Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-et
November 14, 2005 - December 21, 2005
Given the extensive nature of what you're trying to do, it's almost better
to use your existing airframe as a test-fitting fixture and build something
completely new from there.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/13/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Louisiana builder,
Thanks for your quick reply, many details, and your support. It sounds like you
think my changes are "within the envelope of the design."
I like your changes and will incorporporate what I can. I will need to move my
big fat body up to get enough room, for I think my fuze is too much together
already to widen now. And it's plenty wide once I get my arms over the top longeron.
With the spirit of incorporporation, do you have pix of your following changes?
a) Moved the rudder bar to passenger feet and used Bellanca pedals w/ toe brakes
for pilot. Will have to raise passenger seat so my toes won't drag on passenger's
rear end.
(In this regard, I am planning one set of thin go-cart brake pedals for my brakes,
positioned above another set of wider go-cart brake pedals for my rudder pedals.
I will use the space created by my alterations to mount all pedals in a
workable position. Key is getting the passenger bulkhead out of the way and
the passenger seat forward and up.)
(Also, I have not figured out yet how to tie the brake pedal to the steerable tail
wheel controls, as well, like a Cessna nose wheel. Any thoughts there, anyone?)
b) Used a control column from a WWII Fairchild PT 19 or 23. Then a torque tube
to the elevator horn via a walking bell crank.
(I would like to see how this is done. I want to use a tube connected to BP's
stick.)
Thanks again,
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/13/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Louisiana builder,
Thanks for your quick reply, many details, and your support. It sounds like you
think my changes are "within the envelope of the design."
I like your changes and will incorporporate what I can. I will need to move my
big fat body up to get enough room, for I think my fuze is too much together
already to widen now. And it's plenty wide once I get my arms over the top longeron.
With the spirit of incorporporation, do you have pix of your following changes?
a) Moved the rudder bar to passenger feet and used Bellanca pedals w/ toe brakes
for pilot. Will have to raise passenger seat so my toes won't drag on passenger's
rear end.
(In this regard, I am planning one set of thin go-cart brake pedals for my brakes,
positioned above another set of wider go-cart brake pedals for my rudder pedals.
I will use the space created by my alterations to mount all pedals in a
workable position. Key is getting the passenger bulkhead out of the way and
the passenger seat forward and up.)
(Also, I have not figured out yet how to tie the brake pedal to the steerable tail
wheel controls, as well, like a Cessna nose wheel. Any thoughts there, anyone?)
b) Used a control column from a WWII Fairchild PT 19 or 23. Then a torque tube
to the elevator horn via a walking bell crank.
(I would like to see how this is done. I want to use a tube connected to BP's
stick.)
Thanks again,
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 11/13/05 |
I'll go out this morning and take a few pics and get them back to you
direct, not on the net. I'm afraid I'm creating too many enemies.
Corky
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | raising the seat |
Guys-- I have not kept up with the e-mails at all (work is actually getting
the way:) but to raise a Piet
seat 5" is a regrettable thing to do.
I'm still annoyed at myself for raising it TWO inches. My head and upper
body are tooooo much up in the
propwash and though it helps a bit with vis. on takeoff and landing, it is
not worth the penalty at all.
Also by raising the seat you limit your forward-upward visibility. Trust
me on this one.....almost nailed a
banner being towed but thankfully I lifted a wing before turning.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair Powered Piet for sale |
I found a Corvair powered Pietenpol for sale on Barnstormers. This link provides
info on the builder and date the airplane was made.
http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N5107Q.html,
DOES ANYBODY KNOW THIS AIRPLANE OR THE BUILDER, HAUGEN SEVERSON?
I looked at the airplane today in Snyder, Texas. It's sitting in a large community
hanger at Winston Field.
This Pietenpol had rib stitching for the bottom fabric on the wings, but no rib
stitching on the top fabric on the wings. My logic would suggest that the low
pressure area on the top needs rib stitching just as much as the concave surface
on the bottom of the wing.
The paint scheme was nice, but there is a lot of cracking in the paint. The owner
(second owner since 1989) said he has owned the Pietenpol for 3 years but he
didn't like the original color and repainted it. It is now painted mostly in
silver (looks like butyrate with silver paste) but the paint looks a tad thick
to me as I looked at the cracks.
I didn't see any evidence of wood rot (but I'm taking an inspection mirror and
a flashlight next trip.
The Corvair engine is an 80 HP. I pulled the prop through, and it didn't feel like
the Continentals and Lycomings I have experience with. I don't know if I am
only used to 4 banger Lycs, but this 6 cylinder engine didn't seem to be hard
to pull through each cylinder like the Lycs and Continentals... I'm wondering
if the compression is weak because it hasn't been flown in a year, or if 6 banger
Corvairs just pull weak through each cylinder?
I'd appreciate opinions or any information someone might have about this airplane,
N5107Q.
I'm thinking about buying a flying Aircamper while I finish my Pietenpol... Been
grounded too long and I need to fly soon.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
Knot-2-Shabby Airport
5TA6
________________________________________________________________________________
114121034.015936e0(at)popserve.grc.nasa.gov>
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat |
I agree with Mike. If anything, I would lower the seat (assuming it
doesn't change the engineering). I sit too high in mine, and I'm only
5'6". You can always add another temperfoam pad if the seat is too
low, but you sure can't go the other direction if you raise it!
>
>
>Guys-- I have not kept up with the e-mails at all (work is actually
>getting the way:) but to raise a Piet
>seat 5" is a regrettable thing to do.
>
>I'm still annoyed at myself for raising it TWO inches. My head and
>upper body are tooooo much up in the
>propwash and though it helps a bit with vis. on takeoff and landing,
>it is not worth the penalty at all.
>
>Also by raising the seat you limit your forward-upward visibility.
>Trust me on this one.....almost nailed a
>banner being towed but thankfully I lifted a wing before turning.
>
>Mike C.
--
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
In a message dated 11/14/2005 5:47:06 PM Central Standard Time,
jboatri(at)emory.edu writes:
I agree with Mike. If anything, I would lower the seat (assuming it
doesn't change the engineering). I sit too high in mine, and I'm only
5'6". You can always add another temperfoam pad if the seat is too
low, but you sure can't go the other direction if you raise it!
Ditto for me.
I wish my seat was a tad lower, so I could have more padding. Speaking of
padding, I made a seat that conforms to my personal Butt Print, as well as
extending the pad forward a little past the forward edge of the seat to help
support under my legs. I found a HUGE difference in comfort, compared to what
I had
before. I'm going to re-do the seat to extend even further under my legs, in
order to spread out my weight.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Disassembly and Re-Assembly |
Unless your friendly local A&P has worked on Piets before, I'd say
you're better off, and safer, relying on your own sense of
self-preservation and knowledge of your own plane.
>
>I've got mixed feelings on this one. Having taken the wings off of
>NX41CC, I came to realize that while it is a fairly quick and easy
>project, it isn't something you can do every weekend and expect the
>airplane to fly the same after each time. There are struts, strut
>braces, control cables, wing attach fittings, gap covers, pitot
>lines, possibly fuel lines (if you have a wing tank in the outboard
>sections), and other things involved.
>
>I don't know that I would consider it something that would require
>sign-off though, any more than tweaking the rigging in the hangar
>yourself, after a flight, to correct a heavy wing or something of
>the sort. However, it makes sense to expect the work to be done by
>someone with knowledge of what they are doing, and if a guy just
>goes and buys himself a Piet without having the skills necessary to
>rig and adjust things, and he thinks he can take the wings off and
>put them back on and get it right, there's an accident waiting to
>happen. At the very least, there is the possibility of getting
>controls reversed, not reconnecting controls, or rigging the wing in
>such a way as to make the plane marginally controllable.
>
>There... I've talked myself into the "get an A&P sign-off" position
>;o) 41CC will be due for an annual when I reattach the wings
>anyway, so mine is a no-brainer.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat |
My Pietenpol has the seat made in accordance with the plans for the
"Improved Air Camper". I was about 5' -9" tall when I built it many years
ago, but have shrunk some since then (not in girth, however). The seat
height is about right for me because I am/was about BHP's stature. Taller
friends who flew it said that they got a face full of fresh air and/or bugs.
The fuselage was made 2 inches wider from the firewall to the rear seat
back, allowing space for extra clothing. This is a popular modification with
all who have flown it.
If I were to build another Pietenpol (which I won't), I would seriously
consider extending the seat back to the floor, eliminating the seat bottom,
and shimming my butt with cushions to get a comfortable height. Changing
the elevator control would be necessary to place a push-pull tube below the
floor from the rear stick to a bellcrank. The belly would be faired with
formers, stringers and fabric to cover this setup.
There is a Pietenpol in this area with a modified elevator control much like
the system described above. It has been flying since 1968 and I have flown
it a number of times. The main difference from the above setup is that the
seat back bulkhead has been omitted (which I don't like) and a lightweight
WW II surplus aluminum aircraft bucket seat is used (which I do like).
In our Canadian climate, open cockpit airplanes need to offer as much
protection from the elements as possible. Even in warmer climates, raising
the seat is not the way to go because the upper air can get pretty cool and
one's head is too exposed.
As I write this, tomorrow's daytime high temperature here is supposed to be
about -7 C (approx. 20 F) and I was planning to fly my Pietenpol to mark the
35th anniversary of its first flight on November 15, 1970. I'm glad I don't
sit any higher in it--but, as things stand, I may postpone that flight for a
few days. I'm not as tough as I used to be!
Over the years, I have observed that some of the biggest people seem to be
attracted to the Pietenpol, which is a relatively small airplane "designed
at a time when midgets ruled the earth", as a friend once said. I would
suggest that these folks seriously consider building a single place version
of this venerable design which should provide sufficient room for them
without extreme modification.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat, extending the vertical stab, and |
Corvair College #9
I saw Pat Green's 1977 Piet this weekend at Corvair College. It has a few
mods to it, including a 34 foot wing and an extended vertical stabilizer.
Pat told me the reason for the higher vertical tail was after a couple of
incidents where he held the tail up as it slowed on the landing roll. There
was no wind, yet it suddenly shot off to the right of the runway and into
the weeds. No damage was done, but he tried it again and this time it did
the same thing, except that it went off to the left. after a while they
realized that the problem was that the elevator was capable of holding the
tail (and the tailwheel) up down to a lower speed than the point where the
rudder lost effectiveness. Another time, a pilot took it up for spin
testing. He started at 4000 feet, got a good spin going (was hard to get
into the spin) and then couldn't get out of it until he got down to 800
feet, he got it out by modulating the power. Pat went up and had little
trouble with spins. The first pilot was a really tall guy, while Pat was a
bit shorter. He believed that the spin problem was due in large part with a
tall pilot blanking out the vertical stabilizer, which would also be a
factor in the landing experience (though the quick solution to the landing
thing was simply to not hold the tail up too long.) He installed a taller
stabilizer of the same basic shape, I think he said it was 10 inches taller.
and now he says that it's very authoritative. I didn't see his arrival to
William Wynne's place but there was about a 20-knot direct crosswind over
some trees, and he said that it was no problem at all.
So it sounds like raising the seat might even affect control by blanking out
the rudder in some situations.
After looking at Pat's plane, I think I really like the idea of making a
taller rudder. It was the kind of thing where sub-consciously, you saw the
plane and felt like something was different, but it didn't really stand out
until he said something. I think it might even look nice to re-shape the
upper part of the stab and get a little more of a classic rounded look (I
can hear the gasps of the purists from here... hehehe) If you were to raise
the stab and make the top into a nice curve, starting roughly at the rib
where the brace wires attach, would there be any reason to think you'd
create any bad flight characteristics in doing so? I'll be building a
widened, long-fuse Piet, I'm 6' 1" with long legs so I might end up blanking
the rudder no matter where the seat is!
This is the second Piet that I've seen with added wing length. Pat said that
he visited BHP, and was told that it didn't need a longer wing. Pat felt
that he did need it, so he could clear the 50 foot pine trees we have here
instead of the 6-foot Minnesota corn stalks.) Apparently it adds some
stability and makes the aileron response a bit slower. The plane has a
hand-start BHP Corvair conversion with a blower on top, hadn't seen one of
those before and it looks a bit different than the Wynne conversions. I
don't know if Pat and his starter/partner in crime Jack are on the list
here, if they are they could correct anything I remembered wrong. Super nice
guys.
Corvair College was great, as usual. Lots of fun, saw neat planes and met
even neater people. I'm sure they'll have a report posted soon. There was 1
Pietenpol, 1 Cleanex (basically a Corvair Sonex), 1 flying CH-601XL and one
being built, one KR-2S, one KR-2, a Mustang I, a Wagabond, and a turbo
Corvair Stits Sky Coupe. Also several Corvair cars and a van were there.
Cool stuff.
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Powered Piet for sale |
I would think it would be a bit easier to pull the prop thru on the corvair vs.
lyc. or continental just due to the piston size and stroke difference. If it's
an 80 HP I would guess that it's a Bernie conversion with the blower fan?
Maybe an early engine (1960-63). Find out what you can about the engine construction
- forged pistons or cast is probably the biggest concern. If you can,
pull one of the plugs and take a looksee inside.
Don't know anything about that specific airplane.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Powered Piet for sale |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
27, 2005) at 11/15/2005 03:05:58 PM
Sterling,
Rib stitching should go through both top and bottom.
Technically the bottom should not need any (high pressure area) but the Top
must have stitching as it generates 75% of the lift with a low pressure
area.
Inspect this plane carefully, open the inspection covers on the wing, you
should see stitching wire going across the ribs (from top to bottom)
securing both top fabric and bottom fabric.
I would walk away from it, if it doesn't have the top fabric stitched.
The cracking paint is also a major concern, looks like the top paint is not
flexible enough,
Happens a lot with enamel paints over stits.
The Corvair engine feels different because it is a 6 banger and smaller
stroke engine
The best thing to do is to check compression on the cylinders.
I get 150 to 140 PSI of compression on my new (40 hours) Corvair, using the
standard Automotive compression tester
Good luck.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Powered Piet for sale |
Hans... (and all)
I'm not going back to look at this Aircamper a second time, too many things
are suspect and I'll keep looking for a clean and well-built Aircamper to
buy that has a track-record. If anyone knows of a decent Aircamper for sale,
please keep me in mind.
Thanks,
Sterling Brooks
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Powered Piet for sale
>
>
> Sterling,
>
> Rib stitching should go through both top and bottom.
>
> Technically the bottom should not need any (high pressure area) but the
Top
> must have stitching as it generates 75% of the lift with a low pressure
> area.
> Inspect this plane carefully, open the inspection covers on the wing, you
> should see stitching wire going across the ribs (from top to bottom)
> securing both top fabric and bottom fabric.
>
> I would walk away from it, if it doesn't have the top fabric stitched.
>
> The cracking paint is also a major concern, looks like the top paint is
not
> flexible enough,
> Happens a lot with enamel paints over stits.
>
> The Corvair engine feels different because it is a 6 banger and smaller
> stroke engine
> The best thing to do is to check compression on the cylinders.
> I get 150 to 140 PSI of compression on my new (40 hours) Corvair, using
the
> standard Automotive compression tester
>
> Good luck.
>
> Hans
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat, extending the vertical stab, |
and Corvair College #9
Good info Mike, does Pat Green have an email address that you know of? Would
like to ask him some increasing wingspan questions.
Thanks
Rick H
On 11/14/05, Mike Whaley wrote:
>
> I saw Pat Green's 1977 Piet this weekend at Corvair College. It has a few
> mods to it, including a 34 foot wing and an extended vertical stabilizer.
> Pat told me the reason for the higher vertical tail was after a couple of
> incidents where he held the tail up as it slowed on the landing roll.
> There
> was no wind, yet it suddenly shot off to the right of the runway and into
> the weeds. No damage was done, but he tried it again and this time it did
> the same thing, except that it went off to the left. after a while they
> realized that the problem was that the elevator was capable of holding the
> tail (and the tailwheel) up down to a lower speed than the point where the
> rudder lost effectiveness. Another time, a pilot took it up for spin
> testing. He started at 4000 feet, got a good spin going (was hard to get
> into the spin) and then couldn't get out of it until he got down to 800
> feet, he got it out by modulating the power. Pat went up and had little
> trouble with spins. The first pilot was a really tall guy, while Pat was a
> bit shorter. He believed that the spin problem was due in large part with
> a
> tall pilot blanking out the vertical stabilizer, which would also be a
> factor in the landing experience (though the quick solution to the landing
> thing was simply to not hold the tail up too long.) He installed a taller
> stabilizer of the same basic shape, I think he said it was 10 inches
> taller.
> and now he says that it's very authoritative. I didn't see his arrival to
> William Wynne's place but there was about a 20-knot direct crosswind over
> some trees, and he said that it was no problem at all.
>
> So it sounds like raising the seat might even affect control by blanking
> out
> the rudder in some situations.
>
> After looking at Pat's plane, I think I really like the idea of making a
> taller rudder. It was the kind of thing where sub-consciously, you saw the
> plane and felt like something was different, but it didn't really stand
> out
> until he said something. I think it might even look nice to re-shape the
> upper part of the stab and get a little more of a classic rounded look (I
> can hear the gasps of the purists from here... hehehe) If you were to
> raise
> the stab and make the top into a nice curve, starting roughly at the rib
> where the brace wires attach, would there be any reason to think you'd
> create any bad flight characteristics in doing so? I'll be building a
> widened, long-fuse Piet, I'm 6' 1" with long legs so I might end up
> blanking
> the rudder no matter where the seat is!
>
> This is the second Piet that I've seen with added wing length. Pat said
> that
> he visited BHP, and was told that it didn't need a longer wing. Pat felt
> that he did need it, so he could clear the 50 foot pine trees we have here
> instead of the 6-foot Minnesota corn stalks.) Apparently it adds some
> stability and makes the aileron response a bit slower. The plane has a
> hand-start BHP Corvair conversion with a blower on top, hadn't seen one of
> those before and it looks a bit different than the Wynne conversions. I
> don't know if Pat and his starter/partner in crime Jack are on the list
> here, if they are they could correct anything I remembered wrong. Super
> nice
> guys.
>
> Corvair College was great, as usual. Lots of fun, saw neat planes and met
> even neater people. I'm sure they'll have a report posted soon. There was
> 1
> Pietenpol, 1 Cleanex (basically a Corvair Sonex), 1 flying CH-601XL and
> one
> being built, one KR-2S, one KR-2, a Mustang I, a Wagabond, and a turbo
> Corvair Stits Sky Coupe. Also several Corvair cars and a van were there.
> Cool stuff.
>
> -Mike
>
> Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
> Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
> http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
How did you make a seat like that Chuck? With fiberglass? Sounds like a
great idea.
Rick H.
On 11/14/05, Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/14/2005 5:47:06 PM Central Standard Time,
> jboatri(at)emory.edu writes:
>
> I agree with Mike. If anything, I would lower the seat (assuming it
> doesn't change the engineering). I sit too high in mine, and I'm only
> 5'6". You can always add another temperfoam pad if the seat is too
> low, but you sure can't go the other direction if you raise it!
>
> Ditto for me.
> I wish my seat was a tad lower, so I could have more padding. Speaking of
> padding, I made a seat that conforms to my personal Butt Print, as well as
> extending the pad forward a little past the forward edge of the seat to help
> support under my legs. I found a HUGE difference in comfort, compared to
> what I had before. I'm going to re-do the seat to extend even further under
> my legs, in order to spread out my weight.
> Chuck G.
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | raising the seat, etc. |
Just to add to the comments already. I was being hit in the forehead by the wind
blast, so I re-cut the windshield 2 in higher. It made a huge difference.
Also much quieter.
I had a very sore butt and back from my 4 hour trip to Brodhead. While there someone
suggested rolling up my self inflating sleeping bag pad as a cushion.
Thank you to whoever that was. The air control is right at my shoulder and I'm
riding on air. These are available at outddor stores for about $80.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Guys,
Thanks for all the very good input-- both on this group board and in your private
emails. You have given me several good reasons not to raise the seat and/or
move the console cowlings forward.
Back into the cockpit again to see if I can enlarge my shin/foot holes by making
the passenger seatback "V" support a modified "Y." There may never be a front
passenger or seat again, either. I see a future building in cardboard, ducktape,
and plywood on the garage floor.
Your experiences are what I was after-- I'd rather have the negatives with gritty
details than butcher the plane and not have it work. It's too big to paint
pink and make a lawn ornament.
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Guys,
Thanks for all the very good input-- both on this group board and in your private
emails. You have given me several good reasons not to raise the seat and/or
move the console cowlings forward.
Back into the cockpit again to see if I can enlarge my shin/foot holes by making
the passenger seatback "V" support a modified "Y." There may never be a front
passenger or seat again, either. I see a future building in cardboard, ducktape,
and plywood on the garage floor.
Your experiences are what I was after-- I'd rather have the negatives with gritty
details than butcher the plane and not have it work. It's too big to paint
pink and make a lawn ornament.
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Gillespie" <MARGDICK(at)peoplepc.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair Powered Piet for sale |
Sterling,
If you're not in a big rush and it's not too far away. I'll have a Piet
ready to go as soon as it's annual is completed in the next week or two.
DickG.
Ft. Myers, Fl.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Powered Piet for sale
>
> Hans... (and all)
>
> I'm not going back to look at this Aircamper a second time, too many
> things
> are suspect and I'll keep looking for a clean and well-built Aircamper to
> buy that has a track-record. If anyone knows of a decent Aircamper for
> sale,
> please keep me in mind.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sterling Brooks
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hans Vander Voort" <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 8:05 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Powered Piet for sale
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> Sterling,
>>
>> Rib stitching should go through both top and bottom.
>>
>> Technically the bottom should not need any (high pressure area) but the
> Top
>> must have stitching as it generates 75% of the lift with a low pressure
>> area.
>> Inspect this plane carefully, open the inspection covers on the wing, you
>> should see stitching wire going across the ribs (from top to bottom)
>> securing both top fabric and bottom fabric.
>>
>> I would walk away from it, if it doesn't have the top fabric stitched.
>>
>> The cracking paint is also a major concern, looks like the top paint is
> not
>> flexible enough,
>> Happens a lot with enamel paints over stits.
>>
>> The Corvair engine feels different because it is a 6 banger and smaller
>> stroke engine
>> The best thing to do is to check compression on the cylinders.
>> I get 150 to 140 PSI of compression on my new (40 hours) Corvair, using
> the
>> standard Automotive compression tester
>>
>> Good luck.
>>
>> Hans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | air filter service |
Howdy, low 'n' slow fliers;
I have a new air filter for the A-65 with Stromberg NAS carb. The carb air
box is pretty much the stock Cessna 120/140 type with AirMaze filter. I
don't have it in front of me, but I believe the filter says to soak it in
engine preservative oil and let the excess drip off, before installing it.
Any service tips on this type of cleanable permanent air filter? I'm sure
it needs some sort of oil to entrap dust and particles, but engine
preservative oil?
Low 'n' slow since 1934... that's 71 years!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ronnie Wagner" <wlrdlr(at)starband.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
Tim,
I lowered the back bottom of my seat 2 in. and the backrest is leaning back 2 in,
at the top. The front of the seat bottom is at the height called for in the
plans. I'm 6'1" and wear 36 length in jeans. so mostly legs and feet. But this
arrangement feels super. I love the way it feels sitting in it but I have not
flown it yet. The seat cocked up seems to help the leg room but lowered may
hurt your visibility, I wanted to sit pretty low in my plane. I don't have any
clearance problems with the foot holes but I raised them I think according to
Mike Cuy's video. about 2 inches.
Ronnie
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:58 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05
Guys,
Thanks for all the very good input-- both on this group board and in your private
emails. You have given me several good reasons not to raise the seat and/or
move the console cowlings forward.
Back into the cockpit again to see if I can enlarge my shin/foot holes by making
the passenger seatback "V" support a modified "Y." There may never be a front
passenger or seat again, either. I see a future building in cardboard, ducktape,
and plywood on the garage floor.
