much for your welcome and information.
> As a comparison, the "Dieselis"
> (French conversion of a diesel for experimental aero use) will put out
> something like 60 HP at 2600 RPM and weighs 298 lbs. If you run it at
3600
> RPM and use a reduction drive, it only puts out another 5 HP but moves the
> power peak.
I know the work with the Opel Corsa's engine.
It's an Isuzu 1.5 litres, 4 cylinder, made in Japan.
Here we have similar european units made by Renault and Peugeot and they are very
cheap.
Juan D. Goyen=ED
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
>
> Hi Juan
> There was a deisel pietenpol powered by a Mercedes-Benz 4 banger.It was
> under powered.
> I think a 5 banger would work.
> Go for it.
> Dale in Mpls Mn.
Dale,
I'm thinking about a modern Turbo Diesel Intercooler engine that weights as
the Ford model "A".
Juan D.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Hello everyone!! |
> Hi Juan
> Welcome to the list. I dont have any info on the deisel but I think it
> would be a good idea. Please keep us informed on what you find.
> Dick N.
Dick N.,
Thanks.
I'll keep the group informed.
Juan D. Goyen
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Juan D. Goyeni" <goyeni(at)adinet.com.uy> |
Mark S,
I saw Bingelis' book. Picture shows an old and heavy Mercedes Benz with a huge
linear injection pump.
I am thinking on use a modern TDI engine with a displacement of 1.5 litres or something
like that.
Thanks.
Juan D. Goyeni
----- Original Message -----
From: M&M Stanley
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Diesel Piet
Hi Juan
I had a look in Tony Bingelis 's book, "Firewall Forward" and the picture that
I wrote about is on page 21. There is a small round badge near the top of the
radiator which looks like it may be an early style Mercedes Benz badge but
I'm not certain, anyway, it looks interesting.
Mark S
Japan
( just another earthquake today and typhoon # 7 on the way...oh such fun!! )
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: weight savings |
Hello Douwe,
I don't know the weight of the split axle gear but the weight of the landing gear
on NX18235 is 60 lbs. That includes 19" wheels, 3.50 tires, ash gear legs, axle
(.120 wall thickness)
and spreader bars, all bracing cables and turnbuckles. It even includes the grease
cups on the hubs.
It does not include brakes as they are not installed.
Nice to see everyone at Brodhead. It was a fantastic turnout.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 8:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: weight savings
Hello,
Well, had a great time at Brodhead, wonderful to see so many Piets!!
I am doing a model A and came away (after seeing Alan Rudolf's 580 lbs model
A piet) that I need to look at everything I can to save weight.
The two biggest I can see that I can change are the very heavy (but beautiful)
brass radiator I have and the solid axle landing gear.
My question is this. How much weight (assuming I keep the large spoke tires)
would one actually save by using the improved landing gear? From my observation,
it looks as if the only major savings would be no axle, (which is pretty
hefty).
I was also thinking , if i did change, I'd like to try something along the lines
of the Scout landing gear as I've always loved that thirties look.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Aluminum fuel tank |
Hi Greg
I used 5052 aluminum .040 ordered from ACS. However, the last time I was at Gareleck
Steel at 1900 2nd St. N in Mpls. they had a few sheets on hand. Things
tend to come and go at that place. I installed baffles in my tank and fabricated
it in my shop, rivited it all together and then took it to a good welder.
I also sealed the tank with a tank sealer from the Eastwood Co.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2005 7:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aluminum fuel tank
A question for those of you with aluminum (aluminium to those of you in the UK)
fuel tanks in service.
What is the appropriate thickness and grade to use?
After 47 hours in service our riveted and soldered galvanized tank is developing
leaks.
Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello,
Greg, thanks for the weight info on your axle gear, very helpful.
I'd appreciate any input on the feasibility of using a skyscout type gear on an
aircamper. I know the vertical shock strut comes very close to the forward lift
strut and flying wire on a camper, but I think that can be taken care of.
That strut seems so thin and flimsy but I've never heard of any problems. I
assume it should be a bit beefier for a heavier plane.
I love the thirties look and it seems an efficient gear. I was thinking of a compression
spring and maybe test a small gas strut to dampen the springiness,if
I could find a strong light one.
Douwe
`
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters and interested,
Chuck called this am from Oshkosh and brought me up to date:
Thurs 7/21 Left Wichita late as usual and flew to Atchison, Ks for fuel. Was
delayed 1 1/2 hrs by a thunderstorm. Had to hangar his Piet. Finally left
and flew to Blakesburg, Iowa for overnite. He had a ball. Lots of fliers and
beer. Only negative was his new Wal Mart tent. It is too short. He has to sleep
with his knees in his chest but he doesn't complain as long as the beer
holds out.Says he is going to join up with this group for future stuff.
Fri 7/22 Called from Maquoketa, Iowa about 1430, fuel stop, and was about to
take off for the last leg to Brodhead. He should have been smoking the field
before 1600.
He must have had a ball at Brodhead as I didn't get a report until today
about 1000CST. He tried to fly to Osh Sunday but had to return to Brodhead
because of high winds. He said he was making about 12 mph ground speed bucking
winds in excess of 45 mph. He rode in a road vehicle with another person from
this list. Don't remember his name. He was sleeping in his tent at Osh and it
was flooded so he just rolled over and went back to sleep. He is buying lots
of books and spending most of his time in the Pietenpol hangar and the EAA
museum.
I believe he plans to return to Brodhead tomorrow and fly home to Wichita
thereafter.
He is enjoying himself.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: skyscout gear |
Douwe,
The first thing I would check is how the Sky Scout fuselage is braced
to handle the vertical shock strut loads.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 8:16 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: skyscout gear
> Hello,
>
> Greg, thanks for the weight info on your axle gear, very helpful.
>
> I'd appreciate any input on the feasibility of using a skyscout
> type gear on an aircamper. I know the vertical shock strut comes
> very close to the forward lift strut and flying wire on a camper,
> but I think that can be taken care of. That strut seems so thin
> and flimsy but I've never heard of any problems. I assume it
> should be a bit beefier for a heavier plane.
>
> I love the thirties look and it seems an efficient gear. I was
> thinking of a compression spring and maybe test a small gas strut
> to dampen the springiness,if I could find a strong light one.
>
> Douwe
>
>
>
> `
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HOEVELMANN <hoevelmann(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | J-3 Landing gear |
I purchased landing gear from a J-3 cub at Oshkosh. Has anyone used J-3 gear on
a Piet?
Thanks James J. Hoevelmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Stephen!" <pietenpol(at)imagesdesavions.com> |
Was I a bad boy and cut off from the list?
--
IBA# 11465
http://imagesdesavions.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear setup |
Greg
Two questions: Is your firewall position to the plans? (12" forward of the
front ash cross strut). How many inches did you have to move your wing back
to make CG (if any)?
Thanks
Rick H
On 7/24/05, gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com wrote:
>
> Long fuselage (per Don P.'s supplemental plans), A-65 engine, axle located
> 20" aft of the firewall has resulted in
> very good ground handling.
> With the plane level there is 15# on the skid.
> With a 220+ lb pilot the plane is quite maneuverable on the ground (no
> brakes, tailskid equipped)
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
After reading all the glowing reports of Brodhead 05 I have been trying hard
to work under an outside shed on my fuse but this La heat is tough on an ole
man so have decided to cover the fuse with a tarp and go into the a/c shop
and begin the wings. By the time they are completed it should be a bit cooler.
I want to be one of those who fly into Brodhead 06, God willing. Promised
Chuck Gantzer he could have a portion of my stand-up tent since his is too long
for his Wal-Mart shelter
CMC in La
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: Landing gear setup |
Rick,
The fuselage is built to the supplemental (Corvair) plans. I will
verify the dimension this weekend.
The wing is moved back 3 1/2 inches and we are flying close to the aft
cg limit.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Date: Friday, July 29, 2005 8:30 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing gear setup
> Greg
>
> Two questions: Is your firewall position to the plans? (12"
> forward of the
> front ash cross strut). How many inches did you have to move your
> wing back
> to make CG (if any)?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick H
>
> On 7/24/05, gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com wrote:
> >
> > Long fuselage (per Don P.'s supplemental plans), A-65 engine,
> axle located
> > 20" aft of the firewall has resulted in
> > very good ground handling.
> > With the plane level there is 15# on the skid.
> > With a 220+ lb pilot the plane is quite maneuverable on the
> ground (no
> > brakes, tailskid equipped)
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jake Crause" <admin(at)homebuiltairplanes.com> |
| Subject: | Spar Size analysis? |
Greetings,
I've been able to find some references in the archives about the 3/4"
spar being OK. My question is how was that conclusion reached? Can't
seem to find that part in the archives. I do not doubt that it is OK,
but I was hoping to have some facts to back up my choice for the smaller
spar. Was there an analysis done?
Does anyone have a weight comparison between the 1" routed spar and a
solid 3/4".
Jake Crause
www.homebuiltairplanes.com
P.S. Got my Table DONE - Working on the Rib Jig!!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Wire wheel info from Brodhead |
Several people asked about where to order the hub/rim/spokes/tires/tubes like the
21" wheel I took to Brodhead.
I scanned all the invoices and copied them to the files section of mykitplane.com...
Keep in mind that the invoices are for 2 sets so watch the quantities......I think
the tires/tubes were for one set but just watch the quantities closely....
They can be found here:
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/filesList2.cfm?AlbumID=67>
Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Hubbard <enhubbard(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Size analysis? |
Jake,
Page 64 of the manual (note 10) says that Pietenpol himself used spars
laminated out of 3/4" square material for his later aircraft.
The engineering that would go into it would be to calculate the moment
of inertia for the two cross-sections. Units come out as inches to the
fourth power. The higher the moment of inertia, the better.
I started covering my Piet this week--tail and one aileron have
Polyfiber on them now, and wings are off.