Your experiences are what I was after-- I'd rather have the negatives with gritty
details than butcher the plane and not have it work. It's too big to paint
pink and make a lawn ornament.
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
There is a lip on the floor at the heel section which causes my heel to
get stuck there at times.I think I may just rivet another piece of
aluninum here in order to stop this from happening.Anybody else
experience this aspect of the heel getting caught here?Or am I just
having a bad day?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
In a message dated 11/15/2005 9:43:10 AM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
How did you make a seat like that Chuck? With fiberglass? Sounds like a great
idea.
It wasn't too difficult. I made it with various densities of foam...no
fiberglass. In the center, where my tailbone sits, the dense foam is less than
1/2" thick, and the outer edge of the seat (dished out & shaped kinda like a
toilet seat), it's about 2" thick, but I never feel like I'm sitting on a hard
wood seat. I used open cell foam, and cloth cover, to maintain some
ventilation. I sloped the dense foam up and forward about 2" past the forward edge
of
the wood seat. I covered it with a denim cloth. The key to the comfort is
the form fit, and extending it forward to spread out my weight, and ventilation.
Leather or Naugahyde does NOT allow ventilation. I also made accommodations
on the sides, for items like a 4 way screwdriver, Leatherman Tool, ELT, small
fire extinguisher, fuel dip stick, fuel sump tool, small LED flashlight, small
digital camera, note pad with a pen on a string, and under the seat to one
side, I stow my Pietenpol ball cap. Most of this stuff is held in place with
Velcro. There is actually plenty of room on the seat to put all that stuff, if
you carefully plan it all out. I'm going to make another seat, with the idea
of spreading out my weight even farther forward, but NOT thicker under my
tail bone.
Oh yeah, I can also carry a bomb load of FOUR rolls of Toilet Paper (two
on each side) !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
BAYES_00 -2.60)
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/15/2005 9:43:10 AM Central Standard Time,
> at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> How did you make a seat like that Chuck? With fiberglass? Sounds
> like a great idea.
>
Many racing series use form fitted seats. Driving at speeds of 200mph
comfort isn't a luxary. Its a necessity for concentration and I would
submit that if you are flying concentration is every bit as important
even in a Piet. It is ususally the higher dollar series, but the basic
princple is to have the driver sit in something that then works as a
mold. They use a full body seat so they get a mold of not only the
backside but the back as well. Then use that as a basis for
construction, and I really do not see why you couldn't do the same
thing. The experimenters out there could easily come up with some ideas
of materials that should work and I would think fiberglass should do
well in the actual construction of the seats. Race car builders usually
use some form of carbon fiber, but they expect to build it to help
protect the driver from a 200mph crash.
You also might be able to order one from a local auto racing store or
performance auto shop, but don't expect those to be cheap.
One down side to form fitting is that if you ever let a buddy fly your
Piet, his backside will not match yours. Same goes if you ever sell it,
but you probably could build a way into it to switch out the seat to
something generic (and less confortable). Racers build a different seat
for each driver and just switch the seat when you switch the driver.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
Thanks Chuck, being out in farm country I figured you may have gone out to
the North 40 and got an old tractor seat like they put on top of bar stools
sometimes. They are actually much more comfortable than a flat slab of wood.
RH
On 11/16/05, Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 11/15/2005 9:43:10 AM Central Standard Time,
> at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> How did you make a seat like that Chuck? With fiberglass? Sounds like a
> great idea.
>
> It wasn't too difficult. I made it with various densities of foam...no
> fiberglass. In the center, where my tailbone sits, the dense foam is less
> than 1/2" thick, and the outer edge of the seat (dished out & shaped kinda
> like a toilet seat), it's about 2" thick, but I never feel like I'm sitting
> on a hard wood seat. I used open cell foam, and cloth cover, to maintain
> some ventilation. I sloped the dense foam up and forward about 2" past the
> forward edge of the wood seat. I covered it with a denim cloth. The key to
> the comfort is the form fit, and extending it forward to spread out my
> weight, and ventilation. Leather or Naugahyde does NOT allow ventilation. I
> also made accommodations on the sides, for items like a 4 way screwdriver,
> Leatherman Tool, ELT, small fire extinguisher, fuel dip stick, fuel sump
> tool, small LED flashlight, small digital camera, note pad with a pen on a
> string, and under the seat to one side, I stow my Pietenpol ball cap. Most
> of this stuff is held in place with Velcro. There is actually plenty of room
> on the seat to put all that stuff, if you carefully plan it all out. I'm
> going to make another seat, with the idea of spreading out my weight even
> farther forward, but NOT thicker under my tail bone.
> Oh yeah, I can also carry a bomb load of FOUR rolls of Toilet Paper (two
> on each side) !!
> Chuck G.
> NX770CG
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
I did about the same with mine after building a mock fuselage and moving
things around a bit. Figure there is no such thing as a too low seat since
you can add all the seat cushion you want later (and be more comfortable at
the same time).
RH
On 11/15/05, Ronnie Wagner wrote:
>
> Tim,
> I lowered the back bottom of my seat 2 in. and the backrest is leaning
> back 2 in, at the top. The front of the seat bottom is at the height called
> for in the plans. I'm 6'1" and wear 36 length in jeans. so mostly legs and
> feet. But this arrangement feels super. I love the way it feels sitting in
> it but I have not flown it yet. The seat cocked up seems to help the leg
> room but lowered may hurt your visibility, I wanted to sit pretty low in my
> plane. I don't have any clearance problems with the foot holes but I raised
> them I think according to Mike Cuy's video. about 2 inches.
> Ronnie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Tim Willis
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 15, 2005 2:58 PM
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05
>
>
> Guys,
> Thanks for all the very good input-- both on this group board and in your
> private emails. You have given me several good reasons not to raise the seat
> and/or move the console cowlings forward.
> Back into the cockpit again to see if I can enlarge my shin/foot holes by
> making the passenger seatback "V" support a modified "Y." There may never be
> a front passenger or seat again, either. I see a future building in
> cardboard, ducktape, and plywood on the garage floor.
> Your experiences are what I was after-- I'd rather have the negatives
> with gritty details than butcher the plane and not have it work. It's too
> big to paint pink and make a lawn ornament.
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | MEK proof sanding sealer? |
Mike Cuy has recommended using a Dupont 222 Sanding Sealer to coat any
varnished wood prior to covering to prevent the PolyTac from dissolving the
varnish. Problem is I can't find the stuff anywhere including the Internet.
Does anyone know where this stuff can be found or of a substitute?
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
Mark:
I have seen seats made using that expandable foam. Same thing as the spray
stuff but you can buy it in quart size cans in most marine stores.
http://www.jgreer.com/Foam%20Page.htm
Mix the two parts, pour in to a garbage bag, grab your favorite drink and
sit on it for about 15 minutes. instant mold of your deriere.
michael silvius
in cold rainy Scarborough, Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
> Many racing series use form fitted seats.
(snip)
> The experimenters out there could easily come up with some ideas
> of materials that should work and I would think fiberglass should do
> well in the actual construction of the seats.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
I love to see inovation at work...Good on ya, Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: raising the seat NOT
>
>
> Mark:
> I have seen seats made using that expandable foam. Same thing as the spray
> stuff but you can buy it in quart size cans in most marine stores.
> http://www.jgreer.com/Foam%20Page.htm
> Mix the two parts, pour in to a garbage bag, grab your favorite drink and
> sit on it for about 15 minutes. instant mold of your deriere.
>
> michael silvius
> in cold rainy Scarborough, Maine
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
>
>> Many racing series use form fitted seats.
> (snip)
>> The experimenters out there could easily come up with some ideas
>> of materials that should work and I would think fiberglass should do
>> well in the actual construction of the seats.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
In a message dated 11/16/2005 2:54:01 PM Central Standard Time,
carbarvo(at)knology.net writes:
I have seen seats made using that expandable foam. Same thing as the spray
> stuff but you can buy it in quart size cans in most marine stores.
That stuff is closed cell foam, and will inhibit air circulation.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat NOT |
BAYES_00 -2.60, RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB 0.01)
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 11/16/2005 2:54:01 PM Central Standard Time,
> carbarvo(at)knology.net writes:
>
> I have seen seats made using that expandable foam. Same thing as
> the spray
> > stuff but you can buy it in quart size cans in most marine stores.
>
> That stuff is closed cell foam, and will inhibit air circulation.
>
> Chuck G.
Chuck what I think he meant is using that stuff to make a mold of a body
from which a seat could be made out of, not making the seat out of that
stuff. It sounds logical and like it would work to me, but then again
I haven't tried it either.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Green" <mmml(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | External stringers |
Hi All,
Just wanting to know what you guys have done at the tail end with the external
stringers for the fabric stand off. I was trying to avoid adding the 1/4"x1/2"
stringer to both sides of the vertical section of the tail to prevent having
a "fat" tail post leading into a "skinny" rudder but having pondered about it
for a day, seem to think it's the easiest option.
Any advise/criticism welcome.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: MEK proof sanding sealer? |
I used West System epoxy on all surfaces that come into contact with the fabric.
It doesnt have any odor, which is great for working in the house.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 10:00 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: MEK proof sanding sealer?
Mike Cuy has recommended using a Dupont 222 Sanding Sealer to coat any varnished
wood prior to covering to prevent the PolyTac from dissolving the varnish.
Problem is I can't find the stuff anywhere including the Internet. Does anyone
know where this stuff can be found or of a substitute?
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05 |
Harvey asked:
>There is a lip on the floor at the heel section which causes my heel to
> get stuck there at times.I think I may just rivet another piece of
> aluninum here in order to stop this from happening.Anybody else
> experience this aspect of the heel getting caught here?Or am I just
> having a bad day?
I think a lot of people have installed plates from the top of the landing
gear (ash) cross brace forward to the floor so their feet slide better and
do not get caught on the lip of the ash cross brace
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 11/14/05
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: raising the seat, extending the vertical stab, and |
Corvair College #9
Can't find an email for him, but the N-number is registered to this address:
14281 Urn Rd
Jacksonville, FL 32218
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
Good info Mike, does Pat Green have an email address that you know of? Would
like to ask him some increasing wingspan questions.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | pix and report from Corvair College 9 |
... are on William's website, at http://www.flycorvair.com/cc9a.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flour bomb design |
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
Since there's been discussions on smoke system designs and toilet paper
bombs, has anyone played with different designs for flour bombs? I'm
thinking about quarter of a paper lunch bag full but can't decide
whether to roll it up or leave it shaped like a tear-drop. There's the
chance of rippage (pre-detonation, which rolling it up would help avoid)
versus a nice plumb of floor upon impact to consider.
Anyone "been there, done that"?
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
Pieters,
I'm holding a page from the "Pietenpol Construction New" undated. Top half
of page has two letters and a captioned picture of a Piet underway. The lower
half deals with the "Landing Gear Strut-Coil Spring Shock absorbing" There is
a fine technical drawing of the device. It lists the coil spring as an "H-56
-Lamina-3/4IDX 1 1/2 ODX6 inches". Even though I have completed my gear and
shocks I'm fearful that the coils are too strong and should be changed.
Would anyone know the source of these H-56 Lamina springs. Would sure
appreciate some help on this one.
Corky in Cool Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Spring Shocks |
See their webpage for a catalog ( http://www.anchorlamina.com )
Die and Mold components are available from any of the Die Set manufacturing plants
listed below as well as from over 500 distributors world wide.
For a distributor near you, please contact:
Lamina Components
38505 Country Club Drive,
Suite 100
Farmington Hills, MI 48331
USA Toll Free 1-800-6-LAMINA
Tel. (248) 489-9122
Fax. (248) 553-6842 or (800) 406-4410
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Spring Shocks
Pieters,
I'm holding a page from the "Pietenpol Construction New" undated. Top half of
page has two letters and a captioned picture of a Piet underway. The lower half
deals with the "Landing Gear Strut-Coil Spring Shock absorbing" There is a
fine technical drawing of the device. It lists the coil spring as an "H-56 -Lamina-3/4IDX
1 1/2 ODX6 inches". Even though I have completed my gear and shocks
I'm fearful that the coils are too strong and should be changed.
Would anyone know the source of these H-56 Lamina springs. Would sure appreciate
some help on this one.
Corky in Cool Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: External stringers |
Mike
My side stringers taper down and end forward of the start of the horiz stabilizer.
That makes for a flat appearance at the tail.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Green
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: External stringers
Hi All,
Just wanting to know what you guys have done at the tail end with the external
stringers for the fabric stand off. I was trying to avoid adding the 1/4"x1/2"
stringer to both sides of the vertical section of the tail to prevent having
a "fat" tail post leading into a "skinny" rudder but having pondered about
it for a day, seem to think it's the easiest option.
Any advise/criticism welcome.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Green" <mmml(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Re: External stringers |
Thanks for the advise guys.
Arthur Johnson here in Australia sent me some pix of his which cleared it all
up for me. Looks like I was trying to over complicate things, again!!!
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2005 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: External stringers
Mike
My side stringers taper down and end forward of the start of the horiz stabilizer.
That makes for a flat appearance at the tail.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Green
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 7:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: External stringers
Hi All,
Just wanting to know what you guys have done at the tail end with the external
stringers for the fabric stand off. I was trying to avoid adding the 1/4"x1/2"
stringer to both sides of the vertical section of the tail to prevent having
a "fat" tail post leading into a "skinny" rudder but having pondered about
it for a day, seem to think it's the easiest option.
Any advise/criticism welcome.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | are there any aeronautical engineers out there? |
I have a design, unairplane related, that I need some aeronautical consultation
with. Anybody out there?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flour bomb design |
William:
A few yrs back I flew w/ a man who owned several commercial fishing vessels.
During Tuna season we would fly a couple hundred miles off shore in his
straight tail 172 w/ an oddly pink interior. The plane was equipped with an
extra tank in place of the aft seat allowing for an 8 hr operation. The idea
being that we would spot the tuna from the air and mark the spot w/ a dye
marker, then via marine radio direct the boats already on station to the red
plume. The marker bombs consisted of an 8 inch square piece of newspaper
that would contain about 3 table spoons of neon red dye and a small pebble.
The marker bombs were tied up w/ a rubber band so that the selvage of the
paper would be rather like a feathers on a badminton shuttle cock. The were
quite accurate. Unfortunately they were also fragile. And thus when a little
less than careful the marker bombs would come apart as we attempted to
launch them out the open window. This of course explained the reason for the
rather feminine interior dcor of the old 172. The stuff never came out of
the old white vinyl interior.
Michael Silvius
Scarborough, Maine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flour bomb design
>
> Since there's been discussions on smoke system designs and toilet paper
> bombs, has anyone played with different designs for flour bombs? I'm
> thinking about quarter of a paper lunch bag full but can't decide
> whether to roll it up or leave it shaped like a tear-drop. There's the
> chance of rippage (pre-detonation, which rolling it up would help avoid)
> versus a nice plumb of floor upon impact to consider.
>
> Anyone "been there, done that"?
>
> Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle Combs" <doylecombskeith(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: flour bomb design |
We used to use flour bombs in a Texas town using a barrel. It was fun, but
extremely difficult to hit that barrel. Anyway, we used brown sacks filled
with about 1/3 of flour. We tied the bags with one string, loosely, so that
the sack would easily spill its content when it hit the ground or the
barrel. Be sure and take them out of the aircraft when going into Mexico and
back. It is terribly embarrasing.
Doyle Combs
----- Original Message -----
From: "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: flour bomb design
>
>
> William:
>
> A few yrs back I flew w/ a man who owned several commercial fishing
> vessels.
> During Tuna season we would fly a couple hundred miles off shore in his
> straight tail 172 w/ an oddly pink interior. The plane was equipped with
> an
> extra tank in place of the aft seat allowing for an 8 hr operation. The
> idea
> being that we would spot the tuna from the air and mark the spot w/ a dye
> marker, then via marine radio direct the boats already on station to the
> red
> plume. The marker bombs consisted of an 8 inch square piece of newspaper
> that would contain about 3 table spoons of neon red dye and a small
> pebble.
> The marker bombs were tied up w/ a rubber band so that the selvage of the
> paper would be rather like a feathers on a badminton shuttle cock. The
> were
> quite accurate. Unfortunately they were also fragile. And thus when a
> little
> less than careful the marker bombs would come apart as we attempted to
> launch them out the open window. This of course explained the reason for
> the
> rather feminine interior dcor of the old 172. The stuff never came out of
> the old white vinyl interior.
>
> Michael Silvius
>
> Scarborough, Maine
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 2:29 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: flour bomb design
>
>
>
>>
>> Since there's been discussions on smoke system designs and toilet paper
>> bombs, has anyone played with different designs for flour bombs? I'm
>> thinking about quarter of a paper lunch bag full but can't decide
>> whether to roll it up or leave it shaped like a tear-drop. There's the
>> chance of rippage (pre-detonation, which rolling it up would help avoid)
>> versus a nice plumb of floor upon impact to consider.
>>
>> Anyone "been there, done that"?
>>
>> Bill
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Piet Article On AvWeb |
| From: | "Textor, Jack" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Nice four part article on AvWeb by Matt Paxton. The link is
http://www.avweb.com/news/homeblts/182611-1.html.
Jack Textor
Des Moines
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kirk Huizenga <kirk.huizenga(at)moundsviewschools.org> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair parts |
Tom,
Do you have any parts left?
What H.P. engine was it?
Thanks
Kirk
On Nov 13, 2005, at 10:01 AM, tmbrant1(at)netzero.com wrote:
>
>
> If anyone needs corvair parts, let me know. I've taken apart my
> second engine and have stuff I need to part with. I'm keeping the
> rods and maybe one of the heads.
>
> Tom B.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: corvair parts |
yep - Based on the heads and case I believe it was a 110 engine. I sold the case
but have the crank, bellhousing, core cam & cylinders, rocker covers, core
heads, accessory housing, blower housing (if you're doing a Bernie conversion)
etc.....
Let me know what you need and I'll let you know if I have it.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Hello,
I know that there is some downthrust in the Ford installation. What is the accepted
downthrust for a continental?
Also, what does downthrust do? does it line up the thrust line with the flight
line?
If you don't have downthrust, I assume the plane will feel tailheavy at power and
nose heavy in glide? with it's longitudinal balance shifting noticably with
power settings?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair College 9 update |
William has posted the final three parts to the report (pictures and text)
from Corvair College 9, parts III, IV, and V. You can access them by
scrolling to the bottom of the page, at http://www.flycorvair.com/cc9a.html
and clicking on the parts you haven't seen yet. The report was broken into
parts for faster loading and easier reading.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morris <don(at)donsplans.com> |
Can't say much for the specifics for each installation (I am a long way
from there, and am just masochistic enough to try to break totally new
ground on my engine installation), but as for what downthrust does,
among other things it makes the aircraft more stable through power
changes. Without downthrust, when you add throttle, the aircraft will
tend to nose up. This is particularly true for high wing aircraft, such
as our own loved piety birdy. With down thrust, an increase in throttle
will tend to pull the nose around the wing and increase angle of attack,
but the downthrust on the nose will counteract that. Idealy, adding or
subtracting throttle will not affect pitch.
-Don
Douwe Blumberg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know that there is some downthrust in the Ford installation. What
> is the accepted downthrust for a continental?
>
> Also, what does downthrust do? does it line up the thrust line with
> the flight line?
>
> If you don't have downthrust, I assume the plane will feel tailheavy
> at power and nose heavy in glide? with it's longitudinal balance
> shifting noticably with power settings?
>
> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
A good place to start would be 1" of downthrust and 1" of offset to the right.
Shim as needed from that point.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 4:34 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: down thrust
Hello,
I know that there is some downthrust in the Ford installation. What is the accepted
downthrust for a continental?
Also, what does downthrust do? does it line up the thrust line with the flight
line?
If you don't have downthrust, I assume the plane will feel tailheavy at power
and nose heavy in glide? with it's longitudinal balance shifting noticably with
power settings?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Hayes, Mike" <Mike.Hayes(at)denco.co.uk> |
| Subject: | Undercarriage Bungees |
Chaps,
I'm having a real struggle tensioning and then clamping my straight axle
shock cord bungees. Anybody got any tips regarding how to do this and what
sort of clamping arrangement to use?
Regards,
Mike Hayes
G-BKVO
Working in a sub zero UK hangar!
This message and any associated files sent by Denco Limited are
confidential, and intended only for the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the IT Helpdesk
by telephone immediately on 01432 377368 (UK) or +(44) 1432 377 368
(international) or return it to us by e-mail quoting the name of the
sender and the address. Please also be advised that you have received
this email in error and that any disclosure and/or use of the information
contained within this email or attachments is strictly prohibited.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the
sender and do not necessarily represent those of Denco Limited, its
divisions and/or subsidiaries, unless otherwise specifically stated.
Please note that this e-mail and any attachments have not been encrypted.
They may therefore be liable to be compromised. This is an inherent
risk in relation to e-mail. Denco Holdings Limited its divisions
subsidiaries and divisions of subsidiaries do not, to the extent
permitted by law, accept any liability (whether in contract, negligence
or otherwise) for any changes made to this e-mail after it has been
sent by the original sender, any external compromises of security and/or
breaches of confidentiality in relation to transmissions sent by e-mail.
We cannot to the extent permitted by law accept any liability (whether
in contract, negligence or otherwise) for any damage sustained as a
result of any software viruses and it is therefore your responsibility
to scan the attachments (if any) and carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Undercarriage Bungees |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Hi Mike,
This is one of the more difficult things to do. I find it nearly
impossible to do it alone, and even with help it is difficult. After
some trial and error, I have come up with the following procedure, at
least for the fairly stiff 1/2" bungees I am using:
1. Jack up the airplane so the axle is resting in the V of the
undercarriage.
2. Make a loop around the axle with the bungee cord, and clamp it using
nylon cable ties. The only way to really get the cable ties
tight is with a Panduit cable tie gun. I bought mine on ebay for about
$25.
3. Once the loop is tight with the cable ties (I use 3 cable ties), I
secure it with a length of stainless steel safety wire twisted tight
into the bungee cord.
4. Then begin wrapping the bungee around the axle and the V of the
undercarriage. You need to keep as much tension as you can possibly put
on the bungee as you wrap it (this is where an assistant is useful). I
usually put a foot against the undercarriage and pull with both hands
(be careful to not pull the undercarriage off the jack).
5. I put about 3 wraps on each end of the axle and then finish it off
with a loop around the axle secured as in steps 2 and 3 above
Once you have it tight and return the weight of the plane to the wheels
you will find that the axle will be floating perhaps 1/4" above the V of
the undercarriage.
At first I did not sue the stainless safety wire to secure the bungee,
relying on the nylon cable ties. After 2 instances of bungees coming
loose I developed the safety wire solution.
One other thing (most important!!). Always have a loop of steel cable
around each end of the axle securing it to the undercarriage so that if
you do break a bungee, the axle cannot come completely loose. Such a
"Disaster Preventer" should allow more displacement of your axle than
you ever expect to be necessary, but not allow the wingtip to touch the
ground, or the undercarriage to drag.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, North Carolina
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hayes,
Mike
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Undercarriage Bungees
Chaps,
I'm having a real struggle tensioning and then clamping my straight axle
shock cord bungees. Anybody got any tips regarding how to do this and
what
sort of clamping arrangement to use?
Regards,
Mike Hayes
G-BKVO
Working in a sub zero UK hangar!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: flour bomb design |
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
Thanks for the replies - if nothing else I heard (read) great stories.
Between dying the interior of a plane pink or gluing your eyes shut
(water/tears plus floor equals paste) I at least know to lower my
goggles before playing with such ordinance while underway.
You may have avoided a funny news article about a blind, pink pilot
stumbling onto a road after the accident!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flour bomb design |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Bill,
One thing most people don't think about is that a pile of flour makes a
mess on the ground. You can achieve the same effect (a puff of smoke on
impact) and do the ground some good if you use pulverized lime instead
of flour. It's cheaper, too.
I learned this years ago when I was practicing for a floursack bombing
contest at an upcoming airshow. I asked a local farmer who had an
airstrip on his farm if I could practice there and he said I could if I
would use lime instead of flour, so it would improve his field. My
brother and I flew several bombing missions in our J-3 Cub, as he
watched. I even tried dive bombing, standing the Cub on its nose with
the throttle at idle, then pulling out of the dive and tossing out the
flour sack less than 100' from the ground, till one day I felt the
tailwheel hit as I pulled out of the dive and I decided maybe that
wasn't such a good idea (of course, at age 17 you are invulnerable).
Then the farmer suggested that he had 40 acres of watermelons and there
were always a few the crows had pecked holes in. He said he'd like to
watch us drop those!
I haven't dropped a flour sack since I discovered what superior ordnance
watermelons are. We took the stick out of the back of the Cub, and my
brother would fly it from the front with me in the back. I would have a
watermelon under each arm and three on the floor boards (we had to be at
least 100 lbs over gross). I got where I could hit a target the size of
a car from 500' with good consistency. A 30 lb melon falling 500'
throws a column of mud 30' in the air and digs a crater 6' in diameter
and about a foot deep. Ah, the fun you can have with an airplane.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
Thanks for the replies - if nothing else I heard (read) great stories.
Between dying the interior of a plane pink or gluing your eyes shut
(water/tears plus floor equals paste) I at least know to lower my
goggles before playing with such ordinance while underway.
You may have avoided a funny news article about a blind, pink pilot
stumbling onto a road after the accident!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | flour bomb design |
The watermelons remind of the book "Flight of Passage" by Rinker Buck. I
think they dropped cantalopes. The below text is from a book website.
"In the summer of 1966, Rinker and Kernahan Buck, two schoolboys from
New Jersey, bought a dilapidated Piper Cub for $300, rebuilt it in their
barns, and took off on the journey of a lifetime - a daring flight
across the Rockies to California. They become to youngest aviators on
record to fly coast-to-coast, and their thirst for adventure, and the
simple audacity of their trip, mirrored the innocence of their times.
Because they couldn't afford one, they navigated all the way to
California without a radio."
My wife bought me this book to read during the week we rented a beach
house on Emerald Isle, N.C. (maybe you have been there Jack Phillips?).
I found it to be a great story involving aviation. Maybe some of you
have also read this. I understand it's also on c.d. to listen while
driving.
-----Original Message-----
| 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: flour bomb design
Bill,
One thing most people don't think about is that a pile of flour makes a
mess on the ground. You can achieve the same effect (a puff of smoke on
impact) and do the ground some good if you use pulverized lime instead
of flour. It's cheaper, too.
I learned this years ago when I was practicing for a floursack bombing
contest at an upcoming airshow. I asked a local farmer who had an
airstrip on his farm if I could practice there and he said I could if I
would use lime instead of flour, so it would improve his field. My
brother and I flew several bombing missions in our J-3 Cub, as he
watched. I even tried dive bombing, standing the Cub on its nose with
the throttle at idle, then pulling out of the dive and tossing out the
flour sack less than 100' from the ground, till one day I felt the
tailwheel hit as I pulled out of the dive and I decided maybe that
wasn't such a good idea (of course, at age 17 you are invulnerable).
Then the farmer suggested that he had 40 acres of watermelons and there
were always a few the crows had pecked holes in. He said he'd like to
watch us drop those!
I haven't dropped a flour sack since I discovered what superior ordnance
watermelons are. We took the stick out of the back of the Cub, and my
brother would fly it from the front with me in the back. I would have a
watermelon under each arm and three on the floor boards (we had to be at
least 100 lbs over gross). I got where I could hit a target the size of
a car from 500' with good consistency. A 30 lb melon falling 500'
throws a column of mud 30' in the air and digs a crater 6' in diameter
and about a foot deep. Ah, the fun you can have with an airplane.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
Thanks for the replies - if nothing else I heard (read) great stories.
Between dying the interior of a plane pink or gluing your eyes shut
(water/tears plus floor equals paste) I at least know to lower my
goggles before playing with such ordinance while underway.
You may have avoided a funny news article about a blind, pink pilot
stumbling onto a road after the accident!
Bill
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: | a bomb-proof workshop |
Story in the paper yesterday about these abandoned ICBM missile silos that
people have been buying and converting into living space. Completely safe
from any natural disaster, and very secluded living. My thought was that a
guy could put a block and tackle up at the top, build a Piet down in there
free from noise and interruption, and hoist it out when complete.
I see from the map of the silo sites in Texas that there is one just east of
Winters, TX... where our friend Sterling Brooks lives.
I suppose a guy could also sit and drink beer completely unmolested down in
his silo/shop, too ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: a bomb-proof workshop |
Sometimes you have to watch out for the silos that may have methane gas
in them.I know there was the story of the farmer that walked in his and
was found dead along with five other guys that decided to go in and help
out,one after the other.A missle silo may not have that problem but then
you never know.If I were you I'd grab your local telephone man who
should have a tester.They use them for going down in the drain sewers.He
may be willing to take the time to help you out if you ask him nice like
and maybe buy him a beer or two.Or give him a ride in your plane!
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
>
> Story in the paper yesterday about these abandoned ICBM missile silos that
> people have been buying and converting into living space. Completely safe
> from any natural disaster, and very secluded living. My thought was that a
> guy could put a block and tackle up at the top, build a Piet down in there
> free from noise and interruption, and hoist it out when complete.
>
> I see from the map of the silo sites in Texas that there is one just east of
> Winters, TX... where our friend Sterling Brooks lives.
>
> I suppose a guy could also sit and drink beer completely unmolested down in
> his silo/shop, too ;o)
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a bomb-proof workshop |
My good friend and former airshow pilot Bob Sears of Wingate, Texas (just a
few miles from my place) had a massive missile silo on his ranch. These are
so VERY large, that if you have the moolah, they can be converted to homes.
Very safe, super quiet, cheap to heat/cool but harder than heck to get a
Pietenpol fuselage out of once you built it. Getting the wings out would be
nearly as hard as what Chuck Gantzer had to do when I saw where he built his
wings in his casa... A winch would be good, but if the wind is blowing, you
would need 6 guys (who have not yet consumed cerveza) to assist with the
extraction.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: a bomb-proof workshop
>
> Story in the paper yesterday about these abandoned ICBM missile silos that
> people have been buying and converting into living space. Completely safe
> from any natural disaster, and very secluded living. My thought was that
a
> guy could put a block and tackle up at the top, build a Piet down in there
> free from noise and interruption, and hoist it out when complete.
>
> I see from the map of the silo sites in Texas that there is one just east
of
> Winters, TX... where our friend Sterling Brooks lives.
>
> I suppose a guy could also sit and drink beer completely unmolested down
in
> his silo/shop, too ;o)
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbowen(at)ptialaska.net" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Undercarriage Bungees |
Straight cord bungees, in my opinion, are the costliest way to safe a few
bucks. When I bought wrecked N-1033B in order to do a rebuild, I studied
how could this plane have been damaged so much in a cornfield landing.
Answer-----bungee failure and no safety cables on landing gear. The plane
landed safely but the V-gear expanded outward sofar that the slide tubes
held together by the bungees simply came apart. The right gear folded-up
into the wing strut. Ruining----gear, strut, wing and longeron. The long
cord bungees are a serious mistake for someone building today, you simply
cannot get them tight enough for complete assurance they won't expand too
far. Mulitple ring type bungees are more safe. Weld on metal tabs or
cross "T" type supports on your gear so it will take at least 4 Cub style
ring bungees. Ring bungees come in couple diff diameter and thickness size
options, choose one and make it work. But most importantly--------HEAVY
WIRE SAFETY CABLES to insure the tubes will not slide completely apart.
Gordon Bowen
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Hayes, Mike Mike.Hayes(at)denco.co.uk
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:29:58 +0000
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Undercarriage Bungees
Chaps,
I'm having a real struggle tensioning and then clamping my straight axle
shock cord bungees. Anybody got any tips regarding how to do this and what
sort of clamping arrangement to use?
Regards,
Mike Hayes
G-BKVO
Working in a sub zero UK hangar!
This message and any associated files sent by Denco Limited are
confidential, and intended only for the addressee named above.
If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the IT Helpdesk
by telephone immediately on 01432 377368 (UK) or +(44) 1432 377 368
(international) or return it to us by e-mail quoting the name of the
sender and the address. Please also be advised that you have received
this email in error and that any disclosure and/or use of the information
contained within this email or attachments is strictly prohibited.
Any views or opinions expressed in this e-mail are solely those of the
sender and do not necessarily represent those of Denco Limited, its
divisions and/or subsidiaries, unless otherwise specifically stated.
Please note that this e-mail and any attachments have not been encrypted.
They may therefore be liable to be compromised. This is an inherent
risk in relation to e-mail. Denco Holdings Limited its divisions
subsidiaries and divisions of subsidiaries do not, to the extent
permitted by law, accept any liability (whether in contract, negligence
or otherwise) for any changes made to this e-mail after it has been
sent by the original sender, any external compromises of security and/or
breaches of confidentiality in relation to transmissions sent by e-mail.
We cannot to the extent permitted by law accept any liability (whether
in contract, negligence or otherwise) for any damage sustained as a
result of any software viruses and it is therefore your responsibility
to scan the attachments (if any) and carry out your own virus check before
opening any attachments.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: a bomb-proof workshop |
Forgot to mention...
Bob Sears passed away about 10 years ago from cancer. Best guy I knew around
these parts.
Also, there is another missile silo near me availble for tours owned by
another guy I know. He is/has turned it into a non-profit museum and is
collecting a lot of items from the Cold War days to go into the museum. His
silo is near Lawn Texas and you can probably find it on Google at MISSILE
SILO LAWN TEXAS.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: a bomb-proof workshop
>
> My good friend and former airshow pilot Bob Sears of Wingate, Texas (just
a
> few miles from my place) had a massive missile silo on his ranch. These
are
> so VERY large, that if you have the moolah, they can be converted to
homes.
> Very safe, super quiet, cheap to heat/cool but harder than heck to get a
> Pietenpol fuselage out of once you built it. Getting the wings out would
be
> nearly as hard as what Chuck Gantzer had to do when I saw where he built
his
> wings in his casa... A winch would be good, but if the wind is blowing,
you
> would need 6 guys (who have not yet consumed cerveza) to assist with the
> extraction.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
> To:
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 10:11 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: a bomb-proof workshop
>
>
>
> >
> > Story in the paper yesterday about these abandoned ICBM missile silos
that
> > people have been buying and converting into living space. Completely
safe
> > from any natural disaster, and very secluded living. My thought was
that
> a
> > guy could put a block and tackle up at the top, build a Piet down in
there
> > free from noise and interruption, and hoist it out when complete.
> >
> > I see from the map of the silo sites in Texas that there is one just
east
> of
> > Winters, TX... where our friend Sterling Brooks lives.
> >
> > I suppose a guy could also sit and drink beer completely unmolested down
> in
> > his silo/shop, too ;o)
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: a bomb-proof workshop |
<43820CA6.B316F7AE(at)bell.ca>
>
> I'd be more worried about some nut
> ...drivin around with a truck full of
> bacterial crap flyin out the back.
>
Sounds like most of my ranching relatives. You ever look closely at working
ranch truck?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: a bomb-proof workshop |
Ya ,I guess that was a dumb statement about bacteria in a truck eh!I was
thinking along the lines of that nasty stuff nobody wants to mention.
"bike.mike" wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I'd be more worried about some nut
> > ...drivin around with a truck full of
> > bacterial crap flyin out the back.
> >
> Sounds like most of my ranching relatives. You ever look closely at working
> ranch truck?
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class Medical, and if
that same pilot is now taking blood pressure medication for BP that is a tad high,
not to mention Lipitor for goo in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is denied
by the FAA because by law, the new medication has to be reported (because t
is a felony not to report the new meds) the way I read the regs, is that pilot
CAN'T fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, you can't use your drivers license
to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.
The way I see keeping this simple, is to NOT take the 3rd Class physical and simply
fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license allowing for the LSA and
everyone is happy (right)...
Sterling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morris <don(at)donsplans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
Your understanding and mine are the same. If you are afraid that you
can't pass, don't try. As long as the FAA has not turned down your
medical, a driver's license is valid. But, if they ever do turn you
down, you are kapoot.
Good luck.
-Don
Sterling wrote:
> If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class
> Medical, and if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure
> medication for BP that is a tad high, not to mention Lipitor for goo
> in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is denied by the FAA because by
> law, the new medication has to be reported (because t is a felony not
> to report the new meds) the way I read the regs, is that pilot CAN'T
> fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
>
> The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, you can't use your
> drivers license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.
>
> The way I see keeping this simple, is to NOT take the 3rd Class
> physical and simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license
> allowing for the LSA and everyone is happy (right)...
>
> Sterling
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
Don:
Thanks, I'll tell my "friend" and he or she will be very grateful for your opinion
on this subject.
Sterling
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Morris
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them)
Your understanding and mine are the same. If you are afraid that you can't pass,
don't try. As long as the FAA has not turned down your medical, a driver's
license is valid. But, if they ever do turn you down, you are kapoot.
Good luck.
-Don
Sterling wrote:
If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class Medical, and
if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure medication for BP that is a tad
high, not to mention Lipitor for goo in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is
denied by the FAA because by law, the new medication has to be reported (because
t is a felony not to report the new meds) the way I read the regs, is that
pilot CAN'T fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, you can't use your drivers
license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.
The way I see keeping this simple, is to NOT take the 3rd Class physical and
simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license allowing for the LSA
and everyone is happy (right)...
Sterling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morris <don(at)donsplans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
There is, I believe, a technicallity that allows a person who has been
denied a medical to get approved to fly LSA, but it requires anspecific
approval of the FAA (and you know how pliant they are). I have never
heard of it happening, but do not claim to be up to date on the process,
as it doesn't affect me...
-Don
Sterling wrote:
> Don:
>
> Thanks, I'll tell my "friend" and he or she will be very grateful for
> your opinion on this subject.
>
> Sterling
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Morris <mailto:don(at)donsplans.com>
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>
> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 5:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read
> them)
>
> Your understanding and mine are the same. If you are afraid that
> you can't pass, don't try. As long as the FAA has not turned down
> your medical, a driver's license is valid. But, if they ever do
> turn you down, you are kapoot.
>
> Good luck.
>
> -Don
>
> Sterling wrote:
>
>> If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class
>> Medical, and if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure
>> medication for BP that is a tad high, not to mention Lipitor for
>> goo in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is denied by the FAA
>> because by law, the new medication has to be reported (because t
>> is a felony not to report the new meds) the way I read the regs,
>> is that pilot CAN'T fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
>>
>> The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, you can't use
>> your drivers license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly
>> under the LSA.
>>
>> The way I see keeping this simple, is to NOT take the 3rd Class
>> physical and simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's
>> license allowing for the LSA and everyone is happy (right)...
>>
>> Sterling
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
Sterling,
As I learned a long time ago when I was a little boy in the Army. "Don't
volunteer for ANYTHING" and he who asks questions gets answers, usually Not the
one he wants.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
You are correct. When I volunteered for the Army, a few months after I had been
in, I again volunteered to go to Vietnam to shoot film cameras. All the Sergeant
heard me say was "go to Vietnam and shoot..." Ended up in Vietnam shooting
M-60 machine guns on the back end of convoys hauling JP-4 (Jet Fuel) and my
company, was called "The Crispy Critters."
I now only volunteer to be the first guy in line for chow these days, or if anyone
asks "Anybody for a beer?" I volunteer for that...
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 6:28 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them)
Sterling,
As I learned a long time ago when I was a little boy in the Army. "Don't volunteer
for ANYTHING" and he who asks questions gets answers, usually Not the one
he wants.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard T. Perry" <perryrt(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
What's been said is mostly correct. Two comments:
My understanding about the "I busted my 3rd class and now need a waiver"
process is that it run through the same channels and people as the special
issuance...so it's possible, but not likely to be an easy row to hoe.
And unfortunately, the FAA (as always) has an out (or a Catch-22, if you
prefer) - the FAA document I read about the LSA medical referred rather
pointedly to 61.53 and 61.23 - which essentially infers that you cannot
operate an aircraft while taking (most) prescription drugs. Take a look at:
http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/sportpilots/
...for more information. Not good information, but there.
Sorry.....
Richard T. Perry perryrt(at)hotmail.com
"Fraser, there's a guy on my corner who asks me every
morning if I've seen God; do you really think he
expects me to point Him out?"
"Well, you know, Ray, if you did, perhaps he'd stop
asking."
Ray Vecchio and Benton Fraser, "Hawk and a Handsaw", Due_South
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH (FAA Double Speak) |
The Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH.... (Copied from the FAA website)
>>>>>>>>>> Copied from the FAA Website **********
Response by the Federal Air Surgeon
..... if your most recent records on file with the FAA indicate that you were
found ineligible to exercise airman privileges for medical reasons then, in the
interest of public safety, you shouldn't go out right away and use your driver's
license as medical qualification.
We understand that these conditions may not have been expected and may disappoint
some people. That was not our intent, nor is it our intent that affected persons
would have to maintain an airman medical certificate if they would rather
use their current and valid U.S. driver's license to medically qualify as a
sport pilot.
We ultimately concluded that, in those cases where the FAA has existing knowledge
of medical ineligibility, we need the affected person to address it and, hopefully
have it resolved. To meet the intent of the rule, the affected person
should apply for reconsideration of their eligibility. In some denial cases, applicants
simply may not have provided enough information to the FAA or may not
have supplied information that the FAA may have requested. In certain other
denial cases, applicants may not have exercised their appeal rights, which could
have led to certification in some cases.
The FAA wants to see as many pilots as possible take advantage of this exciting
new rule and looks forward to working with individuals seeking to exercise sport
pilot privileges. We also intend to work with EAA, AOPA, and other industry
groups toward that end.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cannaday <ted(at)cannaday.com> |
Speak)
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH (FAA Double |
Speak)
Yes, that's the way it's written, and it doesn't make sense to me for the
following reason (that I've never seen mentioned anywhere):
You shouldn't have to qualify for a 3rd class medical, even once, to exercise
Sport Pilot priviliges since you're never flying as a Private Pilot (possibly
an IFR approach to JFK, at night, with 5 passengers, in a Baron). Sport Pilot
privileges DO require a medical - a Drivers License medical - and this less
stringent medical is all that should be required for the less stressful
CONDITIONS that a Sport Pilot is subjected to. The rule as written says that
if you've ever failed to qualify for a 3rd class medical then you need to go
through the full 3rd class procedure to fly day VFR at 100mph. This is a major
disconnect in my book. It seems that on the one hand the FAA has agreed that
you don't need to be quite as medically qualified to fly a simple airplane as
you do to fly a complex twin IFR, and yet on the other hand they require you to
do exactly that!
-Ted
>
> The Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH.... (Copied from the FAA website)
>
> >>>>>>>>>> Copied from the FAA Website **********
>
>
> Response by the Federal Air Surgeon
> ..... if your most recent records on file with the FAA indicate that you
were
> found ineligible to exercise airman privileges for medical reasons then, in
> the interest of public safety, you shouldnt go out right away and use your
> drivers license as medical qualification.
>
> We understand that these conditions may not have been expected and may
> disappoint some people. That was not our intent, nor is it our intent that
> affected persons would have to maintain an airman medical certificate if they
> would rather use their current and valid U.S. drivers license to medically
> qualify as a sport pilot.
>
> We ultimately concluded that, in those cases where the FAA has existing
> knowledge of medical ineligibility, we need the affected person to address it
> and, hopefully have it resolved. To meet the intent of the rule, the affected
> person should apply for reconsideration of their eligibility. In some denial
> cases, applicants simply may not have provided enough information to the FAA
> or may not have supplied information that the FAA may have requested. In
> certain other denial cases, applicants may not have exercised their appeal
> rights, which could have led to certification in some cases.
>
> The FAA wants to see as many pilots as possible take advantage of this
> exciting new rule and looks forward to working with individuals seeking to
> exercise sport pilot privileges. We also intend to work with EAA, AOPA, and
> other industry groups toward that end.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH (FAA Double Speak) |
Ted,
I think you are mainly correct but a little
incorrect on your interpretation. My
understanding is that if you were denied a
medical and never resolved the issue, then yes,
you have to go through getting a medical to get
an LSA license. Every time I've spoken with EAA
or AOPA on this, they emphasize that point. They
may have gotten slack on clearly communicating
this, but that was my experience when the rule
was first announced. I don't think it's accurate
to say "that if you've ever failed to qualify for
a 3rd class medical then you need to go through
the full 3rd class procedure." A pilot may have
failed his 3rd class medical, then gotten the
issue resolved, then subsequently let his medical
lapse. In that scenario, since the pilot had been
currently medically eligible at the time his
medical lapsed, he can use his driver's license
as his medical certification.
That said, I agree that it's deeply disappointing
that the rule came out this way and I agree with
your argument 100% about the disconnect between
recognition of lowered stress yet maintenance of
a requirement of a clean slate.
Jeff
>Yes, that's the way it's written, and it doesn't
>make sense to me for the following reason (that
>I've never seen mentioned anywhere):
>
>You shouldn't have to qualify for a 3rd class
>medical, even once, to exercise Sport Pilot
>priviliges since you're never flying as a
>Private Pilot (possibly an IFR approach to JFK,
>at night, with 5 passengers, in a Baron). Sport
>Pilot privileges DO require a medical - a
>Drivers License medical - and this less
>stringent medical is all that should be required
>for the less stressful CONDITIONS that a Sport
>Pilot is subjected to. The rule as written says
>that if you've ever failed to qualify for a 3rd
>class medical then you need to go through the
>full 3rd class procedure to fly day VFR at
>100mph. This is a major disconnect in my book.
>It seems that on the one hand the FAA has agreed
>that you don't need to be quite as medically
>qualified to fly a simple airplane as you do to
>fly a complex twin IFR, and yet on the other
>hand they require you to do exactly that!
>
>-Ted
>
>
>
>>The Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH.... (Copied from the FAA website)
>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Copied from the FAA Website **********
>>
>>
>>
>>Response by the Federal Air Surgeon
>>..... if your most recent records on file with
>>the FAA indicate that you were found ineligible
>>to exercise airman privileges for medical
>>reasons then, in the interest of public safety,
>>you shouldn=EDt go out right away and use your
>>driver=EDs license as medical qualification.
>>
>>We understand that these conditions may not
>>have been expected and may disappoint some
>>people. That was not our intent, nor is it our
>>intent that affected persons would have to
>>maintain an airman medical certificate if they
>>would rather use their current and valid U.S.
>>driver=EDs license to medically qualify as a
>>sport pilot.
>>
>>We ultimately concluded that, in those cases
>>where the FAA has existing knowledge of medical
>>ineligibility, we need the affected person to
>>address it and, hopefully have it resolved. To
>>meet the intent of the rule, the affected
>>person should apply for reconsideration of
>>their eligibility. In some denial cases,
>>applicants simply may not have provided enough
>>information to the FAA or may not have supplied
>>information that the FAA may have requested. In
>>certain other denial cases, applicants may not
>>have exercised their appeal rights, which could
>>have led to certification in some cases.
>>
>>The FAA wants to see as many pilots as possible
>>take advantage of this exciting new rule and
>>looks forward to working with individuals
>>seeking to exercise sport pilot privileges. We
>>also intend to work with EAA, AOPA, and other
>>industry groups toward that end.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ted Cannaday <ted(at)cannaday.com> |
Speak)
| Subject: | Re: Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH (FAA Double |
Speak)
<4.1.20051122074026.017f7920(at)mail.cannaday.com>
Jeff,
You're right, I misspoke, I should have said, "if on your most recent attempt
you failed to qualify for a 3rd class medical...". But the point remains, of
course: why do they EVER require a 3rd class medical when they've already said
you only need a DL medical to fly with the limited Sport Pilot privileges?
-Ted
>
> Ted,
>
> I think you are mainly correct but a little incorrect on your interpretation.