Gene Hubbard
San Diego
Jake Crause wrote:
>
>Greetings,
>
>I've been able to find some references in the archives about the 3/4"
>spar being OK. My question is how was that conclusion reached? Can't
>seem to find that part in the archives. I do not doubt that it is OK,
>but I was hoping to have some facts to back up my choice for the smaller
>spar. Was there an analysis done?
>
>Does anyone have a weight comparison between the 1" routed spar and a
>solid 3/4".
>
>Jake Crause
>www.homebuiltairplanes.com
>
>P.S. Got my Table DONE - Working on the Rib Jig!!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | rhartwig11(at)juno.com |
>I've been able to find some references in the archives about the 3/4"
>spar being OK
Jake,
I purchased my plans from Don Pietenpol several years ago. The "3 Piece
Wing Supplement for AirCamper and Sky Scout"--drawn by Vi Kapler in 1975
and revised by Dick Gleason in 1982 is part of those plans. It shows
only 3/4 inch spars for the 3 piece wing.
Dick Hartwig
Waunakee, WI
rhartwig11(at)juno.com
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAtAhQh97Cqya5ngZ99LsIRs7801BTj7AIVAL4Q3Z/hjkOpEPJhfSLxMSXQoLyG
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Re: weight savings |
Hello Douwe: I had a copper-brass radiator that weighed 18 lbs. I
decided to go with the VW Golf radiator from LEAF that weighs 4 lbs. I
did build a framework around it for better look and strength. It now
weighs slightly more, but not much. I did the split gear. It all weighs
48 lbs. Minus bungees. With ATV wheels, tires, and Hager hubs brakes,
etc. I am considering changing by bungees to springs. That may add a
little more weight. I was talking to the man with Blue Harron and the
black Scout about the Scout gear. ( I forgot his name ) He was telling
me that the Scout gear possess some weird geometry , and "does funny
things" He said it was a lot of work and still isn't quite right.I kind
of let it go over my head since I wasn't building the Scout gear, but he
added "BHP never quite had it figured out either". Several years ago Sp.
Av. had an article by Chad Willie on building a scout and said kind of
the same thing. I think if I was to build a Scout I would use one of the
other gears on it. If you are interested in a light weight wheel-brake
set up, there was a nice set up on display in the ultra light area from
an outfit called FBI. ( Free Bird Innovations ) www.flyfbi.com who makes
a nice set up for $350. Al. wheels and tires, disc brakes, 5/8 axels,
lines fittings and one brake lever. The tires are small, but the wheels
are 6" so larger ones are readily available. I"m a little concerned that
5/8" axels may be a little light. I gave $400 for the Hager (AS&S) (3/4"
axels) set up 4 years ago without tires and wheels. Good luck keeping it
light. Leon S. In Kansas where for some strange reason it's just as cool
as Wisconsin.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Norman Stapelberg" <norshel(at)mweb.co.za> |
Hi Fellow pilots
I have come up with a problem and need some help, my Pietenpol is fitted
with a Lycoming 0-235-C, last Sunday a stud broke on pot 2. I took her
in to the local engine shop, only to be told that she still has brass
inlet seats and needs to be moded, I solved the radio problem I had now
it seems another problem has cropped in, even with the cylinder that was
not functioning for the last 14hrs, I still maintained 500 fpm climb at
60mph.
Does anyone know where I can get inlet valves and seats? I am led to
believe my motors spares are scarce.
Thanks
Norman
ZS-VJA
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 0-235-C Valves |
Norman,
That O-235 is just about the most popular engine that Lycosaurus made. I'd be really surprised if you couldn't find parts in So. Africa out of a Tomahawk, or stationary power generator or any older Piper Colt. If not, go to Trade-a-Plane on the web, look for parts, and ck out the folks at Wentworth on the web at www.wentworthaircraft.com via email. Wentworth is in Minnesota, and they've always had whatever I've looked for and taken back parts with any issue. Sometimes it's cheaper and better idea to replace entire jug with used one.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
"Slip the surley bonds"
----- Original Message -----
From: Norman Stapelberg
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 8:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 0-235-C Valves
Hi Fellow pilots
I have come up with a problem and need some help, my Pietenpol is fitted with
a Lycoming 0-235-C, last Sunday a stud broke on pot 2. I took her in to the local
engine shop, only to be told that she still has brass inlet seats and needs
to be moded, I solved the radio problem I had now it seems another problem
has cropped in, even with the cylinder that was not functioning for the last 14hrs,
I still maintained 500 fpm climb at 60mph.
Does anyone know where I can get inlet valves and seats? I am led to believe
my motors spares are scarce.
Thanks
Norman
ZS-VJA
South Africa
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Green Piet @ Oshkosh |
| From: | rbutch(at)inreach.com |
I missed the name on the card, but does anybody know who had the green
Piet at Oshkosh early in the week? It was beautiful!
Ron Butcher
Turlock, Ca.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Green Piet @ Oshkosh |
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
That was Jack Phillips, a regular poster to this list and I am happy to say
a good friend of mine. We had a great weekend at Brodhead together along
with Mike Cuy.
-john-
>
> I missed the name on the card, but does anybody know who had the green
> Piet at Oshkosh early in the week? It was beautiful!
>
> Ron Butcher
> Turlock, Ca.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Green Piet @ Oshkosh |
That sounds like Jack Phillips out of Raleigh, NC. It would have a Corn
Yellow wing and yes, it is a beauty.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: <rbutch(at)inreach.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Green Piet @ Oshkosh
>
> I missed the name on the card, but does anybody know who had the green
> Piet at Oshkosh early in the week? It was beautiful!
>
> Ron Butcher
> Turlock, Ca.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Green Piet @ Oshkosh |
You might mean Jack Phillips?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: <rbutch(at)inreach.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Green Piet @ Oshkosh
>
> I missed the name on the card, but does anybody know who had the green
> Piet at Oshkosh early in the week? It was beautiful!
>
> Ron Butcher
> Turlock, Ca.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spar Size analysis? |
For 1" routed spars:
Moment of Inertia = 7.50
Allowable bending stress = 5132 psi
Volume of wood in the spars = 1.28 ft/3
For 3/4" solid spars:
Moment of Inertia = 6.70
Allowable bending stress = 6200psi
Volume of wood in the spars = 1.46 ft/3
The allowable bending stress for the routed
spars is reduced because
a form factor has to applied (per ANC-18,
page 36, 1944 edition)
You'll have trouble breaking either spar
option.
It's early and the caffeine hasn't kicked in
yet so the professionals
on the list might want verify these numbers.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Hubbard"
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Spar Size
analysis?
> Hubbard
>
> Jake,
>
> Page 64 of the manual (note 10) says that
> Pietenpol himself used spars laminated out
> of 3/4" square material for his later
> aircraft.
>
> The engineering that would go into it would
> be to calculate the moment of inertia for
> the two cross-sections. Units come out as
> inches to the fourth power. The higher the
> moment of inertia, the better.
>
> I started covering my Piet this week--tail
> and one aileron have Polyfiber on them now,
> and wings are off.
>
> Gene Hubbard
> San Diego
>
> Jake Crause wrote:
>
>>Crause"
>>
>>Greetings,
>>
>>I've been able to find some references in
>>the archives about the 3/4"
>>spar being OK. My question is how was that
>>conclusion reached? Can't
>>seem to find that part in the archives. I
>>do not doubt that it is OK,
>>but I was hoping to have some facts to back
>>up my choice for the smaller
>>spar. Was there an analysis done?
>>
>>Does anyone have a weight comparison
>>between the 1" routed spar and a
>>solid 3/4".
>>Jake Crause
>>www.homebuiltairplanes.com
>>
>>P.S. Got my Table DONE - Working on the
>>Rib Jig!!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Forum -
> Navigator to browse
> Subscriptions page,
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Vacuum Bagging presentation at Brodhead.... |
Here's the info on the suppliers for the stuff I used for the vacuum bagging presentation
at Brodhead:
http://www.acp-composites.com/acp-vbes.htm Aerospace Composite Products. This is where I bought my stuff, you'll recognize the parts.
http://www.cstsales.com/index.htm The Composites Store. Another good source.
Brodhead.....what a wonderful place.
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
Cook (K50) to Earhart (K59) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.47 gal/hr
5500 msl
Earhart (K59) to Centerville (TVK) 143 sm 1.9 hrs 6.4 gal 3.36
gal/hr 5500 msl
Centerville (TVK) to Antique Field (Pvt) 30 sm .7 hrs 2000 msl
Antique Field (Pvt) to Maquoketa (OQN) 120 sm 1.9 hrs 10 gal 3.8
gal/hr 5500 msl
Maquoketa (OQN) to Brodhead (C37) 80 sm 1.2 hrs 5500 msl
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight - did Smokin' Figure 8's
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Out & Back 20 sm Attempt flight to
Oshkosh, but the headwinds won out !! I had almost full power in, with an
indicated speed of 73 mph, pointing the nose west, trying to track north, and a
ground
speed of 17 mph !!
Brodhead (C37) to Maquoketa (OQN) 80 sm 1.3 hrs 5.4 gal 4.1 gal/hr
4500 msl
On this leg, I didn't climb as high, but I still leaned it out, with a higher
power setting of 2100 rpm, which I believe is why the fuel burn was higher.
Maquoketa (OQN) to Centerville (TVK) 145 sm 2.5 hrs 9.13 gal 3.65
gal/hr 4500 msl
Centerville (TVK) to Earhart (K59) 143 sm 2.2 hrs 7.8 gal 3.5 gal/hr
4500 msl
Earhart (K59) to Cook (K50) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.4 gal/hr
4500 msl
All told, I burned 65.7 gal of fuel (Av Gas & Mo Gas), logged 18 hrs flight
time, covered 1171 sm, which gave me an average fuel burn of 3.63 gal/hr, and
17.8 miles per gallon. I am suprised that my plane doesn't get very good miles
per gallon, but I triple checked the numbers, and that's a little better than
I got last year.