> My understanding is that if you were denied a medical and never resolved the
> issue, then yes, you have to go through getting a medical to get an LSA
> license. Every time I've spoken with EAA or AOPA on this, they emphasize that
> point. They may have gotten slack on clearly communicating this, but that was
> my experience when the rule was first announced. I don't think it's accurate
> to say "that if you've ever failed to qualify for a 3rd class medical then
> you need to go through the full 3rd class procedure." A pilot may have failed
> his 3rd class medical, then gotten the issue resolved, then subsequently let
> his medical lapse. In that scenario, since the pilot had been currently
> medically eligible at the time his medical lapsed, he can use his driver's
> license as his medical certification.
>
> That said, I agree that it's deeply disappointing that the rule came out this
> way and I agree with your argument 100% about the disconnect between
> recognition of lowered stress yet maintenance of a requirement of a clean
> slate.
>
> Jeff
>
>>
>> Yes, that's the way it's written, and it doesn't make sense to me for the
>> following reason (that I've never seen mentioned anywhere):
>> You shouldn't have to qualify for a 3rd class medical, even once, to
>> exercise Sport Pilot priviliges since you're never flying as a Private Pilot
>> (possibly an IFR approach to JFK, at night, with 5 passengers, in a Baron).
>> Sport Pilot privileges DO require a medical - a Drivers License medical -
>> and this less stringent medical is all that should be required for the less
>> stressful CONDITIONS that a Sport Pilot is subjected to. The rule as
>> written says that if you've ever failed to qualify for a 3rd class medical
>> then you need to go through the full 3rd class procedure to fly day VFR at
>> 100mph. This is a major disconnect in my book. It seems that on the one
>> hand the FAA has agreed that you don't need to be quite as medically
>> qualified to fly a simple airplane as you do to fly a complex twin IFR, and
>> yet on the other hand they require you to do exactly that!
>>
>> -Ted
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The Sport Pilot KISS OF DEATH.... (Copied from the FAA website)
>>> >>>>>>>>>> Copied from the FAA Website **********
>>>
>>>
>>> Response by the Federal Air Surgeon
>>> ..... if your most recent records on file with the FAA indicate that you
>>> were found ineligible to exercise airman privileges for medical reasons
>>> then, in the interest of public safety, you shouldn=EDt go out right away and
>>> use your driver=EDs license as medical qualification.
>>>
>>> We understand that these conditions may not have been expected and may
>>> disappoint some people. That was not our intent, nor is it our intent that
>>> affected persons would have to maintain an airman medical certificate if
>>> they would rather use their current and valid U.S. driver=EDs license to
>>> medically qualify as a sport pilot.
>>>
>>> We ultimately concluded that, in those cases where the FAA has existing
>>> knowledge of medical ineligibility, we need the affected person to address
>>> it and, hopefully have it resolved. To meet the intent of the rule, the
>>> affected person should apply for reconsideration of their eligibility. In
>>> some denial cases, applicants simply may not have provided enough
>>> information to the FAA or may not have supplied information that the FAA
>>> may have requested. In certain other denial cases, applicants may not have
>>> exercised their appeal rights, which could have led to certification in
>>> some cases.
>>>
>>> The FAA wants to see as many pilots as possible take advantage of this
>>> exciting new rule and looks forward to working with individuals seeking to
>>> exercise sport pilot privileges. We also intend to work with EAA, AOPA, and
>>> other industry groups toward that end.
>>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
I heard that if you can live without the prescription drugs for three years
then they may consider you for eligibility for a third class.
On 11/22/05, Richard T. Perry wrote:
>
> perryrt(at)hotmail.com>
>
> What's been said is mostly correct. Two comments:
>
> My understanding about the "I busted my 3rd class and now need a waiver"
> process is that it run through the same channels and people as the special
> issuance...so it's possible, but not likely to be an easy row to hoe.
>
> And unfortunately, the FAA (as always) has an out (or a Catch-22, if you
> prefer) - the FAA document I read about the LSA medical referred rather
> pointedly to 61.53 and 61.23 - which essentially infers that you cannot
> operate an aircraft while taking (most) prescription drugs. Take a look
> at:
>
>
> http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/medical_certification/sportpilots/
>
> ...for more information. Not good information, but there.
>
> Sorry.....
>
> Richard T. Perry perryrt(at)hotmail.com
> "Fraser, there's a guy on my corner who asks me every
> morning if I've seen God; do you really think he
> expects me to point Him out?"
> "Well, you know, Ray, if you did, perhaps he'd stop
> asking."
>
> Ray Vecchio and Benton Fraser, "Hawk and a Handsaw", Due_South
>
>
books.com>
> ,
>!
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
Not that it has any relavence to me because I live and fly up here in
Canada with a slightly different set of rules but if that was the case
then I would never be able to fly because I take a prescription drug
called Ranitidine (not sure of spelling)for heartburn caused by a hyatis
hernia.Many people take prescription drugs which do not affect ones
ability to fly an airplane or drive a car either.There are some drugs
though that when mixed with others may have a bad effect in that area
but taken by themselves are harmless.It is a very grey area.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbowen(at)ptialaska.net" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
srstvw@nts-online.net
| Subject: | Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
I had posted this little problem FAA's catch-22 with the group last summer.
Nows time for update. My last physical for 3class came up short with a tad
of atrial fib. FAA medical notified by AME and medical (aka pilot's
rights) pulled by FAA. Jumped thru all hoops required on FAA published
flyer on having AF including about $25K medical testing bills (thank god
for insurance). You can get a copy of these published docs on web,
regarding what the FAA says they need for special issuance medicals. MY
Heart specialist determined cause is unknown, just got it, and have to take
meds, am doing so, its under control according to my heart dr. Passed all
FAA required tests for special issuance. FAA's medical consultant that
works out of Anchorage AK regional offices has been sitting on my paperwork
for about 4 mos. My Heart Dr actually a seasoned bush pilot sent letter of
recommendation after doing all FAA required test plus a heart looksee with
a cath thru the artery in leg (not required but good idea). FAA wants now,
in addition to published required tests, the want 4 months of records that
blood thinner precribed by heart doc is actually "working". Damn stuff has
been working for 6 months now, but FAA wants more. FAA's Flight Surg.
(think he's a contract Dr of Oste) says he'll "maybe" issue the special
issuance for 1 yr. Then I have to come back with 12 records of blood
thinner tests to my AME then retake the stress test (about a $3000 medical
test on a tread mill and radiology scan), then "maybe" the special issuance
will be issued for 6 years, then "maybe" the retesting each year will only
require blood thinner testing results, then "maybe" every other year some
other published FAA test. God, I can't wait to see what new crap they come
up with then.
Summary--------if you have any brains at all and any suspected medical
condition that may get an AME to bounce your 3rd class, drop back right now
to a sport pilots rating with your current pvt pilot's write-off and your
drivers license. Don't go take any more 3rd class medical exams from an
AME, they're required by law to report to you to FAA med. div. in case they
find anything wrong. The Piete is a good bird for this LSE rating. Don't,
repeat don't get the damn FAA medical div. involved with your life, you can
never ever get out. Once you're in their records you cannot fly again on a
LSA tag, you must always renew your 3rd class thats the Catch-22 of this
law.
Gordon Bowen
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Sterling sterling(at)pgrb.com
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:22:25 -0600
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them)
If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class Medical, and
if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure medication for BP that is a
tad high, not to mention Lipitor for goo in the blood, and if the 3rd Class
is denied by the FAA because by law, the new medication has to be reported
(because t is a felony not to report the new meds) the way I read the
regs, is that pilot CAN'T fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, you can't use your
drivers license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.
The way I see keeping this simple, is to NOT take the 3rd Class physical
and simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license allowing for
the LSA and everyone is happy (right)...
Sterling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)AOL.COM |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
When I was in the army, the first guys in the chow line had to serve and eat
last. That was a long time ago. Ken Conrad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | cutting sponge foam |
Just working on repairing the seat back on the Pietenpol and thought I'd
post a tip that has been mentioned before but it works so well it's worth
repeating.
When cutting sponge foam such as is used for upholstery and cushions, use an
electric knife. The one I use is one that came with a bread slicing setup,
but most any electric knife will work. It cuts straight and clean through
foams, unlike trying to use a knife or scissors. Mark your line on the foam
with a Sharpie and just let the knife ease through. It'll cut as straight
as you can mark a line with a ruler, or follow curves as needed.
Be sure to rinse off the knife blades before you put the knife away, or your
whole wheat bread will be "fortified" with foam dust next time you slice
some ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cutting sponge foam |
A serrated bread knife also works well if you don't have an electric.
On 11/22/05, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>
> Just working on repairing the seat back on the Pietenpol and thought I'd
> post a tip that has been mentioned before but it works so well it's worth
> repeating.
>
> When cutting sponge foam such as is used for upholstery and cushions, use
> an
> electric knife. The one I use is one that came with a bread slicing
> setup,
> but most any electric knife will work. It cuts straight and clean through
> foams, unlike trying to use a knife or scissors. Mark your line on the
> foam
> with a Sharpie and just let the knife ease through. It'll cut as straight
> as you can mark a line with a ruler, or follow curves as needed.
>
> Be sure to rinse off the knife blades before you put the knife away, or
> your
> whole wheat bread will be "fortified" with foam dust next time you slice
> some ;o)
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: cutting sponge foam |
I usually use the same knife I use for making my igloo up here in Canada
,grin;-)
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAsAhQV1b0oUp/wTP86GRcyBKbSWUTaaAIUYMyCCxGn+c4bzka8+jl7+y/dGZA=
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Wow Gordon! You covered a lot of angles about keeping your medical that
I had never thought of, but I Only fly for fun, not professionally.If my
problem had started showing up as a "blip" ( like elevated blood
pressure ) on earlier physicals or given me some sort of sign in
advance, I knew about taking a pre physical and might have done some
things differently. Unfortunately my first "red flag' came as I was
driving home one morning (in the truck) 30 miles north of town. No
hospitals there, so I keep on trucking. If I were flying I could have
easily landed the plane. Leon S. Ks---Trucker to the end. Even with a
heart attack going on, I did all the right "trucker things" I kept on
hand on the wheel, one hand on the gear shift, one hand holding my cup
of coffee, one hand on the CB. microphone telling others where "smokies"
at, and the other hand tuning the radio to my favorite country station.
The hard part came when I got to town. The terminal was 2 miles east,
and the hospital was 1 mile west. Which way to go? Since I was still
alive after 30 minuets, I made a beeline to the terminal which sets in
a bad part of town. I wasn't going to let my pickup set exposed for who
knows how long.I tossed them the keys, told them whats up and drove to
the hospital. Here I am setting at the key board, so the story
obviously had a happy ending. Again, Leon S. in Ks. with a LOT to be
thankful for. Yesterday and every day.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
At altitude things are different my friend.Pressures are different and
changing all the time.In an airplane you may not have made it.Heres a
tip though I did find out not too long ago;if you are having what you
think is a heart attack apparently if you cough and hard coughing by the
way,it just may save your life.It is a form of self CPR.I've never had
the opportunity to try this and I hope I never have to but somebody put
this out on the internet and they seem to think it will work.I've yet to
talk to a doctor about it.Maybe one of the Piet pilots out there may be
a doctor and know if this thing will work??????????????Keep on truckin!
Leon Stefan wrote:
>
>
> Wow Gordon! You covered a lot of angles about keeping your medical that
> I had never thought of, but I Only fly for fun, not professionally.If my
> problem had started showing up as a "blip" ( like elevated blood
> pressure ) on earlier physicals or given me some sort of sign in
> advance, I knew about taking a pre physical and might have done some
> things differently. Unfortunately my first "red flag' came as I was
> driving home one morning (in the truck) 30 miles north of town. No
> hospitals there, so I keep on trucking. If I were flying I could have
> easily landed the plane. Leon S. Ks---Trucker to the end. Even with a
> heart attack going on, I did all the right "trucker things" I kept on
> hand on the wheel, one hand on the gear shift, one hand holding my cup
> of coffee, one hand on the CB. microphone telling others where "smokies"
> at, and the other hand tuning the radio to my favorite country station.
> The hard part came when I got to town. The terminal was 2 miles east,
> and the hospital was 1 mile west. Which way to go? Since I was still
> alive after 30 minuets, I made a beeline to the terminal which sets in
> a bad part of town. I wasn't going to let my pickup set exposed for who
> knows how long.I tossed them the keys, told them whats up and drove to
> the hospital. Here I am setting at the key board, so the story
> obviously had a happy ending. Again, Leon S. in Ks. with a LOT to be
> thankful for. Yesterday and every day.
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | steel fittings & bracing wires |
On the plans sheet of the "improved" air camper from the Pietenpol family, the
dwg of the extended fuselage has some metal fittings on the bottom of the sheet.
One of the fittings just says "Up to wing". What is this piece for? It appears
to be an engine mount fitting but I don't get the tab on top.
I'm working on the tail section and wondering what people are using for bracing
wire, turnbuckles, etc..
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | steel fittings & bracing wires |
Tom,
It provides the bottom fitting for the front cabane strut. (It is used
instead of cross bracing between front and rear cockpits.
Check out the "Control Cables" under "Material Lists" of
http://www.cpc-world.com for details on turnbuckles etc.
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
tmbrant1(at)netzero.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: steel fittings & bracing wires
On the plans sheet of the "improved" air camper from the Pietenpol family,
the dwg of the extended fuselage has some metal fittings on the bottom of
the sheet. One of the fittings just says "Up to wing". What is this piece
for? It appears to be an engine mount fitting but I don't get the tab on
top.
I'm working on the tail section and wondering what people are using for
bracing wire, turnbuckles, etc..
Tom B.
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
<4388B588.1020301(at)sympatico.ca>
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Replacing A65 with C85 |
We're swapping our A65 for a C85 on our Piet. What type of prop is
best with C85s on Piets? Pitch, diameter, thickness?
Also, the new engine, which has starter and generator, will weight at
least 50 lbs more. This will change weight and balance, of course.
Some people say that the wing can be moved fore or aft to compensate
for W&B changes. Others say that this is not really true since such
movement would alter the relationship of center of lift to landing
gear. What is the list's wisdom on this?
Any information will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Mark <aerialphotos(at)dp.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
Sterling wrote:
> If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class
> Medical, and if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure
> medication for BP that is a tad high, not to mention Lipitor for goo
> in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is denied by the FAA because by
> law, the new medication has to be reported (because t is a felony not
> to report the new meds) the way I read the regs, is that pilot
> *CAN'T* fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
>
> The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, *you can't use your
> drivers license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.*
> **
> The way I see keeping this simple, is to* NOT* take the 3rd Class
> physical and simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license
> allowing for the LSA and everyone is happy (right)...
>
> Sterling
>
Sterling the Liptor probably will not be a problem as long as everything
else is ok, but the blood pressure meds will require some extra tests.
If they don't turn up anything it may not be that big of a deal, but if
they do it might get expensive. Yes they have to be reported, and yes
once you start the process you are committed as far as LSA goes, but not
every prescription med is disqualifying. The best resource I have
found is the AOPA medical certification branch. It alone is worth the
price of dues. They keep up on this type of stuff an can give you good
solid information on which to base a sound decision about your flying future
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
I was looking at pictures on http://www.kitplanes.com and one step of the project was the addition of the ply sides to the fuse. Prior to applying the T-88, hundreds of nails were started over markings on the plywood so that it could be quickly nailed down before the adhesive cured. I have also read that the nails should be removed.
I haven't actually done any building yet because I'm still trying to put together
a plan. Would it be ok to place a strip of cheap thin plywood or luan where
the nails go so that after the glue sets you can pull the nails out by simply
removing the top strip of plywood? To make my question clear you would nail
through the strip of plywood/luan and then through the fuselage plywood into
the spars so that you could remove the nails by removing the top strip of wood.
It just seems like you'd really be digging up the surface of the plywood trying
to get all those nails out. If this is a valid idea would you just purchase
nails long enough to compensate for that top strip of plywood that you use
or would you be able to go deep enough with the nails most people use? Is there
a reason why this wouldn't be a good idea? Maybe the builder's manual goes
into this. I've been focusing on the motor now since winter is settling in
and I have a warm (small) place to work when it's cold and have the wood work
planned for the early spring.
Glenn Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | How much weld is needed for lift strut? |
Can someone tell me the secret to "wrapping" the 1" X 13ga strip "around" the tubing
in the upper strut fitting per the attached detail?
Seems that this process would put a lot of stress on the 13ga, but maybe if it's
done right, it's ok...
So I'm thiniking just heat up the strip and wrap it around the tubing then using
a vise or some kind of clamp, squeeze the strip "tight" right up next to the
tubing...all the while keeping it red hot...hmmm.
Also, if the gap between the wing attach strips is 1" and the fitting is 1", then
some weld would increase the fitting to more than an inch...in which case the
weld would have to be ground down...is grinding down the excess (over 1" thick)
acceptable in this case?
Am I right or is there another (better) way to do this?
Thanks
Jim in Plano...
________________________________________________________________________________
ETAsAhRxdNs9fyUPy6gUqz+si0zDr2SMVgIUFrwgoaKxV4zadD3+SNsugrzb6qM=
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Nails-wing fittings |
Galen: If you use aircraft nails there is really no need to remove them
unless you just want to. I used hardware store brads and staples which
had to be removed. I made nailing strips from luan as you described.
It worked great. For tail brace wires I'm using 1/16 cable with some
small turnbuckles that I got in the Oshkosh fly market. Jim I've looked
at those wing fittings too and decided they probably should be 7/8 wide
rather than 1" as shown on the plans. The weld will probably make up for
1/8" difference. This is just another one of the MANY, MANY mistakes
that BHP never bothered to clean up. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
Those were probably my pictures you saw at mykitplanes.com
I used 3/4 inch aircraft nails to glue the fuselage sides on and never
thought of pulling them out, because the total weight of the nails was
probably about 4 ounces or less.. The bottom curve of the fuselage
would make fitting a nailing strip a chore, but I suppose it could be
done. I also used the little 3/8 inch nails on my wing ribs and left
those in place also. I've tried using the 1 inch aircraft nails, but
they are of the same guage as the shorter ones and they are difficult to
use without bending, I'm sure as you follow the list you will see both
sides of this arguement, and ultimately this will be just one of
thousands of little decisions you will make in your Pietenpol journey.
Its nice to have access to so many opinions, though, isn't it?
Ben Charvet
Mims, Fl
Glenn Thomas wrote:
> I was looking at pictures on http://www.kitplanes.com and one step of
> the project was the addition of the ply sides to the fuse. Prior to
> applying the T-88, hundreds of nails were started over markings on the
> plywood so that it could be quickly nailed down before the adhesive
> cured. I have also read that the nails should be removed.
>
> I haven't actually done any building yet because I'm still trying to
> put together a plan. Would it be ok to place a strip of cheap thin
> plywood or luan where the nails go so that after the glue sets you can
> pull the nails out by simply removing the top strip of plywood? To
> make my question clear you would nail through the strip of
> plywood/luan and then through the fuselage plywood into the spars so
> that you could remove the nails by removing the top strip of wood. It
> just seems like you'd really be digging up the surface of the plywood
> trying to get all those nails out. If this is a valid idea would you
> just purchase nails long enough to compensate for that top strip of
> plywood that you use or would you be able to go deep enough with the
> nails most people use? Is there a reason why this wouldn't be a good
> idea? Maybe the builder's manual goes into this. I've been focusing
> on the motor now since winter is settling in and I have a warm (small)
> place to work when it's cold and have the wood work planned for the
> early spring.
>
> Glenn Thomas
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them) |
My AOPA membership came in handy again. Last week I contacted AOPA and the
representative said the meds I am taking should not be an issue for my 3rd
class physical.
Also, by quiting coffee (ouch) and other forms of caffine, and reducing my
salt intake (not to mention reducing my girth a couple of inches) my blood
pressure would be back to normal.
I'd much rather maintain my private pilot's license rather than switch to
the sport pilot way of flying. I'll be scheduling my flight physical in a
few weeks and report back to advise how it went.
Sterling
(Almost bought a Glasair this weekend, but now looking at a Tailwind... Will
be fun to be able to go fast in the Tailwind and low and slow in the
Aircamper... Thank goodness for free hanger space.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark" <aerialphotos(at)dp.net>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Light Sport Aircraft (Regs as I read them)
>
> Sterling wrote:
>
> > If a private pilot is in need of renewing his or her 3rd Class
> > Medical, and if that same pilot is now taking blood pressure
> > medication for BP that is a tad high, not to mention Lipitor for goo
> > in the blood, and if the 3rd Class is denied by the FAA because by
> > law, the new medication has to be reported (because t is a felony not
> > to report the new meds) the way I read the regs, is that pilot
> > *CAN'T* fly under the new Sport Pilot LSA class.
> >
> > The regs seem to suggest if you blow the physical, *you can't use your
> > drivers license to suggest you are healthy enough to fly under the LSA.*
> > **
> > The way I see keeping this simple, is to* NOT* take the 3rd Class
> > physical and simply fly under the LSA regs, with your driver's license
> > allowing for the LSA and everyone is happy (right)...
> >
> > Sterling
> >
>
> Sterling the Liptor probably will not be a problem as long as everything
> else is ok, but the blood pressure meds will require some extra tests.
> If they don't turn up anything it may not be that big of a deal, but if
> they do it might get expensive. Yes they have to be reported, and yes
> once you start the process you are committed as far as LSA goes, but not
> every prescription med is disqualifying. The best resource I have
> found is the AOPA medical certification branch. It alone is worth the
> price of dues. They keep up on this type of stuff an can give you good
> solid information on which to base a sound decision about your flying
future
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Replacing A65 with C85 |
I installed a C85 on the front of my Piet. Used a wooden prop carved by Ed Sturba
in Florida. It is a 76" x 44". I think this is an ideal prop.
My installation of the C85 did not have the starter or the generator. I moved
the engine forward 5" and the wing back 2". This is with the long fuselage, weighed
in a 680 lbs. I am a large person 230 lbs., and ended up putting an additional
35 lbs of ballast in the front to get the CG back in line. I also have
a fuselage tank with 15.5 gallons over the front cockpit.
This springs project is to add the starter and the generator. I might just as
well have something useful in the front if I have to carry around ballast.
Lou Wither
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: How much weld is needed for lift strut? |
Jim--- I headed that strip with a torch with it in a vise and used a good
sized hammer to bend it around the tube.
It helps if you use a way longer strip of 1" for leverage. I never
flattened my upper strut ends or welded them to this
strap fitting...just welded washers on either side of the lift strut and
bolted it together.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | FlyCorvair update |
There is a short update on William Wynne's FlyCorvair site, dated Nov. 18,
with some informative photos of the teardown of the 2700cc engine that ran
for 200 hrs. on his demonstrator 601. Also some good info on oil gauges.
It's at http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Replacing A65 with C85 |
Jeff writes-
Also, the new engine, which has starter and generator, will weigh
>at least 50 lbs more. This will change weight and balance, of course.
>Some people say that the wing can be moved fore or aft to compensate
>for W&B changes. Others say that this is not really true since such
>movement would alter the relationship of center of lift to landing
>gear. What is the list's wisdom on this?
Doc Mosher wrote an excellent post on this topic a while back, worth
studying just to understand the problems. It does not address the geometry
issue, which has also been discussed and there is clearly a good range of
angles that the axle centerline should fall relative to the wing and CG
geometry for acceptable handling. But here's Doc's post again, as general
information.
===========================
From: Doc Mosher <docshop(at)tds.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Ancient CAA recommendations for CG limits
Recently there have been some questions concerning establishing practical
CG limits on homebuilt Pietenpols. Perhaps by going back to the Piet era
(1930s) we can gain an insight about how the CG limits were established in
those days ("That's how Bernie did it.")
Years ago, the CAA published a manual that all the A&E mechanics (Aircraft
& Engine mechanics in those days) used as a standard for airworthy repairs
and alterations. It was called the "Department of Commerce, Civil
Aeronautics Administration Manual 18." The title was "Maintenance, Repair,
and Alteration of Certificated Aircraft, Aircraft Engines, Propellers, and
Instruments." Manual 18 had a bunch of changes over the years, so don't
use a Manual 18 printed later than 1941 or it may not have these 1930s tips
about weight and balance limits.
Back in the early 1930s, the Type Certificate Data Sheets that were issued
by the CAA for each model of certificated airplane were quite brief - 10
or 12 lines of print. Today, those same TCDSs for those antique airplanes
still appear in that brief, sweet, naive condition. Compare that with
today's TCDS of the popular Aeronca Champion - 32 pages!
So if the C.G. limits are not set by the FAA in a TCDS (and of course, on
your homebuilt experimental Pietenpol there is no TCDS), how can you know
where the limits should be? If you can find an old pre-WWII Manual 18 (my
reference is "As amended June 1, 1941), you will find a couple of
interesting rules of thumb about Center of Gravity locations.
For instance, on page II-5, under "E. APPROVED CENTER OF GRAVITY LIMITS"
1. Current Models - stated on the pertinent aircraft specification in
percent of the MAC or in inches aft of a given datum. This information may
be obtained from the local Civil Aeronautics Inspector.
2. Older Models - In the case of those models for which approved limits
are not given on the specification or listing, it will usually be
acceptable to assume the limits to be at 18% and 30% of the MAC for low and
mid wing monoplanes and 22% and 34% of the MAC for high wing monoplanes and
biplanes.
Inasmuch as several models are known to have satisfactory flight
characteristics with the C.G. beyond such arbitrary positions, these should
not be considered hard and fast limits. In such cases, approval will
depend largely upon the recommendations of the examining inspector. The
major consideration governing approval of such cases will be the relative
change in the empty weight C.G. due to the alterations, rather than the
absolute C.G. extremes.
If the approved forward limit thus determined is exceeded, it may be
considered satisfactory provided that it is demonstrated to the local Civil
Aeronautics Inspector that the aircraft can be landed in the three-point
position when landed in the extreme forward condition.
Page II-6 of old CAA Manual 18 goes on to say:
G. DETERMINATION OF LOADED CENTER OF GRAVITY EXTREMES (The most forward
and most rearward C.G. positions obtainable as equipped and with the most
critical distribution of useful load.) The loaded extremes may be
determined either, (1) by weighing the two loaded conditions or, (2) by
computation. Both procedures have a common objective; namely, to
demonstrate that, under the most adverse loading conditions (forward and
aft), the C.G. positions will not exceed the approved limits (Part E)
which have been determined by flight test as the most extreme positions at
which the model will satisfactorily comply with the Civil Air Regulations.
A note on page II-17 states:
When the necessary information is not included in the pertinent
specifications (as for older models), it will be necessary to obtain such
data by computation and actual measurement.
OK, when you start your establishment of loaded C.G. limits on your
Pietenpol, lets use these old CAA limits (22% of the MAC for forward limit
and 34% of the MAC for the rearward limit on your high wing monoplane). A
forward C.G. may make it so you cannot land the airplane in a three-point
position (put another way, the engine is just too heavy for the too-small
elevators at slow speed to overcome). A rearward C.G. starts to get into
problems with stability and spin recovery. Vaughan Askue in his book
Flight Testing Homebuilt Aircraft says "C.G. provides the most direct
method the pilot has for controlling pitch stability. Moving the C.G.
forward increases the effectiveness of the horizontal tail and improves
both static and dynamic stability. The primary objective of a stability
test program is to prove that the airplane has acceptable stability
characteristics at a limiting C.G. This C.G. then becomes the aft C.G.
limit called out in the airplane's limitations. If moving the C.G. limit
forward gives acceptable stability without hurting the utility of the
airplane, then this is the simplest fix for a stability problem.
What does all this mean in your Piet? If you establish the fore and aft
loaded C.G. limits at something like 22% and 34% of the Mean Aerodynamic
Chord and try to stay away from the rear limit as much as possible (that's
the one where instability starts to take over), you will probably be OK.
Historically, most Piets come out of the jig being tail heavy because they
don't have that heavy Ford A engine on the front end of the
teeter-totter. If you increase the arm of the engine weight of a 220#
Corvair engine, for example, (move it 4 or 5 inches forward of where the
Ford used to be) your Piet will probably not be chronically tail
heavy. Then, if you want, you can tweak it by moving the wing fore or aft
- usually aft - to really set the loaded CG between your goal numbers of
22/34%
That's how Bernie did it. It still works. A pound is a pound the world
around.
Doc Mosher
Oshkosh USA
===========================
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: How much weld is needed for lift strut? |
Hey Jim,
These are the most difficult steel parts on the whole project. I struggled with
bending
red hot steel around tubing and I was not successful.
I finally made up dies and formed the parts in a hydraulic press.
It was two-step process. Bend them into a U shape first, then squeeze them into
the final shape around a piece of tubing. It took a 20 ton press.
The width of the fitting will have to allow for final welding and grinding.
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Markle
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:11 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: How much weld is needed for lift strut?
Can someone tell me the secret to "wrapping" the 1" X 13ga strip "around" the
tubing in the upper strut fitting per the attached detail?
Seems that this process would put a lot of stress on the 13ga, but maybe if it's
done right, it's ok...
So I'm thiniking just heat up the strip and wrap it around the tubing then using
a vise or some kind of clamp, squeeze the strip "tight" right up next to the
tubing...all the while keeping it red hot...hmmm.
Also, if the gap between the wing attach strips is 1" and the fitting is 1",
then some weld would increase the fitting to more than an inch...in which case
the weld would have to be ground down...is grinding down the excess (over 1"
thick) acceptable in this case?
Am I right or is there another (better) way to do this?
Thanks
Jim in Plano...
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | forming upper wing wrap-around fitting |
Attached is a sketch of how I formed this fitting using a big vise and a
torch...plus the
classic Tony B. idea for vise inserts to make nice radii. You can do this
without
extravagant means, it just takes some time to heat and work the pieces down and
squeezed until the strap fits snugly around the tube. I used much longer
pieces than
spelled out in the plans for ease of handling and to cut to size later.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
Thanks Ben,
I've got a bad case of analysis paralysis. I'm trying to understand all the in's
and out's of this project and, of course, everyone has different ideas. Up
here in Connecticut it has already snowed once and the garage is a bit chilly
which is why I'm putting off the wood work until Spring. That will give me the
Winter to focus on the motor, read books and gather info from people like you.
Matt Paxton, who wrote the article for AVWeb, "Wooden it be lovely" also
left the nails in, so I guess it really doesn't matter. In spite of all the concern
over doing it the right way, I have to admit this is the most exhilerating
and awesome thing I have ever attempted.
Thanks for the info,
Glenn
>
> From: Ben Charvet <bcharvet(at)bellsouth.net>
> Date: 2005/11/28 Mon AM 06:15:31 EST
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brads Used During Fuse Construction
>
>
> Those were probably my pictures you saw at mykitplanes.com
> I used 3/4 inch aircraft nails to glue the fuselage sides on and never
> thought of pulling them out, because the total weight of the nails was
> probably about 4 ounces or less.. The bottom curve of the fuselage
> would make fitting a nailing strip a chore, but I suppose it could be
> done. I also used the little 3/8 inch nails on my wing ribs and left
> those in place also. I've tried using the 1 inch aircraft nails, but
> they are of the same guage as the shorter ones and they are difficult to
> use without bending, I'm sure as you follow the list you will see both
> sides of this arguement, and ultimately this will be just one of
> thousands of little decisions you will make in your Pietenpol journey.
> Its nice to have access to so many opinions, though, isn't it?
>
> Ben Charvet
> Mims, Fl
>
> Glenn Thomas wrote:
>
> > I was looking at pictures on http://www.kitplanes.com and one step of
> > the project was the addition of the ply sides to the fuse. Prior to
> > applying the T-88, hundreds of nails were started over markings on the
> > plywood so that it could be quickly nailed down before the adhesive
> > cured. I have also read that the nails should be removed.
> >
> > I haven't actually done any building yet because I'm still trying to
> > put together a plan. Would it be ok to place a strip of cheap thin
> > plywood or luan where the nails go so that after the glue sets you can
> > pull the nails out by simply removing the top strip of plywood? To
> > make my question clear you would nail through the strip of
> > plywood/luan and then through the fuselage plywood into the spars so
> > that you could remove the nails by removing the top strip of wood. It
> > just seems like you'd really be digging up the surface of the plywood
> > trying to get all those nails out. If this is a valid idea would you
> > just purchase nails long enough to compensate for that top strip of
> > plywood that you use or would you be able to go deep enough with the
> > nails most people use? Is there a reason why this wouldn't be a good
> > idea? Maybe the builder's manual goes into this. I've been focusing
> > on the motor now since winter is settling in and I have a warm (small)
> > place to work when it's cold and have the wood work planned for the
> > early spring.
> >
> > Glenn Thomas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Glenn,
One of the hardest things to do when contemplating building an airplane
is to just "pull the trigger" and get started. There are a few tips
that can help you get started and keep working on the project:
1. Don't look at the project as a whole - it is simply too intimidating
to think of all the tasks required to build an airplane from scratch
(hence the popularity of all those kits on the market). Instead, just
think of it as a bunch of small projects and concentrate on finishing
them, one at a time. Start with something simple, like building wing
ribs (you can do that indoors during the winter - all you need is a
workspace large enough to hold a piece of plywood 12" wide and about 6'
long).
2. Try to work on it some every day, if at all possible. Even if all
you do is install one nutplate, or just look at the plans and think of
your next steps, that is better than ignoring it.
3. Don't worry about making it perfect. You will make many mistakes.
Just learn to repair the mistakes that are serious, but fixable.
Serious mistakes that can't be fixed can be made over. Trivial mistakes
that don't affect flight safety and won't be obvious to the casual
observer can be ignored.
4. Don't get in a hurry to fly. Enjoy the building process. I
finished mine last year and I'm still missing having an airplane to work
on in the basement. I'm about to buy an RV-10 kit, partly because I
enjoy building an airplane, and partly because I need something with 4
seats and a high cruise speed.
You are about to embark on something that few people start, and even
fewer finish. Enjoy it!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Icarus Plummet
-----Original Message-----
...I've got a bad case of analysis paralysis. ...In spite of all the
concern over doing it the right way, I have to admit this is the most
exhilerating and awesome thing I have ever attempted.
Thanks for the info,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Thanks! forming upper wing wrap-around fitting |
This is exactly what I had in mind. But after reading Greg's comment about how
difficult it is to form the metal, I was beginning to wonder if I could do it
without the die. I had just about decided to leave it straight and put a spacer
(the same depth as the OD of the tubing) between the 1" straps where the bolts
go through....but I'm going to give this a try and see how well it works
for me.
Time to blow the sawdust off the gas tanks...
Thanks very much.
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: forming upper wing wrap-around fitting
Attached is a sketch of how I formed this fitting using a big vise and a
torch...plus the
classic Tony B. idea for vise inserts to make nice radii. You can do this
without
extravagant means, it just takes some time to heat and work the pieces down and
squeezed until the strap fits snugly around the tube. I used much longer
pieces than
spelled out in the plans for ease of handling and to cut to size later.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
Glen,
Where are you located in Connecticut. I finished my project last summer. Did
it in my cellar. I am located in Branford. If you need some help let me know.
Lou Wither
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
Wow!
I've been wondering if there were any other Piet's in CT. I'd love to take a look
at one that's finished. Do you think I could check yours out some time?
I'm in Storrs.
Thanks,
Glenn
>
> From: Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net>
> Date: 2005/11/28 Mon AM 11:11:10 EST
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Re: Pietenpol-List: Brads Used During Fuse Construction
>
> Glen,
>
> Where are you located in Connecticut. I finished my project last summer. Did
it in my cellar. I am located in Branford. If you need some help let me know.
>
> Lou Wither
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Brads Used During Fuse Construction |
Like we say here at Bell Canada,we take one thing and do it right.It's
the Company that screws up!
"Phillips, Jack" wrote:
>
>
> Glenn,
>
> One of the hardest things to do when contemplating building an airplane
> is to just "pull the trigger" and get started. There are a few tips
> that can help you get started and keep working on the project:
>
> 1. Don't look at the project as a whole - it is simply too intimidating
> to think of all the tasks required to build an airplane from scratch
> (hence the popularity of all those kits on the market). Instead, just
> think of it as a bunch of small projects and concentrate on finishing
> them, one at a time. Start with something simple, like building wing
> ribs (you can do that indoors during the winter - all you need is a
> workspace large enough to hold a piece of plywood 12" wide and about 6'
> long).
>
> 2. Try to work on it some every day, if at all possible. Even if all
> you do is install one nutplate, or just look at the plans and think of
> your next steps, that is better than ignoring it.
>
> 3. Don't worry about making it perfect. You will make many mistakes.
> Just learn to repair the mistakes that are serious, but fixable.
> Serious mistakes that can't be fixed can be made over. Trivial mistakes
> that don't affect flight safety and won't be obvious to the casual
> observer can be ignored.
>
> 4. Don't get in a hurry to fly. Enjoy the building process. I
> finished mine last year and I'm still missing having an airplane to work
> on in the basement. I'm about to buy an RV-10 kit, partly because I
> enjoy building an airplane, and partly because I need something with 4
> seats and a high cruise speed.
>
> You are about to embark on something that few people start, and even
> fewer finish. Enjoy it!
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
> Icarus Plummet
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> ...I've got a bad case of analysis paralysis. ...In spite of all the
> concern over doing it the right way, I have to admit this is the most
> exhilerating and awesome thing I have ever attempted.
>
> Thanks for the info,
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: forming upper wing wrap-around fitting |
Mike:
Not bad, but I sort of like DJ's solution for the problem. A lot simpler, no
welding and you end up w/ adjustable fittings on the lift strut.
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/03-13-04.htm
all the best:
Michael Silvius
Scarborough, Maine.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> Attached is a sketch of how I formed this fitting using a big vise and a
> torch...plus the
> classic Tony B. idea
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Johnson" <ddjohn(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | steel fittings & bracing wires |
Hi Tom
That lower metal fitting is the upper motor mount . The tab on the top is
for drag bracing for the wing if you don't use the cross bracing that was
used on
the early campers.With this bracing it makes it a lot easier to get in the
front hole.
As for the tail we used 3/32 cable 7 by 7 in SS. With MS20667-3
MS21260-53lh An155-16S Barrel & AN161-16RS Fork
Dale In Mpls
> [Original Message]
> From: tmbrant1(at)netzero.com <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net>
> To:
> Date: 11/27/2005 5:05:13 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: steel fittings & bracing wires
>
>
> On the plans sheet of the "improved" air camper from the Pietenpol
family, the dwg of the extended fuselage has some metal fittings on the
bottom of the sheet. One of the fittings just says "Up to wing". What is
this piece for? It appears to be an engine mount fitting but I don't get
the tab on top.
>
> I'm working on the tail section and wondering what people are using for
bracing wire, turnbuckles, etc..
>
> Tom B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wdmelvin(at)netzero.net" <wdmelvin(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Help from our U.K. friends |
Hello All,
I was looking at the Pietenpol UK website when I stumbled across some pics of
the Flitzer biplane. I was wondering, since I have a brother stationed in the
U.K. right now, does anyone know where Mr Williams is located in the U.K. and
if there is a good contact for him? He has tried to e-mail him through his
website to no avail. Any information is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Bill
Hello All,
I was looking at the Pietenpol UK website when I stumbled across some pics of the
Flitzer biplane. I was wondering, since I have a brother stationed in the U.K.
right now, does anyone know where Mr Williams is located in the U.K. and if
there is a good contact for him? He has tried to e-mail him through his website
to no avail. Any information is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | help from our U.K. friends |
The man you want is right here on this list... Chris, the "Braumeister" and
uber-Flitzerwhatever. He'll see your post and chime in shortly.
Chris visited the U.K. guys and had a great time. I'm sure he knows who you
want to contact in the U.K.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick" <wd6auy(at)coastinet.com> |
| Subject: | Help from our U.K. friends |
Bill - try www.av8rblake.com/flitzer for most info you will need. Also
www.frapper.com/flitzerbuilders for worldwide location of builders and
those who want to. Enjoy both sites. Regards, Dick
Hello All,
I was looking at the Pietenpol UK website when I stumbled across some
pics of the Flitzer biplane. I was wondering, since I have a brother
stationed in the U.K. right now, does anyone know where Mr Williams is
located in the U.K. and if there is a good contact for him? He has
tried to e-mail him through his website to no avail. Any information is
greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick" <wd6auy(at)coastinet.com> |
| Subject: | Help from our U.K. friends |
Bill (and all) - missed on the second link. Should have been
www.frappr.com/flitzerbuilders -- sorry about that!! Dick
Bill - try <http://www.av8rblake.com/flitzer> www.av8rblake.com/flitzer
for most info you will need. Also xxxxxxxxxxxxx for worldwide
location of builders and those who want to. Enjoy both sites.
Regards, Dick
Hello All,
I was looking at the Pietenpol UK website when I stumbled across some
pics of the Flitzer biplane. I was wondering, since I have a brother
stationed in the U.K. right now, does anyone know where Mr Williams is
located in the U.K. and if there is a good contact for him? He has
tried to e-mail him through his website to no avail. Any information is
greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: help from our U.K. friends |
Chris isn't currently on the Pietenpol list.
Search Yahoo groups for "Flitzer" where you
will find
a very active group.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: help from our U.K.
friends
> "Oscar Zuniga"
>
> The man you want is right here on this
> list... Chris, the "Braumeister" and
> uber-Flitzerwhatever. He'll see your post
> and chime in shortly.
>
> Chris visited the U.K. guys and had a great
> time. I'm sure he knows who you want to
> contact in the U.K.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> Month --
> Gifts!)
> Raiser. Click on
> out more about
> Gifts provided
> www.buildersbooks.com,
> www.kitlog.com, and
> www.homebuilthelp.com!
> Dralle, List Admin.
> Forum -
> Subscriptions page,
> Browse, Chat, FAQ,
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: forming upper wing wrap-around fitting |
Thanks Mike and Greg and everyone for your help! I know I could have figured it
out but your collective input helps a LOT!
The shaping went well and was not nearly as difficult as expected.....
JM
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: forming upper wing wrap-around fitting
Attached is a sketch of how I formed this fitting using a big vise and a
torch...plus the
classic Tony B. idea for vise inserts to make nice radii. You can do this
without
extravagant means, it just takes some time to heat and work the pieces down and
squeezed until the strap fits snugly around the tube. I used much longer
pieces than
spelled out in the plans for ease of handling and to cut to size later.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "wdmelvin(at)netzero.net" <wdmelvin(at)netzero.net> |
Thanks to everyone for helping with the Flitzer info. I even received a reply
from Mr Williams himself. Thanks again!
Bill
Thanks to everyone for helping with the Flitzer info.I even received a reply from
Mr Williams himself. Thanks again!
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | Rotec Radial Engine |
Does anybody have any experience with the 7 cyclinder Rotec engine from Austrailia?
I just saw and heard a video clip, and it looked and sounded VERY good. Looks
like it could work on an Aircamper, if someone had the savvy to build an
engine mount for it.
Sterling
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick Nav's
beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a bit
faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
radial, that is) as I recall.
Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet. Haven't
seen him post in a while.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually put
those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other words
all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where this
is not allowed.
Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
> Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick Nav's
> beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
>
> I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
> neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
> and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a bit
> faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
> me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
> radial, that is) as I recall.
>
> Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet. Haven't
> seen him post in a while.
>
> Mike C.
>
> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nick Harris" <nharris25(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | gussett grain direction |
This probably has been asked before but, does grain direction matter on tail gussets.
I have the new CAD GN-1 plans and the only place where I can find that
the grain matters is on the nose rib, unless the hatching on the gussets is supposed
to represent grain. Initially I thought it was just a standard 45deg
hatch pattern to show where the gussets were. Looking closere some of the patterns
are less or more than 45deg. I cut out all of my gussets for the tail without
regard for grain direction to save material. I have also assembled the
rudder and vs with these pieces. What should I do. I am using the GL2 birch
plywood from ACS.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | gussett grain direction |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Compression strength of birch is about 8 - 10 times higher parallel to
the grain than it is perpendicular to the grain. Having said that, I
would say that it almost certainly doesn't matter, since it would be
difficult to predict the direction of the loading stress on the tail
structure. Birch is considerably stronger than mahogany, which is what
many people (myself included) use on the tail, to save weight.
When I had a forced landing about this time last year, one of the areas
that received a lot of damage was the horizontal stabilizer, which I
ended up totally replacing with a new one. The stabilizer impacted the
side of a ditch, and the right leading edge and spar broke in two
places, each. The right trailing edge broke in one place. None of the
mahogany plywood gussets broke. In general, I lined up the grain of my
gussets with the long axis of the gusset.
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Nick
Harris
Subject: Pietenpol-List: gussett grain direction
This probably has been asked before but, does grain direction matter on
tail gussets. I have the new CAD GN-1 plans and the only place where I
can find that the grain matters is on the nose rib, unless the hatching
on the gussets is supposed to represent grain. Initially I thought it
was just a standard 45deg hatch pattern to show where the gussets were.
Looking closere some of the patterns are less or more than 45deg. I cut
out all of my gussets for the tail without regard for grain direction to
save material. I have also assembled the rudder and vs with these
pieces. What should I do. I am using the GL2 birch plywood from ACS.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Green" <mmml(at)bigpond.com> |
| Subject: | Straight Axle Landing Gear Fittings |
I'm cutting the fittings for the straight axle landing gear and was hoping someone
could help with the dimensions of the inside fitting.
The Flying And Glider Manual drawings on page 17 give a dimension of 3/32" from
the lower bolt holes to the fold line. Obviously this is incorrect, what measurement
have you guys used?
Whist we're on the subject, how are the slots for this fitting accurately cut into
the fuse floor?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
Harvey
Thanks for noticing those details. I will turn those upper attach bolts
around to face heads forward. On the strut attach bolts, I did that
intentionally. Notice that the bolts are extra long, they are grade 8.
They are to hold the tie down ropes. I had this discussion with the DAR and
an FAA inspecting supervisor and both approved.
I appreciate much anytime when something that appears wrong is pointed out.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>
> I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
> struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually put
> those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
> should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
> away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
> trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other words
> all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
> or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where this
> is not allowed.
>
> Michael D Cuy wrote:
>>
>> Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick Nav's
>> beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
>>
>> I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
>> neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
>> and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a bit
>> faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
>> me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
>> radial, that is) as I recall.
>>
>> Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet. Haven't
>> seen him post in a while.
>>
>> Mike C.
>>
>> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
>> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
>> Encoding: base64
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight Axle Landing Gear Fittings |
Distances don't matter, cut it oversized, bend it, clamp it in place, and drill
it in place. Don't pre-drill holes, except maybe in one side only as a staring
point. Exact bolt placement is not that important. Slots can be cut by "chain
drilling" with a small bit and cleaning up with a file. Jigsaw from the
bottom works well, too. Make sure you understand how the fittings go, it is not
entirely obvious from the drawing until you think about it for a few hours.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Green<mailto:mmml(at)bigpond.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 9:57 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Straight Axle Landing Gear Fittings
I'm cutting the fittings for the straight axle landing gear and was hoping someone
could help with the dimensions of the inside fitting.
The Flying And Glider Manual drawings on page 17 give a dimension of 3/32" from
the lower bolt holes to the fold line. Obviously this is incorrect, what measurement
have you guys used?
Whist we're on the subject, how are the slots for this fitting accurately cut
into the fuse floor?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Green
Romsey,
Victoria,
AUSTRALIA.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
It might not hurt to put an extra nut on those bolts holding the struts
as kind of a locking nut.That bolt won't go in the other way eh? No
room.I had a situation with my airlerone bolts that I had to turn one
the opposite way due to the fact it was interfering with the travel of
the airlerone but then that was on a different aircraft as well,an N3
Pup.I also appreciate anyone telling me where I might have done
something the wrong way and because I am a flyer and not a builder ,that
happens all too often.Sometimes it's interesting to get a bunch of guys
all standing around argueing which way something should be.We all have
our own oppinion and as a Bell Canada Technician we are very
opinionated.