I'm working on a long post about the details of the trip.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jake Crause" <admin(at)homebuiltairplanes.com> |
-----------------------
The "3 Piece
Wing Supplement for AirCamper and Sky Scout"--drawn by Vi Kapler in 1975
and revised by Dick Gleason in 1982 is part of those plans. It shows
only 3/4 inch spars for the 3 piece wing.
------------------------
Oh, yeah. There is that! Duh, I feel a bit goofy. I was zeroing in on
the original plans and forgot about the 3 piece set showing 3/4 in both
the center section AND the main wing panels. Says right on the 3 piece
wing drawing: "Designed by BHP". Good enough for me.
Jake
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
How many frequent flyer miles did you get credit for on that Chuck?
Rick
All told, I burned 65.7 gal of fuel (Av Gas & Mo Gas), logged 18 hrs flight
> time, covered 1171 sm, which gave me an average fuel burn of 3.63 gal/hr,
> and 17.8 miles per gallon. I am suprised that my plane doesn't get very
> good miles per gallon, but I triple checked the numbers, and that's a little
> better than I got last year.
> I'm working on a long post about the details of the trip.
> Chuck Gantzer
> NX770CG
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 8:47 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
Cook (K50) to Earhart (K59) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.47 gal/hr 5500
msl
Earhart (K59) to Centerville (TVK) 143 sm 1.9 hrs 6.4 gal 3.36 gal/hr
5500 msl
Centerville (TVK) to Antique Field (Pvt) 30 sm .7 hrs 2000 msl
Antique Field (Pvt) to Maquoketa (OQN) 120 sm 1.9 hrs 10 gal 3.8 gal/hr
5500 msl
Maquoketa (OQN) to Brodhead (C37) 80 sm 1.2 hrs 5500 msl
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight - did Smokin' Figure 8's
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Local flight
Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37) Out & Back 20 sm Attempt flight to Oshkosh,
but the headwinds won out !! I had almost full power in, with an indicated
speed of 73 mph, pointing the nose west, trying to track north, and a ground
speed of 17 mph !!
Brodhead (C37) to Maquoketa (OQN) 80 sm 1.3 hrs 5.4 gal 4.1 gal/hr 4500
msl
On this leg, I didn't climb as high, but I still leaned it out, with a higher
power setting of 2100 rpm, which I believe is why the fuel burn was higher.
Maquoketa (OQN) to Centerville (TVK) 145 sm 2.5 hrs 9.13 gal 3.65 gal/hr
4500 msl
Centerville (TVK) to Earhart (K59) 143 sm 2.2 hrs 7.8 gal 3.5 gal/hr
4500 msl
Earhart (K59) to Cook (K50) 175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal 3.4 gal/hr 4500
msl
All told, I burned 65.7 gal of fuel (Av Gas & Mo Gas), logged 18 hrs flight time,
covered 1171 sm, which gave me an average fuel burn of 3.63 gal/hr, and 17.8
miles per gallon. I am suprised that my plane doesn't get very good miles
per gallon, but I triple checked the numbers, and that's a little better than
I got last year.
I'm working on a long post about the details of the trip.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
Chris
What are you burning? I have been at about 4.1 gph. I checked the engine manual,
it should be more like 3.7 gph. I was getting ready to do some trouble shooting.
My flying has been at less than 2500' at 2100 rpm.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
<005301c595f6$168e5fd0$0700a8c0@DICKLAPTOP>
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
I have always found that flight planning at 4.0 was pretty much on the money.
I get 4.0 on the C-85 in the Cessna 140 when I lean at altitude.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
Chris
What are you burning? I have been at about 4.1 gph. I checked the engine manual,
it should be more like 3.7 gph. I was getting ready to do some trouble
shooting. My flying has been at less than 2500' at 2100 rpm.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Christian Bobka
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, July 31, 2005 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?
Chris
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wdmelvin(at)netzero.net" <wdmelvin(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Long time reader, first time writer |
Hello everyone,
I need help. I would like to start building a Piet but am having trouble
deciding on an engine (suprise). Model A has big time classic look appeal not
so much perf and forward vis (correct me if I'm wrong). Corvair has more power
better forward vis not so much classic appeal (solely my opinion). If anyone
has good numbers on both I would appreciate seeing them as far as weight cost
range speed etc. Does the Corvair version use the extended fuse? Do you still
run an alternator with the Corvair. Money is definitely an issue but would like
a good running toy with max classic appeal. I'm not trying to stir up a debate
just looking for info so you can e-mail me direct to keep from plugging up the
list if you'd like. Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Someone else mentioned "strange geometry" re the scout gear. I can't make sense
of this however. If the pivot points for the "V" are the same as the "improved
gear", the geometry is identical. The only difference is the method of absorbing
the shock, which would have no bearing on the arc the wheels take as they
flex.
It would seem that any "strange geometry" would have been built into the gear.
Am I missing something here?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Interesting, Leon's improved gear weighs 48 lbs without bungess, so figure 50 all
up
The axle gear weighs 80 all up.
a savings of ten pounds, wonder if it's worth it
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Long time reader, first time writer |
Hello Bill
Yes most people use the long (supplemental) fuselage plans if using the
Corvair engine, (and sometimes when using a Lycoming or Continental). Some
people refer to the long fuse plans as the Corvair plans. As far as info on
the Corvair engine conversion this site will give you all the info you need:
http://www.flycorvair.com/index.html
I will let the experts address your Model A questions.
Rick H
On 7/31/05, wdmelvin(at)netzero.net wrote:
>
> wdmelvin(at)netzero.net>
>
>
> Hello everyone,
> I need help. I would like to start building a Piet but am having trouble
> deciding on an engine (suprise). Model A has big time classic look appeal
> not
> so much perf and forward vis (correct me if I'm wrong). Corvair has more
> power
> better forward vis not so much classic appeal (solely my opinion). If
> anyone
> has good numbers on both I would appreciate seeing them as far as weight
> cost
> range speed etc. Does the Corvair version use the extended fuse? Do you
> still
> run an alternator with the Corvair. Money is definitely an issue but would
> like
> a good running toy with max classic appeal. I'm not trying to stir up a
> debate
> just looking for info so you can e-mail me direct to keep from plugging up
> the
> list if you'd like. Thanks.
> Bill
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Brodhead wing ribs |
If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a copy
never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs on
the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a third
the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half the
weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
Grentzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: gear weights |
I think you meant 60 instead of 80. Greg and dale's weighs 60.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 7:23 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gear weights
Interesting, Leon's improved gear weighs 48 lbs without bungess, so figure 50
all up
The axle gear weighs 80 all up.
a savings of ten pounds, wonder if it's worth it
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sky scout gear |
Douwe,
I agree with you. It should work fine. I am still working on your other question.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 7:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: sky scout gear
Someone else mentioned "strange geometry" re the scout gear. I can't make sense
of this however. If the pivot points for the "V" are the same as the "improved
gear", the geometry is identical. The only difference is the method of
absorbing the shock, which would have no bearing on the arc the wheels take as
they flex.
It would seem that any "strange geometry" would have been built into the gear.
Am I missing something here?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead wing ribs |
The 3 piece Piet wing being built in the aeroplane tent in Oshkosh used 1/4"
x 1/4" cap strip for all ribs (like the Pitts).
Rick H
On 8/1/05, Ed G. wrote:
>
>
> If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a copy
> never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs on
> the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
> Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
> normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a
> third
> the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half the
> weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
> Grentzer
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jdavis2a(at)wmconnect.com |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead wing ribs |
I believe the wings you are refering to are Scout wings. Slightly smaller
than the aircamper wings.
JIM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Brodhead wing ribs |
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
FILETIME=[78907DC0:01C596A6]
Yes, I asked while I was there, and they were for a Sky Scout.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a
copy
never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs
on
the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a
third
the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half
the
weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
Grentzer
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Brodhead wing ribs |
Okay....That explains why the fuselages looked like a short Fuselage Air
Camper with split gear..I didn't know that the Scout used smaller rib
material.Thanks Ed Grentzer
>From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
>Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 09:36:56 -0500
>
>
>Yes, I asked while I was there, and they were for a Sky Scout.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
>[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
>Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 8:56 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
>
>
>If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a
>copy
>never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs
>on
>the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
>
>Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
>normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a
>third
>the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half
>the
>weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
>
>Grentzer
>
>
>This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
>contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt
>from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error,
>please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
>destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>==============================================================================
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead wing ribs |
Ed,
The lumber list that I ordered spruce from stated "under 65 hp use
1/4"X1/4" cap strips,,,over 65hp use 1/4"X1/2" capstrip".
I used 1/4"X1/2".
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
>
>
> If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a copy
> never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs on
> the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
> Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
> normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a
third
> the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half the
> weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
> Grentzer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Brodhead wing ribs |
That's interesting Walt...I never heard that one before...Ed Grentzer do
not archive
>From: "walt evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
>Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:24:59 -0400
>
>
>Ed,
> The lumber list that I ordered spruce from stated "under 65 hp use
>1/4"X1/4" cap strips,,,over 65hp use 1/4"X1/2" capstrip".
>I used 1/4"X1/2".
>
>walt evans
>NX140DL
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
>To:
>Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:56 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Brodhead wing ribs
>
>
> >
> >
> > If this is a duplicate post I apologize...I posted it last week but a
>copy
> > never came back to me from Matronics....Did anyone notice the wing ribs
>on
> > the two one piece wings that were being built in the Pietenpol hanger at
> > Brodhead? Both sets of ribs were only about 5/16" wide instead of the
> > normal 1/2" called out in the plans and the gussets were only about a
>third
> > the size shown in the plans. I would bet that they were close to half
>the
> > weight of "by the plans" ribs and they looked plenty strong enough....Ed
> > Grentzer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | The Hofmann Hilton Resort Camping Facility |
Finally back to catch up on all the e-mails. I wanted to thank lister and
Taylorcraft owner
and all-round nice guy John Hoffmann for hosting Jack Phillips and I nearby
his great camping
setup, eatery, grill, and refreshment center at Brodhead. We've already
made reservations for next year.
Thanks John and to many of the other lister I got to meet like Ed G. Chuck.
G. Dick N. Douwe B. Jim M. and more.
Meeting Javier Cruz was fantastic. What a neat guy.....and so gracious.
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | barnstmr(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Broadhead photos |
Anxiously awaiting to see photos from Broadhead.
Terry L. Bowden
still hoping to make it next year
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: The Hofmann Hilton Resort Camping Facility
Finally back to catch up on all the e-mails. I wanted to thank lister and Taylorcraft
owner
and all-round nice guy John Hoffmann for hosting Jack Phillips and I nearby his
great camping
setup, eatery, grill, and refreshment center at Brodhead. We've already made reservations
for next year.
Thanks John and to many of the other lister I got to meet like Ed G. Chuck. G.
Dick N. Douwe B. Jim M. and more.
Meeting Javier Cruz was fantastic. What a neat guy.....and so gracious.
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
| Subject: | Re: gear weights |
What happened to the remaining 20 pounds?
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Monday, August 1, 2005 5:23 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gear weights
> Interesting, Leon's improved gear weighs 48 lbs without bungess,
> so figure 50 all up
>
> The axle gear weighs 80 all up.
>
> a savings of ten pounds, wonder if it's worth it
>
> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 7/31/2005 10:24:26 AM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
How many frequent flyer miles did you get credit for on that Chuck?
Rick
I just pay myself cash !!
Chuck
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 7/31/2005 10:49:31 AM Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
And you are complaining about getting 3.63 gal/hour?
Chris
Naw, I just like to experiment. I'm finding out where all the burn rates
are, for the various power settings, altitude, EGT, CHT, Oil temp, etc... I'm
still planning on finding the service ceiling, and absolute ceiling. I have a
hunch this will change, if I remove the front pit cover. I really like it
there for the cross country flights, because it lowers the drag, keeps a lot of
the wind out of the cockpit, and it's much easier to manage folding the charts.
It gets pretty cold up there, too !! I brought along the new front
windshield, but didn't get the chance to use the quick change, and give some rides.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 7/31/2005 12:36:18 PM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Chris
What are you burning? I have been at about 4.1 gph. I checked the engine
manual, it should be more like 3.7 gph. I was getting ready to do some trouble
shooting. My flying has been at less than 2500' at 2100 rpm.
Dick N.
Dick,
Try a flight at 1950 to 2000 rpm, and I can almost guarantee your burn rate
will drop.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 7/31/2005 4:36:33 PM Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
I have always found that flight planning at 4.0 was pretty much on the money.
I get 4.0 on the C-85 in the Cessna 140 when I lean at altitude.
chris
Chris,
I always plan on the 4.0 gph also.
I was wondering what altitude you begin to lean it out at ?
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
I lean out after takeoff and continue to lean in the climb, keeping it to the rich
side a little.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
In a message dated 7/31/2005 4:36:33 PM Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net
writes:
I have always found that flight planning at 4.0 was pretty much on the money.
I get 4.0 on the C-85 in the Cessna 140 when I lean at altitude.
chris
Chris,
I always plan on the 4.0 gph also.
I was wondering what altitude you begin to lean it out at ?
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TomTravis(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 8/1/2005 9:14:31 P.M. Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
I lean out after takeoff and continue to lean in the climb, keeping it to
the rich side a little.
Chris,
Do you have an EGT gauge?
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
No, I just note the full rpm rise and then lean for half the rise.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
In a message dated 8/1/2005 9:14:31 P.M. Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net
writes:
I lean out after takeoff and continue to lean in the climb, keeping it to the
rich side a little.
Chris,
Do you have an EGT gauge?
Tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Douwe,
I looked at the Skyscout gear the same as you are, the thing is the Skyscout has
a cross brace between the top longerons at the point where the vertical shock
struts connects to the longeron. That place is in the middle of the front pit
on the Aircamper, you could "beef-up" to take the place of the cross brace,
but that would add weight.
Skip
I'd appreciate any input on the feasibility of using a skyscout type gear on an
aircamper. Douwe
`
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Douwe,
I looked at the Skyscout gear the same as you are, the thing is the Skyscout has
a cross brace between the top longerons at the point where the vertical shock
struts connects to the longeron. That place is in the middle of the front pit
on the Aircamper, you could "beef-up" to take the place of the cross brace,
but that would add weight.
Skip
I'd appreciate any input on the feasibility of using a skyscout type gear on an
aircamper. Douwe
`
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | J-3 Landing gear |
James,
The J-3 gear is about 4 to 6 inches shorter then the Piet gear where it connects
to the lower longeron, Grega used the J-3 gear and put an extra upright and
diagonal to handle the shorter gear. If you hold a J-3 gear A-frame up to the
lower longeron on a Piet, with the front lined up with a vertical, the back A-frame
leg will not match up with a vertical.
Skip
I purchased landing gear from a J-3 cub at Oshkosh. Has anyone used J-3 gear on
a Piet?
Thanks James J. Hoevelmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: skyscout gear |
Skip is right. Reaction of the structure duw to landing woul be up on the longeron
as well as in toward the center so a cross brace that would be in compression
as the struts compress and tension as the struts rebound would be needed.
The question is a matter of placement. Let me look at the side view again...
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Cinda Gadd
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 01, 2005 10:23 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: skyscout gear
Douwe,
I looked at the Skyscout gear the same as you are, the thing is the Skyscout
has a cross brace between the top longerons at the point where the vertical shock
struts connects to the longeron. That place is in the middle of the front
pit on the Aircamper, you could "beef-up" to take the place of the cross brace,
but that would add weight.
Skip
I'd appreciate any input on the feasibility of using a skyscout type gear on
an aircamper. Douwe
`
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | J-3 Landing gear |
Cinda + Skip Gadd
csfog(at)earthlink.net
James,
The J-3 gear is about 4 to 6 inches shorter then the Piet gear where it connects
to the lower longeron, Grega used the J-3 gear and put an extra upright and
diagonal to handle the shorter gear. If you hold a J-3 gear A-frame up to the
lower longeron on a Piet, with the front lined up with a vertical, the back A-frame
leg will not match up with a vertical.
Skip
I purchased landing gear from a J-3 cub at Oshkosh. Has anyone used J-3 gear on
a Piet?
Thanks James J. Hoevelmann
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
In a message dated 8/1/2005 9:52:15 PM Central Standard Time,
sbobka(at)charter.net writes:
No, I just note the full rpm rise and then lean for half the rise.
Chris
I have NO noticeable rise in RPM on my Cont. A65, even up to 6500 msl. This
is somewhat difficult to see, because slight pitch changes effect the RPM,
especially a slight pitch down. If a change in RPM is there, I can't conclude
it
due to leaning the mixture. Therefore, my only immediate indication is a
rise in EGT. The CHT then indicates a rise after several minutes, and I haven't
been able to see much rise in oil temp at all. The info I have about the A65
and Stromberg carb, states that leaning the mixture at less than 5000' Density
Altitude will not do any good. Flight testing, and perhaps re-reading the
procedures, shall continue, and I will report the results.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
100=BA today, and 101=BA forecast for the next day or so.
I think it's supposed to decrease by 3=BA F for each 1000' in altitude.
Hummm....Might not be too bad up around 9000' or 10,000'.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers |
at a 1000 foot field elevation, 101 degree temp, 88 degree dewpoint, and a standard
altimeter setting, you are looking at about a 4400 foot density altitude.
Start leaning at about 600 feet after you take off and you will be at a 5000
foot density altitude.
see http://wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_da.htm
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05 Crunching the Numbers
In a message dated 8/1/2005 9:52:15 PM Central Standard Time, sbobka(at)charter.net
writes:
No, I just note the full rpm rise and then lean for half the rise.
Chris
I have NO noticeable rise in RPM on my Cont. A65, even up to 6500 msl. This
is somewhat difficult to see, because slight pitch changes effect the RPM, especially
a slight pitch down. If a change in RPM is there, I can't conclude it
due to leaning the mixture. Therefore, my only immediate indication is a rise
in EGT. The CHT then indicates a rise after several minutes, and I haven't
been able to see much rise in oil temp at all. The info I have about the A65
and Stromberg carb, states that leaning the mixture at less than 5000' Density
Altitude will not do any good. Flight testing, and perhaps re-reading the procedures,
shall continue, and I will report the results.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
100=BA today, and 101=BA forecast for the next day or so.
I think it's supposed to decrease by 3=BA F for each 1000' in altitude. Hummm....Might
not be too bad up around 9000' or 10,000'.
________________________________________________________________________________
Hey Group !!
I had a great adventure again this year !! I just can't get enough of this
airplane stuff !! Be warned, this is a long post. Here is a
summery of my trip:
Thursday 7/21/05 Cook (K50) to Earhart (K59)
175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal MoGas $2.50 / gal. 3.47 gal/hr
5500 msl
Depart Cook Airfield on Thursday 7/21 at 10:45 am. I got there soon
after the sun came up, but I fiddle fart around so much, it seems like I can never
depart before 10 am !! The windsock showed a little bit of a tailwind. Take
Off Weight was at 1000 lbs, and after a long take off roll, I left full power
in until I climbed to 5500 msl. It took me till I got way past El Dorado Lake
to get there, or about 30 or 35 statute miles. Leveled off, and pulled power
to 2000 rpm, and started leaning 'er out. It didn't effect the rpm too much,
but the EGT raised about 100=BA to 1250=BA. The CHT was steady at 325=BA, but
the
oil temp never went above 140=BA, with OAT at 70=BA. I had a comfortable
temperature up there, and I had a great tailwind, with Ground Speed of over=2090
mph !!
A couple of times the Ground Speed was over 100 mph !! Indicated airspeed
was 60 mph, but without the error, I was actually doing about 70 mph true
airspeed, which meant I had a tailwind of about 20 to 30 mph. I'll take that any
day !! Begin slow decent at 10 miles out, so I can leave some power in, and
prevent shock cooling. Fuel stop at Amelia Earhart field, in Atchison KS.