Dick Navratil wrote:
>
>
> Harvey
> Thanks for noticing those details. I will turn those upper attach bolts
> around to face heads forward. On the strut attach bolts, I did that
> intentionally. Notice that the bolts are extra long, they are grade 8.
> They are to hold the tie down ropes. I had this discussion with the DAR and
> an FAA inspecting supervisor and both approved.
> I appreciate much anytime when something that appears wrong is pointed out.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>
> >
> > I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
> > struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually put
> > those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
> > should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
> > away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
> > trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other words
> > all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
> > or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where this
> > is not allowed.
> >
> > Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >>
> >> Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick Nav's
> >> beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
> >>
> >> I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
> >> neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
> >> and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a bit
> >> faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
> >> me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
> >> radial, that is) as I recall.
> >>
> >> Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet. Haven't
> >> seen him post in a while.
> >>
> >> Mike C.
> >>
> >> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
> >> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> >> Encoding: base64
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
Grade 8 for strut attach bolts?? That doesn't sound right. I know those
are high strength but aren't they just high-end Home Depot stuff? I thought
strut attach bolts had to be AN hardware?
Very nice looking airplane though.
>From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:41:38 -0600
>
>
>
>Harvey
>Thanks for noticing those details. I will turn those upper attach bolts
>around to face heads forward. On the strut attach bolts, I did that
>intentionally. Notice that the bolts are extra long, they are grade 8.
>They are to hold the tie down ropes. I had this discussion with the DAR
>and an FAA inspecting supervisor and both approved.
>I appreciate much anytime when something that appears wrong is pointed out.
>Dick N.
>----- Original Message ----- From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
>To:
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:01 AM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>
>
>>
>>I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
>>struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually put
>>those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
>>should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
>>away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
>>trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other words
>>all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
>>or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where this
>>is not allowed.
>>
>>Michael D Cuy wrote:
>>>
>>>Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick Nav's
>>>beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
>>>
>>>I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
>>>neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
>>>and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a bit
>>>faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
>>>me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
>>>radial, that is) as I recall.
>>>
>>>Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet. Haven't
>>>seen him post in a while.
>>>
>>>Mike C.
>>>
>>>
>>> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
>>> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
>>> Encoding: base64
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Straight Axle Landing Gear Fittings |
haven't gotten that far yet but I would think a dremel or rotozip would work well
for slotting the fuselage.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
sqrlnet(at)yahoogroups.com
| Subject: | reason to own your own airplane |
This is a good article, especially for those of us with youngsters. Well
worth reading!
http://www.beechaeroclub.org/displayarticle324.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: reason to own your own airplane |
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, sqrlnet(at)yahoogroups.com
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
27, 2005) at 12/01/2005 08:26:57 PM
Good one, Oscar.
Hits close to home too.
My two sons can't wait untill the corvair powered pod racer has it's 40
hours flown of.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
I could have easily put a shorter bolt in the right way, but the long tail
on the bolt holds the tie down ropes while parked. I have lock nuts on each
and checking them is part of every pre flight.
Grade 8 bolts are actually harder steel than AN bolts.
I also use them for my motor mount to fuselage attach brackets. This is
also with the approval of the FAA inspector. I needed a longer tail on
those bolts because they become the cowling attach points at the same time.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>
> It might not hurt to put an extra nut on those bolts holding the struts
> as kind of a locking nut.That bolt won't go in the other way eh? No
> room.I had a situation with my airlerone bolts that I had to turn one
> the opposite way due to the fact it was interfering with the travel of
> the airlerone but then that was on a different aircraft as well,an N3
> Pup.I also appreciate anyone telling me where I might have done
> something the wrong way and because I am a flyer and not a builder ,that
> happens all too often.Sometimes it's interesting to get a bunch of guys
> all standing around argueing which way something should be.We all have
> our own oppinion and as a Bell Canada Technician we are very
> opinionated.
>
> Dick Navratil wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Harvey
>> Thanks for noticing those details. I will turn those upper attach bolts
>> around to face heads forward. On the strut attach bolts, I did that
>> intentionally. Notice that the bolts are extra long, they are grade 8.
>> They are to hold the tie down ropes. I had this discussion with the DAR
>> and
>> an FAA inspecting supervisor and both approved.
>> I appreciate much anytime when something that appears wrong is pointed
>> out.
>> Dick N.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
>> To:
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:01 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>>
>> >
>> > I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
>> > struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually
>> > put
>> > those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
>> > should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
>> > away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
>> > trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other
>> > words
>> > all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
>> > or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where
>> > this
>> > is not allowed.
>> >
>> > Michael D Cuy wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick
>> >> Nav's
>> >> beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
>> >>
>> >> I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
>> >> neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
>> >> and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a
>> >> bit
>> >> faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
>> >> me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
>> >> radial, that is) as I recall.
>> >>
>> >> Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet.
>> >> Haven't
>> >> seen him post in a while.
>> >>
>> >> Mike C.
>> >>
>>
>> >> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
>> >> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
>> >> Encoding: base64
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
If the Boys in the know approved then I guess they are OK.But keep in
mind always that harder is not necessarily better.Sometimes these bolts
are ment to bend before they break.If the bolt is stonger but can't bend
then it may reach a stress point one day where it will break and not
bend and you may be in a world of trouble.A bent bolt that is seen is
better than a bolt that is close to letting go and can't be seen by the
naked eye.At least that's what the guru's at my field say anyway.I
didn't make up all this stuff.Everything I know about bolts I got from
the boys at the field.I've tried to cut corners but these guys are bent
on keeping me alive.
Dick Navratil wrote:
>
>
> I could have easily put a shorter bolt in the right way, but the long tail
> on the bolt holds the tie down ropes while parked. I have lock nuts on each
> and checking them is part of every pre flight.
> Grade 8 bolts are actually harder steel than AN bolts.
> I also use them for my motor mount to fuselage attach brackets. This is
> also with the approval of the FAA inspector. I needed a longer tail on
> those bolts because they become the cowling attach points at the same time.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 6:06 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
>
> >
> > It might not hurt to put an extra nut on those bolts holding the struts
> > as kind of a locking nut.That bolt won't go in the other way eh? No
> > room.I had a situation with my airlerone bolts that I had to turn one
> > the opposite way due to the fact it was interfering with the travel of
> > the airlerone but then that was on a different aircraft as well,an N3
> > Pup.I also appreciate anyone telling me where I might have done
> > something the wrong way and because I am a flyer and not a builder ,that
> > happens all too often.Sometimes it's interesting to get a bunch of guys
> > all standing around argueing which way something should be.We all have
> > our own oppinion and as a Bell Canada Technician we are very
> > opinionated.
> >
> > Dick Navratil wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Harvey
> >> Thanks for noticing those details. I will turn those upper attach bolts
> >> around to face heads forward. On the strut attach bolts, I did that
> >> intentionally. Notice that the bolts are extra long, they are grade 8.
> >> They are to hold the tie down ropes. I had this discussion with the DAR
> >> and
> >> an FAA inspecting supervisor and both approved.
> >> I appreciate much anytime when something that appears wrong is pointed
> >> out.
> >> Dick N.
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:01 AM
> >> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Rotec Radial Engine
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I noticed on the plane in the foreground that the bolts holding the
> >> > struts at the wing are upside down.Up here in cold Canada we usually
> >> > put
> >> > those or any bolts in with the head up and the nut down.If the nut
> >> > should happen to come off then the bolt will not come out right
> >> > away.With the bolts done in the fashion in the picture you are inviting
> >> > trouble.We also have the heads on the front side as well ;in other
> >> > words
> >> > all bolts face with the head at the front and the bolt facing the back
> >> > or rear or the aircraft unless of coarse there is a situation where
> >> > this
> >> > is not allowed.
> >> >
> >> > Michael D Cuy wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Sterling-- Ask and you shall receive. (see attached pic of Dick
> >> >> Nav's
> >> >> beautiful Piet with a Rotec radial engine)
> >> >>
> >> >> I saw a Rotec powered Kitfox fly at Oshkosh and it sounded pretty
> >> >> neat....but not as throaty as the bigger radials
> >> >> and it has a reduction drive as I recall that makes the engine run a
> >> >> bit
> >> >> faster than you'd think it should----but don't get
> >> >> me wrong, I think they are great....and not too bad price wise (for a
> >> >> radial, that is) as I recall.
> >> >>
> >> >> Dick has done all the homework on that installation I'll bet.
> >> >> Haven't
> >> >> seen him post in a while.
> >> >>
> >> >> Mike C.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> >> Name: DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg
> >> >> DickNavRotecRadialPiet.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> >> >> Encoding: base64
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Rotec Radial Engine |
Remember on additional thing. I believe Grade 8 bolts have cut threads, e.g. stress
risers, while AN bolts have rolled threads.
Lou Wither
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
| Subject: | WOW, Jeppesen FlightStar VFR software |
I received my Jeppesen FlightStar software last night and have been tinkering with
it this morning.
It is a lot more sophisticated than I'll ever need for flying LSA, but the ability
of this software to route around complicated airspace in an airplane not having
radios or a transponder certainly helps for planning a long cross-country
flight in an antique airplane.
This would have been great for Chuck Gantzer's flight last year around the country,
and if anybody is in need of something that has a lot of flexibilty for flying
in the LSA environment, this looks like a really good tool, especially since
it can be coupled with a GPS on your laptop through a USB port. I haven't
tried using this with my Microsoft GPS yet but will in a week or so. Now, if
I can just find a smaller laptop to haul in an Aircamper, I'll be in good shape.
I paid $129.00 for this at MYPILOTSTORE.COM (I got free shipping) and so far, I'm
very pleased with the purchase. They shipped it fast.
In order to update the software, you'll have to pay for an update occasionally.
I think this can be done on a per-need basis or monthly or annually through Jeppesen.
The phone help at Jeppesen was very good when I contacted them this morning
for assistance.
Sterling
5TA6
San Antonio Sectional
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
There is one important thing. The grade 8 bolts are used worldwide for high strenth
aplication, including homebuilts,
Someplaces (here for example) for years aircraft and parts imports were baned,
very expensive and needed lots of paperwork, so we used in our projects grade
8 bolts one size bigger than the AN called for in the plans (where space possible).
Never had a problem and some are still flying...
In lots of my projects, I made my own bolts an hardened them (yes, I have the
equipment), I used to make and sell grade 8 bolts for truck leaf springs as
a student,
Here is a page in the Fly5k group about my Flea, in page 2 the two elevator
control eye bolts were made by me (grade 8).
http://www.fly5k.org/MEM/GaryPouchel/GaryGower1.htm
I always wanted to know this:
Where did the Pioneer Homebuilders including Mr Pietenpol bought their AN bolts?
Since what year where the AN bolts available for homebuilders? After that time
what bolts were used?
You know what? Years ago I made Casein glue, just to learn how to do it,
Well I made a stool and a table for my shop and they are still bonded, this was
about 20 years ago... But yes, you are right, I am to chicken to test that
glue in a plane, T-88 is good enough :-) :-)
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Lou Wither wrote:
Remember on additional thing. I believe Grade 8 bolts have cut threads, e.g.
stress risers, while AN bolts have rolled threads.
Lou Wither
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Grade 8 bolts |
I may be wrong but I think the first AN bolts came from the Navy ship
yards.I believe they had certain standards they had to adhere to and
that's where it all started.As to the date;I have no idea,maybe someone
else knows the answer to that one.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Grade 8 bolts |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
27, 2005) at 12/02/2005 09:00:44 PM
Follow the link for info on AN hardware
http://www.zenithair.com/kit-data/ra/hardware.html
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Points about threads, bending and brittleness made in this discussion are all very
valid. I should have made one additional point earlier. All of these Grade
8 bolts are replaced with each annual condition inspection. I have not seen
any wear but changed anyway.
I do appreciate the exchange of ideas. It makes us all safer in the end.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Pilkington" <mark_pilkington(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Trying to contact John McNarry |
Hello,
I am new to the list, I am interested in trying to contact John McNarry from
Canada, who last posted here in late 2004, unfortunately his two email
addresses listed here are not current, does anyone have a current contact
email, postal or phone details for John?
thanks for any assistance
Mark Pilkington
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
I wonder how much one really saves avoiding AN hardware... maybe the cost of a
couple of nice dinners?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Grade 8 bolts |
AN specs date back to the 1920's and would have been available through
Nicholas-Beazley and others.
Forrest Lovely, if you are watching the list, can you shed any light on the hardware
Bernard used when constructing his airplanes?
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: Gary Gower
I always wante d to know this:
Where did the Pioneer Homebuilders including Mr Pietenpol bought their AN bolts?
Since what year where the AN bolts available for homebuilders? After that time
what bolts were used?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: grade 8 bolts |
Douwe Blumberg wrote:
> I wonder how much one really saves avoiding AN hardware... maybe the
> cost of a couple of nice dinners?
>
> Douwe
MAYBE your life might depend on it;think about that!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Flying NX770CG - Video |
First of all, I would like to thank the many folks who responded about
the first video I made. Your help was extremely valuable in the making of this
final version. This has been a HUGE project for me, but I'm glad I did it.
It's one of those things that seems like it's never done.
I finally finished 'Flying NX770CG', (I'm close to finishing 'Building
NX770CG'). For those that have never seen a Pietenpol fly, or for those who
have never been in one, this video is for you !! I put the viewer in the Pilot
seat to give the sight, sound, and feel of what it's like flying Low & Slow.
It's 1hr 50min long, and here are some of the scenes:
Engine start, taxi, and Detailed take off & landing sequences, with 8 or 9
camera angles.
Some special effects.
Lots of Smokin' scenes.
Air to Air footage.
Background music to accompany many scenes.
Lots of Voice Over, explaining what's going on.
In air video of Cutting the Toilet Paper, Windmills, Lakes, Hot Air Balloons,
Chasing trains, pacing the shadow on the interstate.
Some of my 3100 mile cross country flight in '04.
River Run - down on the deck.
Detailed landing sequence.
$20
e-mail me direct, if you are interested.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Source of AN bolts
I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered to great
hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to maximum
(Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering the application
very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea, though,
for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because they
are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only rolled
threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to leave
it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use other
quality bolts for a while.
The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for inexpeienced
me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
FAA) requirement?
Tim
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Source of AN bolts
I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered to great
hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to maximum
(Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering the application
very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea, though,
for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because they
are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only rolled
threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to leave
it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use other
quality bolts for a while.
The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for inexpeienced
me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
FAA) requirement?
Tim
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 |
"Pietenpol-List Digest List"
My understanding is that there is hardness and toughness.
I read where AN bolts can be bent into a knot , cold, without breaking. Don't
think a grade 8 will do that.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
Source of AN bolts
I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered to great
hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to maximum
(Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering the application
very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea, though,
for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because they
are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only rolled
threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to leave
it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use other
quality bolts for a while.
The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for inexpeienced
me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
FAA) requirement?
Tim
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbowen(at)ptialaska.net" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
| Subject: | Re: Grade 8 vs AN |
INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
I think I remember reading in the Sacramento Sky Ranch tech book that AN
bolts have the threads actually pressed into the bolt vs store bought grade
8's that have the threads cut into the bolt shank. Think the tensile,
elongation and hardness are the same but this issue of how the threads are
cut or pressed is critical for failure. Sky Ranch also has a good section
on the amount of torque needed to get the bolt to right elongation for
maximum clamping without overstressing to failure. Recommend this book to
anyone building a homebuilt.
Gordon Bowen
Homer AK
Original Message:
-----------------
From: w b evans wbeevans(at)verizon.net
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:04:47 -0500
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
My understanding is that there is hardness and toughness.
I read where AN bolts can be bent into a knot , cold, without breaking.
Don't think a grade 8 will do that.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:10 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
Source of AN bolts
I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for
inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at
www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows
sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog
says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered
to great hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool
(it made the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened
professionally to maximum (Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the
concrete from a three foot drop. That's a good argument for not hardening
your own stuff, or considering the application very thoroghly. It was
great for my app., but required special handling.
Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea,
though, for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each
other. As pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in
part because they are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN
bolts are not only rolled threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to
leave it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to
use other quality bolts for a while.
The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for
inexpeienced me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's
(e.g., the FAA) requirement?
Tim
--
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John and Phyllis Smoyer" <jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying NX770CG - Video |
Dear Chuck,
I'd be very interested in the "building of" video. Please let me know whenever
it's available. Thanks.
John Smoyer
jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Flying NX770CG - Video |
In a message dated 12/4/2005 7:43:38 PM Central Standard Time,
jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net writes:
Dear Chuck,
I'd be very interested in the "building of" video. Please let me know
whenever it's available. Thanks.
John Smoyer
John,
I will try to remember to let you know when it's done, but it probably not be
done before Christmas. I'm going into great detail about the construction.
Ya just can't imiagine how much time it takes me to do this video stuff !! I
will certainly post it to the Matronix Pietenpol Group, when it's done.
Chuck Gantzer
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | update on Flycorvair.com |
William has posted an "at the hangar" update on his webpage, at
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html . Included are photos of Dave "the
Bear" Vargesko's successful test-flight of his Wagabond, some builder photos
of Flybaby builders, and some "how not to balance your pistons" photos.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
There are plenty of "non-critical" items in a Piet where alternative techniques
and materials can be subsituted in the name of frugality or experimentation.
Latex paint, or good quality Douglas fir, etc, come to mind. While everyone
can appreciate the need/desire to be frugal, with critical items such as hardware,
fitting metal, good quality wood, glue etc, it seems that the real amount
of money saved cannot compare with your life. I think there is enough going
through one's mind in a plane they built during heavy turbulance, that adding
any doubt about the integrity of structural items seems highly undesireable.
$.02
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Butch Pennewell" <kmodairy(at)centurytel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 12/04/05 |
On the subject of bolts, I had a bolt salesman tell that every time you
tighten a bolt it would take less lbs torque to brake it. Makes a case for
changing them every so often in a place where they are taken off and
retorqued
----- Original Message -----
From: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server" <pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 8 Msgs - 12/04/05
> *
>
> ==================================================
> Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
> ==================================================
>
> Today's complete Pietenpol-List Digest can also be found in either of the
> two Web Links listed below. The .html file includes the Digest formatted
> in HTML for viewing with a web browser and features Hyperlinked Indexes
> and Message Navigation. The .txt file includes the plain ASCII version
> of the Pietenpol-List Digest and can be viewed with a generic text editor
> such as Notepad or with a web browser.
>
> HTML Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2005-12
-04.html
>
> Text Version:
>
>
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2005-12
-04.txt
>
>
> ================================================
> EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
> ================================================
>
>
> Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
> ---
> Total Messages Posted Sun 12/04/05: 8
>
>
> Today's Message Index:
> ----------------------
>
> 1. 06:31 AM - Re: grade 8 bolts (Harvey Rule)
> 2. 07:19 AM - Flying NX770CG - Video (Rcaprd(at)aol.com)
> 3. 08:11 AM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 (Tim
Willis)
> 4. 08:11 AM - Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 (Tim
Willis)
> 5. 01:05 PM - Re: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05 (w b
evans)
> 6. 04:30 PM - Re: Grade 8 vs AN (gbowen(at)ptialaska.net)
> 7. 05:42 PM - Re: Flying NX770CG - Video (John and Phyllis Smoyer)
> 8. 06:02 PM - Re: Flying NX770CG - Video (Rcaprd(at)aol.com)
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: grade 8 bolts
>
>
> Douwe Blumberg wrote:
>
> > I wonder how much one really saves avoiding AN hardware... maybe the
> > cost of a couple of nice dinners?
> >
> > Douwe
>
> MAYBE your life might depend on it;think about that!
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Flying NX770CG - Video
>
> First of all, I would like to thank the many folks who responded about
> the first video I made. Your help was extremely valuable in the making of
this
>
> final version. This has been a HUGE project for me, but I'm glad I did
it.
> It's one of those things that seems like it's never done.
>
> I finally finished 'Flying NX770CG', (I'm close to finishing
'Building
> NX770CG'). For those that have never seen a Pietenpol fly, or for those
who
> have never been in one, this video is for you !! I put the viewer in the
Pilot
>
> seat to give the sight, sound, and feel of what it's like flying Low &
Slow.
>
> It's 1hr 50min long, and here are some of the scenes:
> Engine start, taxi, and Detailed take off & landing sequences, with 8 or 9
> camera angles.
> Some special effects.
> Lots of Smokin' scenes.
> Air to Air footage.
> Background music to accompany many scenes.
> Lots of Voice Over, explaining what's going on.
> In air video of Cutting the Toilet Paper, Windmills, Lakes, Hot Air
Balloons,
> Chasing trains, pacing the shadow on the interstate.
> Some of my 3100 mile cross country flight in '04.
> River Run - down on the deck.
> Detailed landing sequence.
>
> $20
> e-mail me direct, if you are interested.
>
> Chuck G.
> NX770CG
>
> ________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
> Pietenpol-List Digest List
>
> Source of AN bolts
>
> I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for
inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at
www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows
sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog
says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
>
> On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered
to great
> hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
> the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to
maximum
> (Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
> That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering
the application
> very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
>
>
> Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea,
though,
> for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
> pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because
they
> are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only
rolled
> threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
>
> At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to
leave
> it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use
other
> quality bolts for a while.
>
> The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for
inexpeienced
> me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
> FAA) requirement?
>
> Tim
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
> ________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com>
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
> Pietenpol-List Digest List
>
> Source of AN bolts
>
> I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for
inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at
www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows
sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog
says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
>
> On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered
to great
> hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
> the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to
maximum
> (Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
> That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering
the application
> very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
>
>
> Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea,
though,
> for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
> pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because
they
> are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only
rolled
> threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
>
> At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to
leave
> it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use
other
> quality bolts for a while.
>
> The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for
inexpeienced
> me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
> FAA) requirement?
>
> Tim
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
> ________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
> "Pietenpol-List Digest List"
>
> My understanding is that there is hardness and toughness.
> I read where AN bolts can be bent into a knot , cold, without breaking.
Don't
> think a grade 8 will do that.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Willis
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:10 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
>
>
> Source of AN bolts
>
> I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for
inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at
www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows
sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005 catalog
says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
>
> On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered
to great
> hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool (it made
> the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened professionally to
maximum
> (Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the concrete from a three foot drop.
> That's a good argument for not hardening your own stuff, or considering
the application
> very thoroghly. It was great for my app., but required special handling.
>
>
> Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea,
though,
> for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each other. As
> pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in part because
they
> are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN bolts are not only
rolled
> threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
>
> At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to
leave
> it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to use
other
> quality bolts for a while.
>
> The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for
inexpeienced
> me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's (e.g., the
> FAA) requirement?
>
> Tim
>
>
> Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
> ________________________________ Message 6
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "gbowen(at)ptialaska.net" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
> pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Grade 8 vs AN
> INNOCENT GLOBAL 0.0000 1.0000 -4.4912
>
>
> I think I remember reading in the Sacramento Sky Ranch tech book that AN
> bolts have the threads actually pressed into the bolt vs store bought
grade
> 8's that have the threads cut into the bolt shank. Think the tensile,
> elongation and hardness are the same but this issue of how the threads are
> cut or pressed is critical for failure. Sky Ranch also has a good section
> on the amount of torque needed to get the bolt to right elongation for
> maximum clamping without overstressing to failure. Recommend this book to
> anyone building a homebuilt.
> Gordon Bowen
> Homer AK
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: w b evans wbeevans(at)verizon.net
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
>
>
> My understanding is that there is hardness and toughness.
> I read where AN bolts can be bent into a knot , cold, without breaking.
> Don't think a grade 8 will do that.
> walt evans
> NX140DL
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Tim Willis
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com ; Pietenpol-List Digest List
> Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 11:10 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 2 Msgs - 12/03/05
>
>
> Source of AN bolts
>
> I think one of our site members directed us to a good source for
> inexpensive new AN bolts and other hardware. Take a look at
> www.airpartsinc.com in Kansas City, KS. While their catalog only shows
> sizes up to AN6-20 (3/8"-24), an obscure note on p.11 of their 2005
catalog
> says they stock up to AN10 (5/8" dia.). I would try them for bolts first.
>
> On the subject of hardness, you don't want steel parts that are tempered
> to great hardness. I recall dropping a 3 inch dia. tool steel form tool
> (it made the shape of a unique part). I had the tool hardened
> professionally to maximum (Rockwell) hardness. It shattered on the
> concrete from a three foot drop. That's a good argument for not hardening
> your own stuff, or considering the application very thoroghly. It was
> great for my app., but required special handling.
>
> Case hardening the first few thousandths of any bolt can be a good idea,
> though, for you don't want the threads to be soft and work against each
> other. As pointed out, rolled threads are stronger than cut threads, in
> part because they are "work hardened" by the process. I suspect that AN
> bolts are not only rolled threads, but may be case hardened, as well.
>
> At a practical level, while all this discussion is worthwhile, I plan to
> leave it to the pros and buy AN parts. In a pinch I would not hesitate to
> use other quality bolts for a while.
>
> The practice of changing specific bolts annually is a new thought for
> inexpeienced me. Is that considered "good practice" or is that someone's
> (e.g., the FAA) requirement?
>
> Tim
>
>
> --
> Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 7
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: "John and Phyllis Smoyer" <jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Flying NX770CG - Video
>
> Dear Chuck,
> I'd be very interested in the "building of" video. Please let me know
whenever
> it's available. Thanks.
> John Smoyer
> jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net
>
>
> ________________________________ Message 8
_____________________________________
>
>
> From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Flying NX770CG - Video
>
> In a message dated 12/4/2005 7:43:38 PM Central Standard Time,
> jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net writes:
> Dear Chuck,
> I'd be very interested in the "building of" video. Please let me know
> whenever it's available. Thanks.
> John Smoyer
> John,
> I will try to remember to let you know when it's done, but it probably not
be
> done before Christmas. I'm going into great detail about the
construction.
> Ya just can't imiagine how much time it takes me to do this video stuff !!
I
> will certainly post it to the Matronix Pietenpol Group, when it's done.
>
> Chuck Gantzer
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | trim adjustment update |
For anyone who is interested, I've fabricated and tried out an elevator trim
mechanism (simple) using bead chain. The idea is that you pull the chain
out to where the elevator is trimmed, then drop the chain into a notch to
hold it there. The chain applies tension to a bungee that pulls on the
elevator bellcrank in the tailcone.
My findings: the bead chain I got from the hardware store is only good for
about 12 lbs. pull, and the small chain "joiners" let go at even less than
that... 8 lbs. Readings were taken with a "fish de-liar" type scale. The
bungee sure makes a loud twang when the chain lets go ;o) Conclusion:
abandon the bead chain since I can't find anything more robust. I'll be
trying nylon parachute cord with knots tied in it, or something similar.
I've found that it takes a couple of pounds' pull just to hold the weight of
the elevator, with no air loads imposed.
In lieu of cord with knots, I could do an aluminum bar with notches cut in
it and may try that, too.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: trim adjustment update |
Why not run bungee all the way (no transition to bead chain) and replace the notch/notched aluminum bar/whatever with an open V cleat? Nice and simple..... http://www.chsmith.com.au/Sail.html
Or transition the part that slips into the V cleat to some kind of "non" streachy
line if needed.....
Jim in Plano
-----Original Message-----
From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: trim adjustment update
For anyone who is interested, I've fabricated and tried out an elevator trim
mechanism (simple) using bead chain. The idea is that you pull the chain
out to where the elevator is trimmed, then drop the chain into a notch to
hold it there. The chain applies tension to a bungee that pulls on the
elevator bellcrank in the tailcone.
My findings: the bead chain I got from the hardware store is only good for
about 12 lbs. pull, and the small chain "joiners" let go at even less than
that... 8 lbs. Readings were taken with a "fish de-liar" type scale. The
bungee sure makes a loud twang when the chain lets go ;o) Conclusion:
abandon the bead chain since I can't find anything more robust. I'll be
trying nylon parachute cord with knots tied in it, or something similar.
I've found that it takes a couple of pounds' pull just to hold the weight of
the elevator, with no air loads imposed.
In lieu of cord with knots, I could do an aluminum bar with notches cut in
it and may try that, too.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: trim adjustment update |
Oscar,
How about light-weight chain; the links could be looped over a nail,
providing nearly infinite adjustment.
Jeff
>
>For anyone who is interested, I've fabricated and tried out an
>elevator trim mechanism (simple) using bead chain. The idea is that
>you pull the chain out to where the elevator is trimmed, then drop
>the chain into a notch to hold it there. The chain applies tension
>to a bungee that pulls on the elevator bellcrank in the tailcone.
>
>My findings: the bead chain I got from the hardware store is only
>good for about 12 lbs. pull, and the small chain "joiners" let go at
>even less than that... 8 lbs. Readings were taken with a "fish
>de-liar" type scale. The bungee sure makes a loud twang when the
>chain lets go ;o) Conclusion: abandon the bead chain since I can't
>find anything more robust. I'll be trying nylon parachute cord with
>knots tied in it, or something similar. I've found that it takes a
>couple of pounds' pull just to hold the weight of the elevator, with
>no air loads imposed.
>
>In lieu of cord with knots, I could do an aluminum bar with notches
>cut in it and may try that, too.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Markle <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
Seems all I ever hear about is someong having to "hold some back pressure" on the
stick....
Does the Pietenpol Air Camper EVER need down elevator on a "typical" flight? I
know there's no way to say "never"....but generally speaking, could I get by
with just an "UP" adjustment or will some down elevator be needed on a regular
basis?
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Mine nearly always needs some down elevator trim. I installed a
bellcrank spring trim system similar to Mike Cuy's (although my trim
lever sticks up through the rear seat and is arranged so forward is nose
down, aft is nose up trim). When flying solo, with nothing in my nose
baggage compartment, I have the trim lever about 80% forward. When
flying with a load in the front seat and in the baggage compartment, the
trim lever need to be a bit aft of neutral.
Incidentally, I use screen door springs and taoilet tank chain from Home
Depot for my trim system. I don't think bungees are a great way to go
because they don't have a linear spring rate and they tend to stretch
over time.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim
Markle
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Up AND Down trim adjustment?
Seems all I ever hear about is someong having to "hold some back
pressure" on the stick....
Does the Pietenpol Air Camper EVER need down elevator on a "typical"
flight? I know there's no way to say "never"....but generally speaking,
could I get by with just an "UP" adjustment or will some down elevator
be needed on a regular basis?
JM
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: trim adjustment update |
<a06020412bfba268d23f0@[10.71.1.88]>
Just make sure that what ever system you use, it can be overpowered for the
day when you forget to set it for take off or any of a number of different
situations.
Though it might take work, you should be able to fly the airplane with the
trim in the wrong position.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: trim adjustment update
>
> Oscar,
>
> How about light-weight chain; the links could be looped over a nail,
> providing nearly infinite adjustment.
>
> Jeff
>
>>
>>
>>For anyone who is interested, I've fabricated and tried out an elevator
>>trim mechanism (simple) using bead chain. The idea is that you pull the
>>chain out to where the elevator is trimmed, then drop the chain into a
>>notch to hold it there. The chain applies tension to a bungee that pulls
>>on the elevator bellcrank in the tailcone.
>>
>>My findings: the bead chain I got from the hardware store is only good for
>>about 12 lbs. pull, and the small chain "joiners" let go at even less than
>>that... 8 lbs. Readings were taken with a "fish de-liar" type scale. The
>>bungee sure makes a loud twang when the chain lets go ;o) Conclusion:
>>abandon the bead chain since I can't find anything more robust. I'll be
>>trying nylon parachute cord with knots tied in it, or something similar.
>>I've found that it takes a couple of pounds' pull just to hold the weight
>>of the elevator, with no air loads imposed.
>>
>>In lieu of cord with knots, I could do an aluminum bar with notches cut in
>>it and may try that, too.
>>
>>Oscar Zuniga
>>San Antonio, TX
>>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
<28010042.1133807426263.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
<28010042.1133807426263.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
Mine always needs down elevator, even with full fuel and a passenger.
I think they're tail heavy.
>
>
>Seems all I ever hear about is someong having to "hold some back
>pressure" on the stick....
>
>Does the Pietenpol Air Camper EVER need down elevator on a "typical"
>flight? I know there's no way to say "never"....but generally
>speaking, could I get by with just an "UP" adjustment or will some
>down elevator be needed on a regular basis?
>
>JM
>
________________________________________________________________________________
<8434738.1133811476515.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
<8434738.1133811476515.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
My flying often involves plumbing terms, like: "That was a really
crappy landing, Jeff..."
>thanks very much Jack.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Phillips, Jack"
>Sent: Dec 5, 2005 1:52 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Up AND Down trim adjustment?
>
>Mine nearly always needs some down elevator trim. I installed a
>bellcrank spring trim system similar to Mike Cuy's (although my trim
>lever sticks up through the rear seat and is arranged so forward is
>nose down, aft is nose up trim). When flying solo, with nothing in
>my nose baggage compartment, I have the trim lever about 80%
>forward. When flying with a load in the front seat and in the
>baggage compartment, the trim lever need to be a bit aft of neutral.
>
>Incidentally, I use screen door springs and taoilet tank chain from
>Home Depot for my trim system. I don't think bungees are a great
>way to go because they don't have a linear spring rate and they tend
>to stretch over time.
>
>Jack Phillips
>
>NX899JP
>
>"Icarus Plummet"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
Mike,
Have you any photos/pictures of your trim system?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
HYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
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: Up AND Down trim adjustment?
Mine nearly always needs some down elevator trim. I installed a bellcrank
spring trim system similar to Mike Cuy's (although my trim lever sticks up
through the rear seat and is arranged so forward is nose down, aft is nose
up trim). When flying solo, with nothing in my nose baggage compartment, I
have the trim lever about 80% forward. When flying with a load in the front
seat and in the baggage compartment, the trim lever need to be a bit aft of
neutral.
Incidentally, I use screen door springs and taoilet tank chain from Home
Depot for my trim system. I don't think bungees are a great way to go
because they don't have a linear spring rate and they tend to stretch over
time.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [HYPERLINK
"mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com"mailto:owner-pietenpol-lis
t-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jim Markle
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Up AND Down trim adjustment?
Seems all I ever hear about is someong having to "hold some back pressure"
on the stick....
Does the Pietenpol Air Camper EVER need down elevator on a "typical" flight?
I know there's no way to say "never"....but generally speaking, could I get
by with just an "UP" adjustment or will some down elevator be needed on a
regular basis?
JM
HYPERLINK
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribution
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
Peter-- I have some sketches but none scanned.
Basically I welded to mini-tabs or ears that look like about 1/10 the
length of the bellcrank lever arm
on the elevator pivot tube inside the fuselage aft of the pilots seat. I
drilled a hole at the end of each tab or ear
and just hooked that up via some light chains and hardware store springs to
a 4130 lever arm that pivots
to put a pull on either the up direction or down direction. I never put a
detent or 'stop positions' on my lever
(which is located under my left thigh under the seat) but installed a
friction type knob which works good.
Jack's setup is very nice and based upon the same principals as mine.
I find that with 17 gallons of fuel up front she only starts to require
forward stick after I burn off about 8 gallons.
Any Piet that is tail heavy needs to move it's wing back or for the pilot
(like me) to loose some weight:)
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Mike,
Thanks
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael D
Cuy
Subject: Pietenpol-List: trim sketches
Peter-- I have some sketches but none scanned.
Basically I welded to mini-tabs or ears that look like about 1/10 the
length of the bellcrank lever arm
on the elevator pivot tube inside the fuselage aft of the pilots seat. I
drilled a hole at the end of each tab or ear
and just hooked that up via some light chains and hardware store springs to
a 4130 lever arm that pivots
to put a pull on either the up direction or down direction. I never put a
detent or 'stop positions' on my lever
(which is located under my left thigh under the seat) but installed a
friction type knob which works good.
Jack's setup is very nice and based upon the same principals as mine.
I find that with 17 gallons of fuel up front she only starts to require
forward stick after I burn off about 8 gallons.
Any Piet that is tail heavy needs to move it's wing back or for the pilot
(like me) to loose some weight:)
Mike C.
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Cooper <blugoos1(at)direcway.com> |
Chuck G. I am interested in 'Building NX770CG' when it's ready, and would like
to order 'Flying NX770CG' now. Please let me know how to pay you. Thanks, Jim
Cooper blugoos1(at)direcway.com PS I still have the eyebrow patterns you mailed
me at Corky's request a few months ago. We are almost finished with them.
Let me know what you want me to do with them.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Up AND Down Trim adjustment? |
As you all know, I dont own a Piet, but I love the plane... Well, This because
my comment is not a hands on one about the Piet. But tail heavy is a No Fly
until correct potential danger... Please check your CG and move the wing a little
backwards. Try not to add lead,
I have lost already 3 of my best pilot friends (two testing one new plane that
they just moved the stabilizer to "compensate" the tail heavy condition and
one in his own ultralight)
In the sole pilot case, was in his airclub. After the oficial report, the
cause was aft CG in an engine failure on take off, acording to the witnesses
(all pilots) the plane lost power and even that they watch that the pilot instantly
moved the elevator down, the plane continue until the stall and 1/4 spin
to crash wing nose first...
Getting the correct CG will make a great winter project...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Jeff Boatright wrote:
Mine always needs down elevator, even with full fuel and a passenger.
I think they're tail heavy.
>
>
>Seems all I ever hear about is someong having to "hold some back
>pressure" on the stick....
>
>Does the Pietenpol Air Camper EVER need down elevator on a "typical"
>flight? I know there's no way to say "never"....but generally
>speaking, could I get by with just an "UP" adjustment or will some
>down elevator be needed on a regular basis?
>
>JM
>
---------------------------------
Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Up AND Down trim adjustment? |
I don't have any mechanism to control the flippers for pitch trim. I use the
Power Setting. I've got the C of G maintained in the envelope throughout the
weight ranges, and simply pitch trim with Power. On some occasions, when the
sun wouldn't wait up for me, I've had to add full power to get back to the
airport before dusk, and had to hold forward stick. In order to adjust pitch
trim to attain a different speed, I adjust the leading edge of the stabilizer
with the turnbuckles. I've done it several times, and it is effective.
However, I do have fixed trim tabs on the trailing edge of each flipper, angled
down,
holding the flipper up.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> |
Regarding bolts types, we use (in Argentina) 8.8 metric bolts, which I think, is
the equivalent to a grade 5. This is recommended here, in Spain by the AAE (Spanish
EAA) and widely used in Europe. Of course, AN bolts are imported here
and very expensive, but easily available for you in U.S.A and cheap.
8.8 bolts are absolutely safe for our purpose. Saludos
Santiago Morete
---------------------------------
1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
Abr tu cuenta aqu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
>Up here in cold Canada they just lay around on the ground and we pick up what
ever we need and install em.Sometimes ya have ta throw em down again if ya pick
up the wrong one.This time of year they get awfully cold to the touch.If you
use wet hands then you have to go inside till the bolt falls off again.It can
be painful sometimes!
> From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
> Date: 2005/12/07 Wed PM 01:32:16 EST
> To: "pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com"
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: bolts
>
> Regarding bolts types, we use (in Argentina) 8.8 metric bolts, which I think,
is the equivalent to a grade 5. This is recommended here, in Spain by the AAE
(Spanish EAA) and widely used in Europe. Of course, AN bolts are imported here
and very expensive, but easily available for you in U.S.A and cheap.
> 8.8 bolts are absolutely safe for our purpose. Saludos
>
> Santiago Morete
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> 1GB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam
> Abr tu cuenta aqu
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | want to get rid of your Piet project ?? |
5.82]>
0.48 HTML_OBFUSCATE_05_10 BODY: Message is 5% to 10% HTML obfuscation
they're WANTED on Barnstormers.com from what I just cut and pasted here
below......
PIETENPOL PROJECT WANTED =95 CLEAN OUT YOUR HANGAR! =95 I want to buy your
forgotten project, I am located in southeast Wisconsin. =95 Contact Gregory
Stuckert - located Waterford, WI USA =95 Telephone: 262 534 7631 =95 Posted
December 1, 2005 =95 Show all Ads posted by this Advertiser =95 Recommend This
Ad to a Friend =95 Send a Message
PIETENPOL =95 WANTED TO BUY =95 EAA Chapter 57 in Billings, MT seeks a
Pietenpol project with completed wings. =95 Contact Larry Mayer -
EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT ASSOCIATION CHAPTER 57 INC. located Billings, MT USA
=95 Telephone: 406-652-4121 =95 Posted December 1, 2005 =95 Show all Ads posted
by this Advertiser =95 Recommend This Ad to a Friend =95 Send a Message
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair engine update |
William Wynne has posted an update on Corvairs at his website,
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html , with information on a supplier who
is now doing complete Corvair head overhauls and another who offers
overhauled carburetors suitable for the Corvair conversion.
And I just got the current issue of Sport Aviation and lo and behold... an
article by Pat Panzera! Congratulations, Pat!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nick Harris" <nharris25(at)yahoo.com> |
Hey guys,
I had my blood pressure checked today and it was 130/86. Will this mess up my
medical. My medical is not current right now, but was about to get it done.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Doyle Combs" <doylecombskeith(at)earthlink.net> |
Nick, I just read some information tonight that says you may get some good advice
from EAA, provided you are a member. It might be worth the effort. They have
teams that will help you evaluate your condition.
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Harris
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Medical
Hey guys,
I had my blood pressure checked today and it was 130/86. Will this mess up my
medical. My medical is not current right now, but was about to get it done.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Sterling" <sterling(at)pgrb.com> |
Nick:
I sent a note to AOPA a few weeks ago and told them about the blood pressure medication
I am on as well as a prescription for cholseterol (spelling?). AOPA advised
my meds and slightly elevated blood pressure should not be an issue in
regard to passing my 3rd class flight physical, which I plan to take in a week
or so.
Good luck.
Sterling Brooks
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Harris
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2005 9:53 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Medical
Hey guys,
I had my blood pressure checked today and it was 130/86. Will this mess up my
medical. My medical is not current right now, but was about to get it done.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net> |
I believe this is a published number. I don't have the regs in front of me but
I think the max is 145/90. I know the AME told me last year that the feds wanted
to lower it. I get my second class each year with medicated numbers in the
130/85 area.
Lou Wither
N799LJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nick Harris" <nharris25(at)yahoo.com> |
Thanks for the info guys! I'm only 31 so I guess I need to lay off the cheeseburgers:)
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Lou Wither
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Medical
I believe this is a published number. I don't have the regs in front of me but
I think the max is 145/90. I know the AME told me last year that the feds
wanted to lower it. I get my second class each year with medicated numbers in
the 130/85 area.
Lou Wither
N799LJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/08/05 |
Oscar,
I got one of the heads off. The wedges might have worked a little bit to loosen
things, but they kept splitting. Then I got to thinking, "Wait, I am not using
these 1964 heads, anyway." So I started hitting upwards on the four corners
of the head with a 3 pound hand sledge, and it started coming loose. I found
mud-dauber wasp nests in all cylinders, as I expected. Otherwise things still
look good up to now. On to the other side this weekend.
Thanks for monitoring WW's site for us all. I looked with interest at the head
rework price of WW's new source. Over $900 plus freight seems high. Of course,
that price actually includes a lot of parts and labor, too. I am not even
sure what rework I will really need yet. Let's talk about that later.
In other business, yesterday I talked with Bob Siebert, a guy here in the local
EAA chapter. He had built, flown and then later, finally crashed a Piet on
takeoff. He was an experienced pilot and builder and had many hours in his RV
that he had already built. It had to be a terrible feeling. He was taking
off from a grass strip in a strong 45 degree crosswind, and the left wing lifted
too far for him to correct with left rudder and ailerons. The right wing caught
the ground, and then many things happened: the prop and right LG broke,
the right wing spars and many ribs broke, and even the fuze cracked. After he
got out of the plane safely, the wind caught the wreck and put it over on its
back, wrecking the tail as well. Later he salvaged all the could and set fire
to the wreck. (This happened too long ago for either of us to get the Piet
metal fittings, as he had already sold them to a Piet builder.)
I asked him what I should learn and apply from his experience. He said that
I should build the plane because it is a great project and a lot of fun, but it
is a "clear weather plane." He added that a friend of his with a Piet has described
flying them as "churning butter in the cockpit" on a windy day. I think
we have heard many such impressions before.
This tells me that:
-- getting more room in the cockpit might be not just a good idea for comfort,
but critical for room to actuate the controls quickly and safely, given my
oversized body.
-- building this Piet with a taller (and thus less masked) rudder and wider
(L-to-R) ailerons (1-2 more ribs' width) might be a really good thing, too.
To get better empirical data and a feel for the problem, I have ordered Chuck
Gantzer's video when it is available. I'll be happy to loan it to you right
after I have quickly viewed it. Then we should discuss after you have seen it.
Chuck should have his video out pretty soon, so maybe we can be better informed
by the end of the year.
We should plan to meet in S.A. sometime, perhaps in January. I would like to
see your planes and hear more of your ideas for vortex generators.
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard L. Dery" <dickdery(at)teleport.com> |
Nick Harris wrote:
> Hey guys, I had my blood pressure checked today and it was 130/86.
> Will this mess up my medical. My medical is not current right now,
> but was about to get it done. Nick Harris nharris25(at)yahoo.com
Other people in this forum have made suggestions about how to reduce
your blood pressure. Here's one more (if you're still concerned):
When you go for your physical, ask the AME about using suitable blood
pressure medication. You'll have to jump through a few hoops (paperwork,
time, and money), but it's possible to use medication and get a second
or third class medical.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | approved medications |
a8c0@Nick>
There is no official FAA approved list....but here is a good place to
start......
http://www.leftseat.com/medications.htm
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
a8c0@Nick>
Pilots with a diagnosis of hypertension or those on medication to control
blood pressure must provide a detailed cardiovascular evaluation for FAA
consideration. While aviation medical examiners may defer lower values, the
FAA disqualifies pilots with a systolic (higher number) blood pressure at
or above 155 or a diastolic (lower number) pressure at or above 95.
Blood PressureOptimalNormalHigh NormalHypertensionFAA Limit
Systolic (top #)<120<130130-139140 or higher155 or higher
Diastolic< 80< 8585-9090 or higher95 or higher
If your blood pressure is elevated, speak with your physician about how to
reduce your blood pressure. It may be possible to reduce your blood
pressure by limiting the sodium (salt) in your diet, losing weight if
overweight, taking medication, limiting your alcohol intake and/or
increasing your physical activity.
Although reducing your blood pressure by lifestyle modification is
preferred, it may be best to utilize medication initially to reduce the
risk for arterial damage and stroke. Eventually exercise and diet may
permit you to discontinue the medication.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Instead of using my vice or a big hammer to bend 090 or 060 metal straps
around tubing (like for the wing strut end fittings and certain cub type
landing gear tubing end fittings) I was thinking that having a press of some
sort would make things easier. Grizzly has 1,2 and 3 ton arbor presses for a
reasonable price. Does anyone have any opinions on using one of these
things?
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gbowen(at)ptialaska.net" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
Trying to second guess how an AME will react to any variance from FAA
"norm", is a problem. I had posted the problems with Medical earlier.
Couple days ago I got an official letter from the Anchorage FAA med office
quoting my letter and data set sent to them in June. Thats right they
responded to my letter of June in Nov. They want now 6 months of back
records on blood thinner affect, a letter from my heart doc that states my
Atril Fib meds are working and lastly another Holter Monitor test (about
$700 a pop). Sooooooo considering the fact the Piete would be marginally
acceptable with a Sport Pilot Lic, I'd go that route unless you need to fly
other things non- Litesport and/or you have to fly IFR etc.