After feeding 'er some fuel & oil, I pushed 'er over to the grass. I always
launch from the grass when I'm by myself. She'll creep on the hard surface, with
the engine idling...and I gotta tell ya, that's a wild ride with one foot on
the seat, I'm half way in, and the plane moving across the tarmac !! Now I
notice to the North & northwest, some dark clouds with mares tails (streaks=20of
rain) under the clouds. Should I go, or should I wait it out. The weather
seemed a long time getting here. Should I go or should I wait it out...well I
fiddle fart around till it starts to sprinkle rain, then it begins to rain.=20
A
couple of guys from the maintenance hanger came running out in the rain, to=20open
a Tee Hanger, and helped me to push 'er in, and wait out the rain. I gotta
tell ya, Airplane People are the greatest !! The next 2 hours I spent wiping
the plane down, with loud cracks of thunder and lighting so near, is sent
shivers down my spine !! Then there is the deafening sound of hard rain on=20a
tin
roof...but it didn't leak a drop. The only wind was when the front initially
went through, then the rain was pretty much straight down. Before the storm
came through, I talked briefly with the pilot of a S1S Pitts show plane, who said
he had performed yesterday, here at Earhart Field. He was eager to depart,
but decided to wait out the storm, under the closed canopy of his plane. After
the worst of it went through, I saw him back taxi on 16, and depart in the
last of the rain. I thought to myself, boy is that prop taking a beating !! I
shall never ever curse the rain, especially when the locals tell me they need
it so much. The rain finally subsided, and I pushed my plane out to the
grass, closed up the doors of the old hanger, tied the stick back in the seatbelt,
choked the wheels, pre-flight the plane, and continued on my journey.
7/21/05 Earhart (K59) to Centerville (TVK)
143 sm 1.9 hrs 6.4 gal MoGas $2.65 / gal 3.36 gal/hr
5500 msl
Once again after the take off roll on hard surface, I left full power in
until I reached my cruising altitude, leveled off, pulled power to 1900 rpm,
leaned it out till the EGT was 1250=BA, and enjoyed the scenery drifting beneath
my
trusty wings. When cruising above 3000 agl, tracking between 0=BA and 179=BA
magnetic course, VFR cruise altitudes are Odd Thousands plus 500 in msl. I've
never cruised at these higher altitudes, and it seems quite different from the
low
& slow way of getting there. The lay of the land is more evident from up here
valleys, evident by the way the vegetation grows. Rivers and streams are always
accompanied by trees and vegetation on both banks, snarling their way through vast
fields of man made crops, who's color depicts what type is grown, and how
mature it is. When flying low & slow, the color of these fields also determines,
to an extent, where the thermals are. Thick healthy vegetation absorbs the
suns rays, and brown dirt, or sand, or concrete, reflects the suns energy in
the form of thermals and bumps. Towns, roads, railroads, lakes, and towers=20are
the landmarks I watch for, and add an inch or so at a time to my chart, with a
highlighter, to keep track of my position. I maintain the GPS as my backup
navigation source. It has maintained it's power, ever since I added the small
12v battery on the firewall. The 12v battery also supplies power to the smoke
pump (12v windshield washer pump), and the handheld Icom A5 com radio. One
problem I still haven't worked out, is that when the GPS is activated, the com
radio has a lot of interference for both reception and transmission. I plan
on locating a remote com antenna to combat this problem. Begin the decent
about 8 or 10 miles out, and did a slight crosswind landing on 16.
7/21/05 Centerville (TVK) to Antique Field (Pvt)
30 sm .7 hrs 2000 msl
This was a relatively short flight to a beautiful field, with two grass
runways, and quite a collection of antique airplanes and airplane stuff in the
hangers. There is also a Sky Scout, and 2 AirCampers based there. It's a private
field, so I made a phone call to see if I was able to pitch camp there for
the night. They welcomed me, and showed me where to tie down, and pitch tent,
close to the back of a hanger, for wind protection. Brent Taylor rode me to
town for dinner, where we met Barry, and another guy. They have an annual Fly
In for members only. This year it's from Aug. 31 to Sept 5. Ben Taylor (in
his 20's), Brent's son, has hopes on flying his Model A Pietenpol, with a skid
and no brakes, from coast to coast.
Friday 7/22/05 Antique Field (Pvt) to Maquoketa (OQN)
120 sm 1.9 hrs 10 gal $3.13 / gal. 3.8 gal/hr 5500
msl
I had my first close relationship with a cloud on this leg. Too Cool !! It
was so close, I felt like I could reach out, grab it, and drag it along !! =20I
got a couple of pictures of the clouds. I could have made Brodhead without
this fuel stop, but it would have been pushing my reserve, if I would have met
headwinds.
7/22/05 Maquoketa (OQN) to Brodhead (C37)
80 sm 1.2 hrs 5500 msl
What more can I say about the annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Brodhead. It is the
yearly Highlight of the Pietenpol community. It's where builders and flyers
gather every year, to see old friends, make new ones, talk of airplanes, how
to do this or that, hop some rides, and just have a great time. I counted 19
Pietenpols on the field this year on Friday. Several less than that on
Saturday, probably due to the showers that fell most of the afternoon. We had
FOUR
new Pietenpol's there this year. Quite a good showing. There were people from
all over the United States, and also folks from the UK, Australia, and
Mexico. I met a lot of folks from the Matronics Pietenpol List.
Friday 7/22/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Local flight - did Smokin' Figure 8's on Friday evening.
I've been practicing making Figure 8's in the sky, and on a calm evening,
with a blue sky, it's a really fun thing to do. I use almost full power, with
a
steep bank angle. The smoke hangs long enough to see the Nascar Number that I
root for - Dale Ernhart Jr.
Saturday 7/23/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Local flight - I had a small problem when one of the smoke lines
broke, where it goes in the exhaust fitting. After it was repaired, and after
the rain ceased, I did a test flight, but the evening came on quickly.
Therefore, I was not able to remove my butterfly front pit cover, and install the
new windshield that I had stowed away. I was looking forward to giving some
rides, but it just didn't come to pass. My plan was for an early morning
departure for Oshkosh, with Jack Phillips in NX899JP.
Just before dusk, they decided to run that old Ansuzi engine with a great
big prop, they had mounted on a mock-up tube fuselage. Ya had to have been
there to see how this three banger ran. Bap...Bang, Bang, Whapidy BAP BAP,
Bang, Bang, all the time belching pumes of caster oil smoke that put my smoke
system to shame !! It was very loud, and did smooth out a little, all the while
you could see the fire breathing from the exhaust ports. The guy sitting in
the cockpit wore a poncho, so he wouldn't end up beiing soaked in caster oil.
Ain't no wonder all those W W I pilots had to wear a white scarf, and had
diarea !!
Sunday 7/24/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Out & Back 20 sm .7 hrs 11 gal. MoGas
I attempted flight to Oshkosh, but the headwinds won out !! I took off
shortly after Jack Phillips NX899JP departed, and climbed to 3000 msl. The=20winds
down low were just a little bit bumpy, but when I was just a couple thousand
feet agl, the bumps smoothed out with very little turbulence. Problem was the
smooth, straight line winds out of the West must have been at least 45 or 50
mph !! I progressed NNE without much problem, when I noticed I was drifting
quite readily to the East. As I battled this wind, I ended up with my nose
pointing straight to the West, trying to track to the North. I had almost full
power in, heading west, tracking north, and the GPS showed a ground speed of
just 16 MPH !! My track to the North must have been in the single digits !!
There is a tall Monster Tower in that vicinity, that I had between my right=20lift
struts. I was plenty high, but that same tower stayed there for 5 minutes,
10 minutes, 15 minutes, and that tower did not change position between the lift
struts. It was the strangest feeling in the smooth air, where I had 2150 on
the tach, 75 mph indicated, heading west, tracking north, and the scenery was
stationary beneath my wings !! I just hung there, for 20 minutes, in the
exact same relative position !! I could drop the nose a little, and get the
ground speed up to about 20 mph, but I was trying to go North, not West !! =20As
this
helpless situation unfolded, I become concerned that I might not even make it
back to Brodhead. I dropped the nose to fly at a much lower altitude, where
the wind was choppy, but not as strong. It still took at least 20 minutes to
fly the 10 miles back to Brodhead. I taxied in to top of the fuel, with plan
for an early Monday morning departure for Oshkosh, when the winds were more
favorable. That's when Dennis E. invited me to ride along with him and his
lovely wife Karen to Oshkosh. Didn't take me long to decide to go along with them
!! I had a really great time with them, and taking in the beautiful
Wisconsin scenery. I spent almost a whole day over at Pioneer Field, and at the
EAA
Museum, and did some research on the Scimitar Prop. I met another Pietenpol
guy at Theater in the Woods. His name is Jim Armstrong. He's been flying his
AirCamper with an A65 on it. I also wish to give many thanks to Rod Busch,
from western New York State, for the 12 bottles of Baby Oil, and the sweet=20taste
of that Guinness Beer !!
Wednesday 7/17/05 Brodhead (C37) to Maquoketa (OQN)
80 sm 1.3 hrs 5.4 gal $3.20 / gal. 4.1 gal/hr 4500 msl
On this leg, I didn't climb as high, but I still leaned it out, with a higher
power setting of 2100 rpm to get there before dusk, which I believe is why
the fuel burn was higher. It's a big advantage to experiment with different
power settings, to see what the fuel burn rate is. There was nobody around=20when
I arrived just before dusk, so I refueled, added a little oil, and pushed 'er
to the South end of the tarmac, and tied 'er down. I made myself at home in
the FBO, and had a restful sleep on the couch, with TV, and planned the next
day's course.
Thursday 7/28/05 Maquoketa (OQN) to Centerville (TVK)
145 sm 2.5 hrs 9.13 gal MoGas $2.65 / gal 3.65 gal/hr=20
4500 msl
The skies were beautiful this morning, and I had wheels up at 7:35 am. This
is probably the earliest I've ever gotten into the air. On the back side of a
front that went through two days ago, it was quite cool at altitude, even
though I had a sweatshirt and jacket on. When cruising above 3000 agl, tracking
between 180=BA and 359=BA magnetic course, VFR cruise altitudes are Even Thousands
plus 500 in msl. Before I reached Centerville, I did a low Smokin' Fly By
at Antique Field, just to say Hey, to the AAA guys.
7/28/05 Centerville (TVK) to Earhart (K59)
143 sm 2.2 hrs 7.8 gal MoGas $2.50 / gal 3.5 gal/hr
4500 msl
I swapped airplane stories with an ol' boy with a Champ, there at
Centerville, for at least 20 or 25 minutes. He propped me when I was ready=20to
depart.
The pretty little gal that took care of the FBO, took a couple of pictures of
me and my plane. Tried to get her to climb in my plane to get some pictures of
her...
7/28/05 Earhart (K59) to Cook (K50)
175 sm 2.3 hrs 9 gal 3.9 gal/hr 4500 msl
There were a couple of young guys, in their 20's, flying a 172 from Oshkosh.
One of them took quite an interest in my plane, and I invited him to climb
in, and see how she fits. He was all smiles, as he swished the stick around,
and asking about a hundred questions. I hope I got him hooked on building one
!! To put the icing on the cake, I did a Smokin' Take Off !! I had a slight
tailwind for this final leg home to Cook Airfield. I flew for 7 hours this
day, which is the most I've ever flown in a single day. Arriving at Cook, the
guys were finishing up cutting the grass, so I did a Smokin' Fly By. I came
back around on a close in downwind, and cut base leg a little too short...that's
where I botched this landing. There's a big tree on the North end of the
grass runway, that we use for an inner beacon to get lined up on the grass runway.
They left the tree there because some idiot put a modular home just off the
North end of the runway. When I lined up over the tree, I was high and fast.
I chopped the throttle to idle, and slipped it in, but I was still too fast
as I passed the threshold. I was tired, had a sore butt, and just wanted to
get this thing on the ground. I had every intention to salvage this landing,
and to go around would mean 5 more minutes of a sore butt. The wheels bounced
the first time about half way down the 1600' grass strip. When the wheels
touched the second time, I was still to fast to haul the stick back to my gut,
so
I pushed it forward to keep the mains on the ground. The cones were coming=20up
fast at the far end of the runway, and touching each brake kept the tail
wheel from coming down. I finally got the stick all the way back, but still had
to use more brakes than I ever had to, which caused the tail to come up again,
and almost nosed it over. They had just cut the grass, so my final stab on
the left brake, steered me around the left side of the cones. I almost lost it
a couple of times on that landing. Next time - GO AROUND !! Lesson Learned
!!
Totals:
covered 1171 statute miles
Logged 18 hrs flight time
burned 66.79 gal. of fuel
3.69 gal / hr fuel burn rate
17.5 miles per gallon
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Pietenpols Forever
Looking forward to the next Big Adventure !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Adventure '05 |
what a story chuck.
It was worth the length of the post!
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 1:19 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Adventure '05
Hey Group !!
I had a great adventure again this year !! I just can't get enough of this airplane
stuff !! Be warned, this is a long post. Here is a
summery of my trip:
Thursday 7/21/05 Cook (K50) to Earhart (K59)
175 sm 2.3 hrs 8 gal MoGas $2.50 / gal. 3.47 gal/hr 5500
msl
Depart Cook Airfield on Thursday 7/21 at 10:45 am. I got there soon after
the sun came up, but I fiddle fart around so much, it seems like I can never
depart before 10 am !! The windsock showed a little bit of a tailwind. Take
Off Weight was at 1000 lbs, and after a long take off roll, I left full power
in until I climbed to 5500 msl. It took me till I got way past El Dorado Lake
to get there, or about 30 or 35 statute miles. Leveled off, and pulled power
to 2000 rpm, and started leaning 'er out. It didn't effect the rpm too much,
but the EGT raised about 100=BA to 1250=BA. The CHT was steady at 325=BA, but
the oil temp never went above 140=BA, with OAT at 70=BA. I had a comfortable
temperature up there, and I had a great tailwind, with Ground Speed of over
90 mph !! A couple of times the Ground Speed was over 100 mph !! Indicated
airspeed was 60 mph, but without the error, I was actually doing about 70 mph
true airspeed, which meant I had a tailwind of about 20 to 30 mph. I'll take
that any day !! Begin slow decent at 10 miles out, so I can leave some power
in, and prevent shock cooling. Fuel stop at Amelia Earhart field, in Atchison
KS. After feeding 'er some fuel & oil, I pushed 'er over to the grass. I always
launch from the grass when I'm by myself. She'll creep on the hard surface,
with the engine idling...and I gotta tell ya, that's a wild ride with one
foot on the seat, I'm half way in, and the plane moving across the tarmac !!
Now I notice to the North & northwest, some dark clouds with mares tails (streaks
of rain) under the clouds. Should I go, or should I wait it out. The weather
seemed a long time getting here. Should I go or should I wait it out...well
I fiddle fart around till it starts to sprinkle rain, then it begins to rain.
A couple of guys from the maintenance hanger came running out in the rain,
to open a Tee Hanger, and helped me to push 'er in, and wait out the rain.
I gotta tell ya, Airplane People are the greatest !! The next 2 hours I spent
wiping the plane down, with loud cracks of thunder and lighting so near, is sent
shivers down my spine !! Then there is the deafening sound of hard rain on
a tin roof...but it didn't leak a drop. The only wind was when the front initially
went through, then the rain was pretty much straight down. Before the
storm came through, I talked briefly with the pilot of a S1S Pitts show plane,
who said he had performed yesterday, here at Earhart Field. He was eager to
depart, but decided to wait out the storm, under the closed canopy of his plane.
After the worst of it went through, I saw him back taxi on 16, and depart
in the last of the rain. I thought to myself, boy is that prop taking a beating
!! I shall never ever curse the rain, especially when the locals tell me
they need it so much. The rain finally subsided, and I pushed my plane out to
the grass, closed up the doors of the old hanger, tied the stick back in the
seatbelt, choked the wheels, pre-flight the plane, and continued on my journey.
7/21/05 Earhart (K59) to Centerville (TVK)
143 sm 1.9 hrs 6.4 gal MoGas $2.65 / gal 3.36 gal/hr 5500
msl
Once again after the take off roll on hard surface, I left full power in until
I reached my cruising altitude, leveled off, pulled power to 1900 rpm, leaned
it out till the EGT was 1250=BA, and enjoyed the scenery drifting beneath my
trusty wings. When cruising above 3000 agl, tracking between 0=BA and 179=BA
magnetic course, VFR cruise altitudes are Odd Thousands plus 500 in msl. I've
never cruised at these higher altitudes, and it seems quite different from the
low & slow way of getting there. The lay of the land is more evident from
up here, it all looks so flat and level. In reality, the land has hills and valleys,
evident by the way the vegetation grows. Rivers and streams are always
accompanied by trees and vegetation on both banks, snarling their way through
vast fields of man made crops, who's color depicts what type is grown, and how
mature it is. When flying low & slow, the color of these fields also determines,
to an extent, where the thermals are. Thick healthy vegetation absorbs
the suns rays, and brown dirt, or sand, or concrete, reflects the suns energy
in the form of thermals and bumps. Towns, roads, railroads, lakes, and towers
are the landmarks I watch for, and add an inch or so at a time to my chart,
with a highlighter, to keep track of my position. I maintain the GPS as my backup
navigation source. It has maintained it's power, ever since I added the
small 12v battery on the firewall. The 12v battery also supplies power to the
smoke pump (12v windshield washer pump), and the handheld Icom A5 com radio.
One problem I still haven't worked out, is that when the GPS is activated, the
com radio has a lot of interference for both reception and transmission. I
plan on locating a remote com antenna to combat this problem. Begin the decent
about 8 or 10 miles out, and did a slight crosswind landing on 16.
7/21/05 Centerville (TVK) to Antique Field (Pvt)
30 sm .7 hrs 2000 msl
This was a relatively short flight to a beautiful field, with two grass runways,
and quite a collection of antique airplanes and airplane stuff in the hangers.
There is also a Sky Scout, and 2 AirCampers based there. It's a private
field, so I made a phone call to see if I was able to pitch camp there for the
night. They welcomed me, and showed me where to tie down, and pitch tent, close
to the back of a hanger, for wind protection. Brent Taylor rode me to town
for dinner, where we met Barry, and another guy. They have an annual Fly In
for members only. This year it's from Aug. 31 to Sept 5. Ben Taylor (in his
20's), Brent's son, has hopes on flying his Model A Pietenpol, with a skid and
no brakes, from coast to coast.
Friday 7/22/05 Antique Field (Pvt) to Maquoketa (OQN)
120 sm 1.9 hrs 10 gal $3.13 / gal. 3.8 gal/hr 5500
msl
I had my first close relationship with a cloud on this leg. Too Cool !! It
was so close, I felt like I could reach out, grab it, and drag it along !! I
got a couple of pictures of the clouds. I could have made Brodhead without this
fuel stop, but it would have been pushing my reserve, if I would have met headwinds.
7/22/05 Maquoketa (OQN) to Brodhead (C37)
80 sm 1.2 hrs 5500 msl
What more can I say about the annual Pietenpol Fly-In at Brodhead. It is the
yearly Highlight of the Pietenpol community. It's where builders and flyers
gather every year, to see old friends, make new ones, talk of airplanes, how to
do this or that, hop some rides, and just have a great time. I counted 19 Pietenpols
on the field this year on Friday. Several less than that on Saturday,
probably due to the showers that fell most of the afternoon. We had FOUR new
Pietenpol's there this year. Quite a good showing. There were people from
all over the United States, and also folks from the UK, Australia, and Mexico.
I met a lot of folks from the Matronics Pietenpol List.
Friday 7/22/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Local flight - did Smokin' Figure 8's on Friday evening.
I've been practicing making Figure 8's in the sky, and on a calm evening, with
a blue sky, it's a really fun thing to do. I use almost full power, with a
steep bank angle. The smoke hangs long enough to see the Nascar Number that I
root for - Dale Ernhart Jr.
Saturday 7/23/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Local flight - I had a small problem when one of the smoke lines
broke, where it goes in the exhaust fitting. After it was repaired, and after
the rain ceased, I did a test flight, but the evening came on quickly. Therefore,
I was not able to remove my butterfly front pit cover, and install the
new windshield that I had stowed away. I was looking forward to giving some rides,
but it just didn't come to pass. My plan was for an early morning departure
for Oshkosh, with Jack Phillips in NX899JP.
Just before dusk, they decided to run that old Ansuzi engine with a great
big prop, they had mounted on a mock-up tube fuselage. Ya had to have been there
to see how this three banger ran. Bap...Bang, Bang, Whapidy BAP BAP, Bang,
Bang, all the time belching pumes of caster oil smoke that put my smoke system
to shame !! It was very loud, and did smooth out a little, all the while you
could see the fire breathing from the exhaust ports. The guy sitting in the
cockpit wore a poncho, so he wouldn't end up beiing soaked in caster oil. Ain't
no wonder all those W W I pilots had to wear a white scarf, and had diarea
!!
Sunday 7/24/05 Brodhead (C37) to Brodhead (C37)
Out & Back 20 sm .7 hrs 11 gal. MoGas
I attempted flight to Oshkosh, but the headwinds won out !! I took off shortly
after Jack Phillips NX899JP departed, and climbed to 3000 msl. The winds down
low were just a little bit bumpy, but when I was just a couple thousand feet
agl, the bumps smoothed out with very little turbulence. Problem was the smooth,
straight line winds out of the West must have been at least 45 or 50 mph
!! I progressed NNE without much problem, when I noticed I was drifting quite
readily to the East. As I battled this wind, I ended up with my nose pointing
straight to the West, trying to track to the North. I had almost full power
in, heading west, tracking north, and the GPS showed a ground speed of just
16 MPH !! My track to the North must have been in the single digits !! There
is a tall Monster Tower in that vicinity, that I had between my right lift
struts. I was plenty high, but that same tower stayed there for 5 minutes, 10
minutes, 15 minutes, and that tower did not change position between the lift
struts. It was the strangest feeling in the smooth air, where I had 2150 on
the tach, 75 mph indicated, heading west, tracking north, and the scenery was
stationary beneath my wings !! I just hung there, for 20 minutes, in the exact
same relative position !! I could drop the nose a little, and get the ground
speed up to about 20 mph, but I was trying to go North, not West !! As this
helpless situation unfolded, I become concerned that I might not even make it
back to Brodhead. I dropped the nose to fly at a much lower altitude, where
the wind was choppy, but not as strong. It still took at least 20 minutes to
fly the 10 miles back to Brodhead. I taxied in to top of the fuel, with plan
for an early Monday morning departure for Oshkosh, when the winds were more favorable.
That's when Dennis E. invited me to ride along with him and his lovely
wife Karen to Oshkosh. Didn't take me long to decide to go along with them
!! I had a really great time with them, and taking in the beautiful Wisconsin
scenery. I spent almost a whole day over at Pioneer Field, and at the EAA Museum,
and did some research on the Scimitar Prop. I met another Pietenpol guy
at Theater in the Woods. His name is Jim Armstrong. He's been flying his AirCamper
with an A65 on it. I also wish to give many thanks to Rod Busch, from
western New York State, for the 12 bottles of Baby Oil, and the sweet taste
of that Guinness Beer !!
Wednesday 7/17/05 Brodhead (C37) to Maquoketa (OQN)
80 sm 1.3 hrs 5.4 gal $3.20 / gal. 4.1 gal/hr 4500 msl
On this leg, I didn't climb as high, but I still leaned it out, with a higher
power setting of 2100 rpm to get there before dusk, which I believe is why the
fuel burn was higher. It's a big advantage to experiment with different power
settings, to see what the fuel burn rate is. There was nobody around when
I arrived just before dusk, so I refueled, added a little oil, and pushed 'er
to the South end of the tarmac, and tied 'er down. I made myself at home in the
FBO, and had a restful sleep on the couch, with TV, and planned the next day's
course.
Thursday 7/28/05 Maquoketa (OQN) to Centerville (TVK)
145 sm 2.5 hrs 9.13 gal MoGas $2.65 / gal 3.65 gal/hr
4500 msl
The skies were beautiful this morning, and I had wheels up at 7:35 am. This
is probably the earliest I've ever gotten into the air. On the back side of a
front that went through two days ago, it was quite cool at altitude, even though
I had a sweatshirt and jacket on. When cruising above 3000 agl, tracking
between 180=BA and 359=BA magnetic course, VFR cruise altitudes are Even Thousands
plus 500 in msl. Before I reached Centerville, I did a low Smokin' Fly
By at Antique Field, just to say Hey, to the AAA guys.
7/28/05 Centerville (TVK) to Earhart (K59)
143 sm 2.2 hrs 7.8 gal MoGas $2.50 / gal 3.5 gal/hr 4500
msl
I swapped airplane stories with an ol' boy with a Champ, there at Centerville,
for at least 20 or 25 minutes. He propped me when I was ready to depart. The
pretty little gal that took care of the FBO, took a couple of pictures of me
and my plane. Tried to get her to climb in my plane to get some pictures of
her...
7/28/05 Earhart (K59) to Cook (K50)
175 sm 2.3 hrs 9 gal 3.9 gal/hr 4500 msl
There were a couple of young guys, in their 20's, flying a 172 from Oshkosh.
One of them took quite an interest in my plane, and I invited him to climb in,
and see how she fits. He was all smiles, as he swished the stick around, and
asking about a hundred questions. I hope I got him hooked on building one !!
To put the icing on the cake, I did a Smokin' Take Off !! I had a slight tailwind
for this final leg home to Cook Airfield. I flew for 7 hours this day,
which is the most I've ever flown in a single day. Arriving at Cook, the guys
were finishing up cutting the grass, so I did a Smokin' Fly By. I came back
around on a close in downwind, and cut base leg a little too short...that's
where I botched this landing. There's a big tree on the North end of the grass
runway, that we use for an inner beacon to get lined up on the grass runway.
They left the tree there because some idiot put a modular home just off the
North end of the runway. When I lined up over the tree, I was high and fast.
I chopped the throttle to idle, and slipped it in, but I was still too fast as
I passed the threshold. I was tired, had a sore butt, and just wanted to get
this thing on the ground. I had every intention to salvage this landing, and
to go around would mean 5 more minutes of a sore butt. The wheels bounced the
first time about half way down the 1600' grass strip. When the wheels touched
the second time, I was still to fast to haul the stick back to my gut, so
I pushed it forward to keep the mains on the ground. The cones were coming up
fast at the far end of the runway, and touching each brake kept the tail wheel
from coming down. I finally got the stick all the way back, but still had to
use more brakes than I ever had to, which caused the tail to come up again,
and almost nosed it over. They had just cut the grass, so my final stab on the
left brake, steered me around the left side of the cones. I almost lost it
a couple of times on that landing. Next time - GO AROUND !! Lesson Learned
!!
Totals:
covered 1171 statute miles
Logged 18 hrs flight time
burned 66.79 gal. of fuel
3.69 gal / hr fuel burn rate
17.5 miles per gallon
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Pietenpols Forever
Looking forward to the next Big Adventure !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | axle gear weight |
Sorry guys,
I DID means 60 lbs for an axle gear, not 80
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Thanks Skip,
You're right there, but I'm not sure that vertical strut wouldn't hit further forward.
Or, if not, why couldn't one angle the strut forward a bit to hit in a
better spot?
It's kind of hard for me to tell on my fuselage since the struts and flying wires
aren't attached, where everything wants to go.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | leaning the carb |
Chuck-----Before I left for Brodhead (by the way it was great to see you
again) I was burning way too rich---about 5.5 gph. After wiring the
mixture control only about 3/32 of an inch from the full rich stop my fuel
burn went to 4.0 on the nose per hour at 2150 rpm. All I know is
that my plugs were running dusty carbon black and now they run a perfect
light tan dust.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Hey guys,
In looking where the vertical strut could go, I came across an idea that sounds
strange, but seems to make sense.
Since the rear strut is in the way, why couldn't one run a strut from the cabane
attach to a fitting on the strut itself, then run your vertical up from the
wheel to this strut fitting? The strut would experience no stress, except perhaps
a bit of tension between the lower attach and this new fitting, it would
be similar to the original great lakes gear. the chief concern I see is any for
and aft movment, but if the strut is in line this shouldn't occur.
thoughts?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Javier, Jim M., Dick N.and Rob Bush |
During the fly-in at Brodhead, Rob Bush had to be the ambassador of good
will. He greeted us upon landing with
bottled cold water, beer, or any other need we might have had from oil to
rags, to you name it. What a nice guy
from the Lake Chautauqua area of New York State. Here are some photos to
put faces and names together.
For the rest, I'll post them on the photoshare so I don't clog up anybody's
in-box download time.
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: sky scout gear |
send a sketch.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 7:37 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: sky scout gear
Hey guys,
In looking where the vertical strut could go, I came across an idea that sounds
strange, but seems to make sense.
Since the rear strut is in the way, why couldn't one run a strut from the cabane
attach to a fitting on the strut itself, then run your vertical up from the
wheel to this strut fitting? The strut would experience no stress, except perhaps
a bit of tension between the lower attach and this new fitting, it would
be similar to the original great lakes gear. the chief concern I see is any
for and aft movment, but if the strut is in line this shouldn't occur.
thoughts?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
;
| From: | Richard deCosta <curiousspider(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories |
Well, the winning bidder hasnt responded and it's been
3 days since the auction ended, and thus, according to
eBay, I can make the engine and all it's accessories
available again to anyone interested. First reasonable
offer takes it. I know it's a longshot, but if anyone
wants to trade it directly for a Continental or
Corvair I'd be a very happy Camper. :)
I'll consider crating it up and shipping if someone
wants to pay for it, although I'd MUCH prefer a local
pickup. The only trick in shipping would be the large
cowling.
For your reference:
http://whalesoundrecords.com/modela.html
Richard
Manager, Drummer
African Gospel Rhythms
www.AfricanGospelRhythms.org
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories |
Richard,
I had bid 500.00 and was the 2nd highest bidder, but I might be able to go a little
higher (not much). Let me know and I would probably come up to get it.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard deCosta<mailto:curiousspider(at)yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories
Well, the winning bidder hasnt responded and it's been
3 days since the auction ended, and thus, according to
eBay, I can make the engine and all it's accessories
available again to anyone interested. First reasonable
offer takes it. I know it's a longshot, but if anyone
wants to trade it directly for a Continental or
Corvair I'd be a very happy Camper. :)
I'll consider crating it up and shipping if someone
wants to pay for it, although I'd MUCH prefer a local
pickup. The only trick in shipping would be the large
cowling.
For your reference:
http://whalesoundrecords.com/modela.html>
Richard
Manager, Drummer
African Gospel Rhythms
www.AfricanGospelRhythms.org<http://www.africangospelrhythms.org/>
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories |
someone responded to me saying they had been emailing with Richard, but I accidentally
deleted it before I could respond. I don't want all of the stuff, maybe
we could combine an offer. Please email me outside the list again.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard deCosta<mailto:curiousspider(at)yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: for sale: Model A Engine w/ Lots of Piet accessories
Well, the winning bidder hasnt responded and it's been
3 days since the auction ended, and thus, according to
eBay, I can make the engine and all it's accessories
available again to anyone interested. First reasonable
offer takes it. I know it's a longshot, but if anyone
wants to trade it directly for a Continental or
Corvair I'd be a very happy Camper. :)
I'll consider crating it up and shipping if someone
wants to pay for it, although I'd MUCH prefer a local
pickup. The only trick in shipping would be the large
cowling.
For your reference:
http://whalesoundrecords.com/modela.html>
Richard
Manager, Drummer
African Gospel Rhythms
www.AfricanGospelRhythms.org<http://www.africangospelrhythms.org/>
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow |
Does anyone know the codes for the shade of blue and yellow paint used on Stearmans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow |
Sounds like a corky question.
It would be AN yellow and some AN light blue spec. with the tail strip in AN White
and AN Red
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: Lynn Knoll
To: pietenpol list
Cc: Kevin Knoll
Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow
Does anyone know the codes for the shade of blue and yellow paint used on Stearmans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow |
Mr. D Knoll ????
I used the following on 41CC
#139 Federal Yellow, Wings and feathers
#173 AN blue (True Blue), Fuselage and struts
#105 Insignia White, Star Insignias
#190 Tennessee Red, "
#176 Insignia Blue, "
These colors listed in ASS catalog pg 299
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
FILETIME=[AD25A880:01C59827]
I would like to learn more about wing assembly. I have my ribs laid out
on the spars with correct spacing, little wedges in place on each rib,
wing tip bow bolted on, and temporary diagonal guide wires inside the
wing with turnbuckles. Everything is square. I believe my next step is
to glue the ribs to the spars. What is the best method to do this? Do
you guys simply move one rib at a time, add some glue, and slide it back
into place? What part of the rib gets glued? The top and bottom only,
or the vertical member as well? Any thoughts on next steps? And then
after the rib gluing, I believe I'll need to glue up the aileron parts,
filler strips and leading edge....?
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contain privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt from disclosure
under law. If you have received this message in error, please inform us promptly
by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and destroy any printed copy.
Thank you.
==============================================================================
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow |
Der Korkmeister wrote-
>I used the following on 41CC
>#139 Federal Yellow, Wings and feathers
>#173 AN blue (True Blue), Fuselage and struts
>#105 Insignia White, Star Insignias
>#190 Tennessee Red, "
>#176 Insignia Blue, "
...and pictures are available at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/CorkyPiet.html if you want to see how it
turned out. As a bit of additional trivia, I have since discovered that the
#139 Federal Yellow is also referred to as Federal HIGHWAY Yellow, and is
the color that is used to paint those stripes that you see on every
interstate highway in the country.
One more piece of trivia, but it's Piet related: there is a new
Oshkosh/Brodhead update on William Wynne's website,
http://www.flycorvair.com , including pictures of "The Last Original", Mr.
Pietenpol's personal Corvair-powered Piet.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <jphillip(at)alarismed.com> |
Hi John,
I would not glue the ribs to the spars. Just nail them, preferably with
the nails horizontal through the uprights and into the spar (I nailed
mine with the nails vertical through the capstrips, but AC-43.13 does
not recommend this). The ribs need to be able to "float" a little when
you trammel the wing. Likewise, do not bolt your leading edge in place
or attach the plywood to the leading edge until the wing has been
trammeled and the drag/anti-drag wires tightened correctly. Both the
leading strip and the plywood will add quite a bit of stiffness and may
prevent you from adjusting the wing properly during the tramelling
process. Once it is trammeled, gluing and bolting them in place will
lock the wing geometry in place. Also, after trammeling the wing you
can glue the aileron spars in place (you might need to slip them in
place before bolting on the wing tip and trammeling the wing).
Jack Phillips
Finally got NX899JP home from the Great Trek to Brodhead and Oshkosh
yesterday evening. Got weathered in at Rome GA for a few days. 2,147
miles and 37 hours of flying (average speed 58 mph). Only major problem
was a cracked exhaust manifold which required welding in Jackson,
Tennessee.
-----Original Message-----
I would like to learn more about wing assembly. I have my ribs laid out
on the spars with correct spacing, little wedges in place on each rib,
wing tip bow bolted on, and temporary diagonal guide wires inside the
wing with turnbuckles. Everything is square. I believe my next step is
to glue the ribs to the spars. What is the best method to do this? Do
you guys simply move one rib at a time, add some glue, and slide it back
into place? What part of the rib gets glued? The top and bottom only,
or the vertical member as well? Any thoughts on next steps? And then
after the rib gluing, I believe I'll need to glue up the aileron parts,
filler strips and leading edge....?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Assembly |
glue the vertical piece to the spar. The load is carried in shear which is
the best for glue.
chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing Assembly
>
> I would like to learn more about wing assembly. I have my ribs laid out
> on the spars with correct spacing, little wedges in place on each rib,
> wing tip bow bolted on, and temporary diagonal guide wires inside the
> wing with turnbuckles. Everything is square. I believe my next step is
> to glue the ribs to the spars. What is the best method to do this? Do
> you guys simply move one rib at a time, add some glue, and slide it back
> into place? What part of the rib gets glued? The top and bottom only,
> or the vertical member as well? Any thoughts on next steps? And then
> after the rib gluing, I believe I'll need to glue up the aileron parts,
> filler strips and leading edge....?
>
----
> This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is exempt
from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error,
please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
>
============================================================================
==
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing Assembly |
If you correctly position your spars parallel and the markoffs for the rib
positions on the front and rear spars are accurately held in a line normal
to the spars, then tweaking during tramelling should be at a minimum and it
is safe to glue the vertical to the spar from the outset. Importantly, it
is also necessary to have all the capstrip in the same plane. You don't
want one rib a little high on the spar and the next one a little low as this
will present an uneven surface for the fabric and the leading edge plywood
and will be unsightly.
Those at Brodhead should have noticed the 4-6 foot long sanding boards that
were being used to "level" the Sky Scout wing capstrips in the Pietenpol
hangar on the front row, west end.
Chris
Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Bobka" <sbobka(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wing Assembly
>
> glue the vertical piece to the spar. The load is carried in shear which
is
> the best for glue.
>
> chris
> Braumeister und Inspektor der Flitzer und Flitzermotoren
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 7:34 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing Assembly
>
>
> >
> > I would like to learn more about wing assembly. I have my ribs laid out
> > on the spars with correct spacing, little wedges in place on each rib,
> > wing tip bow bolted on, and temporary diagonal guide wires inside the
> > wing with turnbuckles. Everything is square. I believe my next step is
> > to glue the ribs to the spars. What is the best method to do this? Do
> > you guys simply move one rib at a time, add some glue, and slide it back
> > into place? What part of the rib gets glued? The top and bottom only,
> > or the vertical member as well? Any thoughts on next steps? And then
> > after the rib gluing, I believe I'll need to glue up the aileron parts,
> > filler strips and leading edge....?
> >
>
> ----
> > This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
> contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
exempt
> from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in error,
> please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail and
> destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
> >
>
============================================================================
> ==
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow |
For those of you who may want to save a few bucks, take the color samples to
a pro paint supply store. Have them color match, get a quote. If you add
one part "Bulldog" to your paint mixture, you'll get a slightly more
flexible paint than standard automotive metal paint, this goes on very
nicely over the Stits silver coat. Air Spruce gets their chuck of the cost
of paint at a high premium over what you can buy paint directly from outlet
like most all pro paint suppliers. DuPont, PPG and ICI are the prime
automotive paint suppliers in this market, pro paint supply distributors are
more competitive than AirSpruce when it comes to pricing, and they're lots
of tech help too.
Gordon Bowen -Homer Alaska
Cozy IV N64CY
Osprey II N64SY
Pietenpol N-1033B
" There are no passengers on spaceship Earth, we are all crew", McLuhan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Army Air Corps Blue & Yellow
>
> Der Korkmeister wrote-
>
> >I used the following on 41CC
> >#139 Federal Yellow, Wings and feathers
> >#173 AN blue (True Blue), Fuselage and struts
July 14, 2005 - August 03, 2005
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-eo