Gordon Bowen
Homer AK
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Richard L. Dery dickdery(at)teleport.com
Date: Fri, 09 Dec 2005 12:23:57 -0800
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Medical
Nick Harris wrote:
> Hey guys, I had my blood pressure checked today and it was 130/86.
> Will this mess up my medical. My medical is not current right now,
> but was about to get it done. Nick Harris nharris25(at)yahoo.com
Other people in this forum have made suggestions about how to reduce
your blood pressure. Here's one more (if you're still concerned):
When you go for your physical, ask the AME about using suitable blood
pressure medication. You'll have to jump through a few hoops (paperwork,
time, and money), but it's possible to use medication and get a second
or third class medical.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
I've tried using arbor presses for bending metal and I was not happy.
3 tons just isn't enough for a lot of bends.
My preference is a 20 ton hydraulic press.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, December 09, 2005 9:45 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Arbor press
Instead of using my vice or a big hammer to bend 090 or 060 metal straps around
tubing (like for the wing strut end fittings and certain cub type landing gear
tubing end fittings) I was thinking that having a press of some sort would
make things easier. Grizzly has 1,2 and 3 ton arbor presses for a reasonable
price. Does anyone have any opinions on using one of these things?
Thanks
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/09/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Re: 3 ton press
I have not yet tried to make this part. However, I used to bend things at times
when I had a commercial machine shop two decades ago. I had a one-, three-,
and five-ton arbor press. A 3-ton press likely won't work too well, or a 5-ton,
either. You either need both pressure and impact, or a lot more pressure
alone. When I wanted something stout bent, I used a friend's 35 ton press.
It also had a bigger table to hold bigger parts than most arbor presses have,
and more travel on the press, so that sizable holding fixtures or dies could
be put into play.
Consider how commercial metal products are bent, either with 20 tons in a punch
press-- both impact and pressure-- or 200 tons or more in a hydraulic press.
What's more, these commercial stamping processes use mating dies to form the
part. The dies both capture the material and make the shape. The steel used
in these parts is mild steel, too, not springy 4130, so when it goes there,
it stays put.
In this regard, homemade dies can help. If you can easily build a concave metal
mandrel to match the O.D. of the tubing, you may be able to both force and
hold the material well enough to form it with a 3-ton press and a little hammer
work at the same time. Without machining capabilities for a mandrel, consider
using as a mandrel a set of cheap steel muffler clamps of an approximate diameter.
My own plan is first to use stuff I already have-- a vise, welding clamps, a
thick walled tube, and a hand sledge. If that doesn't work well, I will take
the sheet metal and my welding clamps and thick walled tube to a friendly local
muffler shop (not a chain store) and ask them to bend it in their presses.
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/09/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Re: 3 ton press
I have not yet tried to make this part. However, I used to bend things at times
when I had a commercial machine shop two decades ago. I had a one-, three-,
and five-ton arbor press. A 3-ton press likely won't work too well, or a 5-ton,
either. You either need both pressure and impact, or a lot more pressure
alone. When I wanted something stout bent, I used a friend's 35 ton press.
It also had a bigger table to hold bigger parts than most arbor presses have,
and more travel on the press, so that sizable holding fixtures or dies could
be put into play.
Consider how commercial metal products are bent, either with 20 tons in a punch
press-- both impact and pressure-- or 200 tons or more in a hydraulic press.
What's more, these commercial stamping processes use mating dies to form the
part. The dies both capture the material and make the shape. The steel used
in these parts is mild steel, too, not springy 4130, so when it goes there,
it stays put.
In this regard, homemade dies can help. If you can easily build a concave metal
mandrel to match the O.D. of the tubing, you may be able to both force and
hold the material well enough to form it with a 3-ton press and a little hammer
work at the same time. Without machining capabilities for a mandrel, consider
using as a mandrel a set of cheap steel muffler clamps of an approximate diameter.
My own plan is first to use stuff I already have-- a vise, welding clamps, a
thick walled tube, and a hand sledge. If that doesn't work well, I will take
the sheet metal and my welding clamps and thick walled tube to a friendly local
muffler shop (not a chain store) and ask them to bend it in their presses.
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | wing root covering |
Hi guys,
In my various reading about covering, it always tells how to cover the wing root
rib (the one that buts up to the center section). My question is, is it necessary
to cover this? with the gap fairings, no wind will get in there, and it
seems nice to be able to see in there.
Thanks,
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "w b evans" <wbeevans(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: wing root covering |
I don't think you're supposed to. My plans don't say to. You have to add the
plywood strip around the butt ribs so the taught fabric doesn't distort them.
This should be on your 3 piece wing plans.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Saturday, December 10, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: wing root covering
Hi guys,
In my various reading about covering, it always tells how to cover the wing root
rib (the one that buts up to the center section). My question is, is it necessary
to cover this? with the gap fairings, no wind will get in there, and
it seems nice to be able to see in there.
Thanks,
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 4 Msgs - 12/08/05(changed |
to "flying the piet")
Tim
I've watched piets fly in 25 knot winds, But understand that there is a lot of
wing for the weight, and like my old tcraft....a 10 knot wind felt like a tornado,
whereas I don't even know its blowing when I'm flying my sonex. Also....please
label your posts, If they just say "digest" I normally just delete it
before I read it.
Thanks
Del
Tim Willis wrote:
Oscar,
. He had built, flown and then later, finally crashed a Piet on takeoff. He was
an experienced pilot and builder and had many hours in his RV that he had already
built. It had to be a terrible feeling.
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 15 Msgs - 12/09/05 |
Wow, a 200 ton press eh? Guess I didn't know my own strength when I bent
that 090 strap around a 7/16" piece of tubing. Thanks for the advice, I will
just keep squeezing with the vice and beating with the hammer. (Need the
exercise anyhow).
Rick Holland
On 12/10/05, Tim Willis wrote:
>
>
> Re: 3 ton press
>
> I have not yet tried to make this part. However, I used to bend things at
> times when I had a commercial machine shop two decades ago. I had a one-,
> three-, and five-ton arbor press. A 3-ton press likely won't work too well,
> or a 5-ton, either. You either need both pressure and impact, or a lot more
> pressure alone. When I wanted something stout bent, I used a friend's 35
> ton press. It also had a bigger table to hold bigger parts than most arbor
> presses have, and more travel on the press, so that sizable holding fixtures
> or dies could be put into play.
>
> Consider how commercial metal products are bent, either with 20 tons in a
> punch press-- both impact and pressure-- or 200 tons or more in a hydraulic
> press. What's more, these commercial stamping processes use mating dies to
> form the part. The dies both capture the material and make the shape. The
> steel used in these parts is mild steel, too, not springy 4130, so when it
> goes there, it stays put.
>
> In this regard, homemade dies can help. If you can easily build a concave
> metal mandrel to match the O.D. of the tubing, you may be able to both
> force and hold the material well enough to form it with a 3-ton press and a
> little hammer work at the same time. Without machining capabilities for a
> mandrel, consider using as a mandrel a set of cheap steel muffler clamps of
> an approximate diameter.
>
> My own plan is first to use stuff I already have-- a vise, welding clamps,
> a thick walled tube, and a hand sledge. If that doesn't work well, I will
> take the sheet metal and my welding clamps and thick walled tube to a
> friendly local muffler shop (not a chain store) and ask them to bend it in
> their presses.
>
> Tim
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | blood pressure medication |
Sheesh- I had no idea there was so much involved in this blood pressure
thing. In between medicals, my blood pressure was creeping up into the
border-hypertensive region so my personal physician put me on the minimal
dosage of Altace to control it. At my next medical, I reported the new
medication as well as the doctor visit, my AME requested copies of my
personal doc's file on me including my personal log of weekly BP readings
over several months (we have a clinic at work so I could easily check and
track it), he submitted it with my 3rd class stuff to Okie City, and that
was that. Third class issued, no questions, over a year ago.
This is the 21st century. We put men on the moon, GPS navigation in
everybody's pocket, and can fit a bunch of megabytes of data on a thing the
size of an old gum eraser. Blood pressure medication is not experimental,
nor is it (dare I say it?) rocket science. Old grandma FAA Aeromedical
needs to take some Geritol and get with the program, especially with
hundreds of thousands of baby boomers starting through the system with
plenty of disposable income and a hankering to fly.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood pressure medication |
Just the problems you have been experiencing with these people is enough
to make anybodies blood pressure go up!
>
>
> Sheesh- I had no idea there was so much involved in this blood
> pressure thing. In between medicals, my blood pressure was creeping
> up into the border-hypertensive region so my personal physician put me
> on the minimal dosage of Altace to control it. At my next medical, I
> reported the new medication as well as the doctor visit, my AME
> requested copies of my personal doc's file on me including my personal
> log of weekly BP readings over several months (we have a clinic at
> work so I could easily check and track it), he submitted it with my
> 3rd class stuff to Okie City, and that was that. Third class issued,
> no questions, over a year ago.
>
> This is the 21st century. We put men on the moon, GPS navigation in
> everybody's pocket, and can fit a bunch of megabytes of data on a
> thing the size of an old gum eraser. Blood pressure medication is not
> experimental, nor is it (dare I say it?) rocket science. Old grandma
> FAA Aeromedical needs to take some Geritol and get with the program,
> especially with hundreds of thousands of baby boomers starting through
> the system with plenty of disposable income and a hankering to fly.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair website update |
William Wynne has updated his "at the hangar" page with more supplier info,
this time on propellers and engine instrument recommendations, as well as
some notes on the cost of reworking Corvair heads. The update is at
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison" <robison(at)mchsi.com> |
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison
!! > Please including the following information with each submission:
1) Please post to the Pietenpol list
2) Scott Robison
3) robison(at)mchsi.com
4) Help-Confusion on wing spar fittings.
5) Hello everyone. I'm new to the list and new to airplane building and I need
some direction. How many wing spar fittings do I need? The plans say 4 each
with and without tabs for front and rear spar. Does this mean that there are
16 required? I'm confused. I've attached a copy of the plans for these fittings.
6-x) Description of photo: Plans for wing spar fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Scott,
Where did you get that drawing for the wing fittings? Doesn't look like
the one that my Don Pietenpol plans show. Mine were just straight
straps with rounded ends, and yes, there are a total of 16 required
(four for each spar end). Half of the fittings will need to be
installed with spacers to offset them so the spars can line up - I added
extra plywood doublers under my centersection fittings.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison <mailto:robison(at)mchsi.com>
!! > Please including the following information with each
submission:
1) Please post to the Pietenpol list
2) Scott Robison
3) robison(at)mchsi.com
4) Help-Confusion on wing spar fittings.
5) Hello everyone. I'm new to the list and new to airplane building and
I need some direction. How many wing spar fittings do I need? The
plans say 4 each with and without tabs for front and rear spar. Does
this mean that there are 16 required? I'm confused. I've attached a
copy of the plans for these fittings.
6-x) Description of photo: Plans for wing spar fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |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________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
You are using the Grega GN-1 plans. You need 8 total. One on each side of the center
section spar ( front & rear) and on each end for a tolal of 8. (two spars)
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fw:
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison
To: Scott L Robison
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:50 AM
!! > Please including the following information with each submission:
1) Please post to the Pietenpol list
2) Scott Robison
3) robison(at)mchsi.com
4) Help-Confusion on wing spar fittings.
5) Hello everyone. I'm new to the list and new to airplane building and I need
some direction. How many wing spar fittings do I need? The plans say 4 each
with and without tabs for front and rear spar. Does this mean that there are
16 required? I'm confused. I've attached a copy of the plans for these fittings.
6-x) Description of photo: Plans for wing spar fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
No, but they fly as well or better. The first "Piet" I flew back in
1976 was a GN-1 and it was a very nice flying airplane. At that time I
didn't know the difference between the GN-1 and the Air Camper and that
plane was a big influence in my decision to build a Pietenpol. Only
years after I had started building my Pietenpol did I realize that the
plane I flew back then was a Grega.
I've been hanging around on the RV-10 list lately since I'm considering
building one of those next year. Man, what a bunch of whiners! Makes
me really appreciate the difference between plans-builders and
kit-builders. Whether you are building a Grega or a Pietenpol, you are
still doing something that fewer and fewer people these days seem to be
able (or willing) to do.
Keep makin' sawdust!
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Fw:
Those are GN-1 fittings. As a Piet snob would say "not a 'real' Piet".
On 12/13/05, Phillips, Jack < Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com
> wrote:
Scott,
Where did you get that drawing for the wing fittings? Doesn't look like
the one that my Don Pietenpol plans show. Mine were just straight
straps with rounded ends, and yes, there are a total of 16 required
(four for each spar end). Half of the fittings will need to be
installed with spacers to offset them so the spars can line up - I added
extra plywood doublers under my centersection fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
My earlier reply was for the center section fittings only, double that for the
wings and center section.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 2:21 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fw:
----- Original Message -----
From: Robison
To: Scott L Robison
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 12:50 AM
!! > Please including the following information with each submission:
1) Please post to the Pietenpol list
2) Scott Robison
3) robison(at)mchsi.com
4) Help-Confusion on wing spar fittings.
5) Hello everyone. I'm new to the list and new to airplane building and I need
some direction. How many wing spar fittings do I need? The plans say 4 each
with and without tabs for front and rear spar. Does this mean that there are
16 required? I'm confused. I've attached a copy of the plans for these fittings.
6-x) Description of photo: Plans for wing spar fittings.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison" <robison(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Thanks for your help. |
Jack and Berry,
Thanks for your help. My questions were answered.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Lumber Dimensions |
Pardon my lack of experience. I'm about to order the 1/4" x 1/2" capstrip to start
my winter goal of completing the wing ribs and this will be the first stage
of my construction. I was just wondering if the sizes listed by Aircraft Spruce
and other online sources of Sitka spruce are the exact sizes you get or
do you order larger dimensioned wood and plane it to the exact size you need.
(..for example a Home Depot 2x4 is really 1.5 x 3.5)
Can you tell I'm a newbie?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Lumber Dimensions |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
AS&S and Wicks are very good about cutting the material to the exact
dimensions specified. At the price of Sitka Spruce you don't want to
order any more than you actually need.
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
glennthomas(at)charter.net
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
Pardon my lack of experience. I'm about to order the 1/4" x 1/2"
capstrip to start my winter goal of completing the wing ribs and this
will be the first stage of my construction. I was just wondering if the
sizes listed by Aircraft Spruce and other online sources of Sitka spruce
are the exact sizes you get or do you order larger dimensioned wood and
plane it to the exact size you need. (..for example a Home Depot 2x4 is
really 1.5 x 3.5)
Can you tell I'm a newbie?
Thanks,
Glenn
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lumber Dimensions |
the sizes are exact.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: <glennthomas(at)charter.net>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
>
> Pardon my lack of experience. I'm about to order the 1/4" x 1/2" capstrip
to start my winter goal of completing the wing ribs and this will be the
first stage of my construction. I was just wondering if the sizes listed by
Aircraft Spruce and other online sources of Sitka spruce are the exact sizes
you get or do you order larger dimensioned wood and plane it to the exact
size you need. (..for example a Home Depot 2x4 is really 1.5 x 3.5)
>
> Can you tell I'm a newbie?
>
> Thanks,
> Glenn
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Lumber Dimensions |
Thanks Jack and DJ,
Hopefully once I get the first piece built I'll develop a "sense"
for the rest of the project. One of the people on the list, Lou Wither, who
lives only an hour away from me, has offered his help as well as the use of
his rib jigs. Again, this list and the support and ideas it provides is
more valuable than I can put to words. I can't believe I'm finally doing
something I've been waiting to do for over 20 years!
Thanks!
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
>
> the sizes are exact.
>
> DJ
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <glennthomas(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:41 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
>
>
> >
> > Pardon my lack of experience. I'm about to order the 1/4" x 1/2"
capstrip
> to start my winter goal of completing the wing ribs and this will be the
> first stage of my construction. I was just wondering if the sizes listed
by
> Aircraft Spruce and other online sources of Sitka spruce are the exact
sizes
> you get or do you order larger dimensioned wood and plane it to the exact
> size you need. (..for example a Home Depot 2x4 is really 1.5 x 3.5)
> >
> > Can you tell I'm a newbie?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Glenn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: blood pressure medication |
I don't know if this recommendation is for everyone but... I run 7 miles
about 3 or 4 times a week, I'm 42, 5' 10" and weigh about 200 lbs. (Not
exactly skinny). I don't go crazy dieting but do make sure I work out
fairly regularly. Before my last routine physical I feared that my
cholesterol and BP would be on the rise due to the gain in weight (from my
old weight of 160 about 15 years ago). At the physical when the doc saw my
BP was lower than average and my cholesterol was around 180 he asked if I
did a lot of exercise. I said I ran between 21 and 30 miles a week and he
said that explained the lower than normal BP. For me and my current
condition the amount of running I do is about all I can fit into my schedule
but apparently it is having a positive impact on my health. I might
recommend, if you're in fair shape, that you start running (maybe not 7
miles since I've been a runner since high school) and ramp up to where it
brings your blood pressure down. From my experience runners have a lower
than average blood pressure and it helps with cholesterol too. If you have
a physical coming up, start now and do a little as often as possible, so
that by the physical you'll be in good shape. If you have knee problems
swimmers have told me that swimming has similar benefits, but I hate lap
swimming.
I hope that didn't sound like a health commercial, but getting to the point
where you can run 7 or so miles every weekend morning and once during the
week isn't as hard as it sounds and that might be all it takes. Check the
idea out with your doc and see what he says.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Rule" <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: blood pressure medication
>
> Just the problems you have been experiencing with these people is enough
> to make anybodies blood pressure go up!
>
> >
> >
> > Sheesh- I had no idea there was so much involved in this blood
> > pressure thing. In between medicals, my blood pressure was creeping
> > up into the border-hypertensive region so my personal physician put me
> > on the minimal dosage of Altace to control it. At my next medical, I
> > reported the new medication as well as the doctor visit, my AME
> > requested copies of my personal doc's file on me including my personal
> > log of weekly BP readings over several months (we have a clinic at
> > work so I could easily check and track it), he submitted it with my
> > 3rd class stuff to Okie City, and that was that. Third class issued,
> > no questions, over a year ago.
> >
> > This is the 21st century. We put men on the moon, GPS navigation in
> > everybody's pocket, and can fit a bunch of megabytes of data on a
> > thing the size of an old gum eraser. Blood pressure medication is not
> > experimental, nor is it (dare I say it?) rocket science. Old grandma
> > FAA Aeromedical needs to take some Geritol and get with the program,
> > especially with hundreds of thousands of baby boomers starting through
> > the system with plenty of disposable income and a hankering to fly.
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison" <robison(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Chuck Gantzer Flying Video |
Chuck,
Got your video today. Great job. I can't wait to get mine finished. You also
have a building video correct? I like to order that one too.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
robison(at)mchsi.com
Pietenpol builders list
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Flying Video |
In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:58:41 PM Central Standard Time,
robison(at)mchsi.com writes:
Chuck,
Got your video today. Great job. I can't wait to get mine finished. You
also have a building video correct? I like to order that one too.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
robison(at)mchsi.com
Pietenpol builders list
Scott,
I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I've been working on the building video
almost every day...it just takes SO much time to edit a video the way I want it
to
come out. I'll let the list know when it is finished. Meanwhile, I have a
lot of the DVD video 'Flying NX770CG' packed and ready to go.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Pietenpols Forever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Flying Video |
Could you post some order instructions for the flying video?
Thanks,
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Chuck Gantzer Flying Video
In a message dated 12/13/2005 8:58:41 PM Central Standard Time, robison(at)mchsi.com
writes:
Chuck,
Got your video today. Great job. I can't wait to get mine finished. You also
have a building video correct? I like to order that one too.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
robison(at)mchsi.com
Pietenpol builders list
Scott,
I'm glad you enjoyed the video. I've been working on the building video almost
every day...it just takes SO much time to edit a video the way I want it to
come out. I'll let the list know when it is finished. Meanwhile, I have a
lot of the DVD video 'Flying NX770CG' packed and ready to go.
Chuck Gantzer
NX770CG
Pietenpols Forever !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: blood pressure medication |
Ya want to drop all your readings quit eating heavy
carbs;bread,potatoes,pasta,etc.Things like apples,carrots pears are
loaded with sugar as well.Get yourself a carb counter book and just take
in the needed carbs you need for your body.There are charts you can
follow.Check on the protien power plan and you will see that all those
things you are having problems with will fade away.Carbs are the
killers.Check it out ,don't take my word for it!
Glenn Thomas wrote:
>
>
> I don't know if this recommendation is for everyone but... I run 7 miles
> about 3 or 4 times a week, I'm 42, 5' 10" and weigh about 200 lbs. (Not
> exactly skinny). I don't go crazy dieting but do make sure I work out
> fairly regularly. Before my last routine physical I feared that my
> cholesterol and BP would be on the rise due to the gain in weight (from my
> old weight of 160 about 15 years ago). At the physical when the doc saw my
> BP was lower than average and my cholesterol was around 180 he asked if I
> did a lot of exercise. I said I ran between 21 and 30 miles a week and he
> said that explained the lower than normal BP. For me and my current
> condition the amount of running I do is about all I can fit into my schedule
> but apparently it is having a positive impact on my health. I might
> recommend, if you're in fair shape, that you start running (maybe not 7
> miles since I've been a runner since high school) and ramp up to where it
> brings your blood pressure down. From my experience runners have a lower
> than average blood pressure and it helps with cholesterol too. If you have
> a physical coming up, start now and do a little as often as possible, so
> that by the physical you'll be in good shape. If you have knee problems
> swimmers have told me that swimming has similar benefits, but I hate lap
> swimming.
>
> I hope that didn't sound like a health commercial, but getting to the point
> where you can run 7 or so miles every weekend morning and once during the
> week isn't as hard as it sounds and that might be all it takes. Check the
> idea out with your doc and see what he says.
>
> Glenn
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harvey Rule" <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Sunday, December 11, 2005 9:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: blood pressure medication
>
>
> >
> > Just the problems you have been experiencing with these people is enough
> > to make anybodies blood pressure go up!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sheesh- I had no idea there was so much involved in this blood
> > > pressure thing. In between medicals, my blood pressure was creeping
> > > up into the border-hypertensive region so my personal physician put me
> > > on the minimal dosage of Altace to control it. At my next medical, I
> > > reported the new medication as well as the doctor visit, my AME
> > > requested copies of my personal doc's file on me including my personal
> > > log of weekly BP readings over several months (we have a clinic at
> > > work so I could easily check and track it), he submitted it with my
> > > 3rd class stuff to Okie City, and that was that. Third class issued,
> > > no questions, over a year ago.
> > >
> > > This is the 21st century. We put men on the moon, GPS navigation in
> > > everybody's pocket, and can fit a bunch of megabytes of data on a
> > > thing the size of an old gum eraser. Blood pressure medication is not
> > > experimental, nor is it (dare I say it?) rocket science. Old grandma
> > > FAA Aeromedical needs to take some Geritol and get with the program,
> > > especially with hundreds of thousands of baby boomers starting through
> > > the system with plenty of disposable income and a hankering to fly.
> > >
> > > Oscar Zuniga
> > > San Antonio, TX
> > > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | blood pressure and the Piet |
Glenn wrote-
>I don't know if this recommendation is for everyone but... I run 7 miles
>about 3 or 4 times a week, I'm 42, 5' 10" and weigh about 200 lbs.
Well, I'm 54, 5'-10" and weigh about 150 lbs. and I started running 35 years
ago and actually competed in a few 10K races, used to run every other day.
Problem is, I ruptured a tendon in my ankle a few years ago and haven't been
able to run anymore, don't like to swim laps or bicycle, and doc says I'll
never run again. I can hardly tolerate something like an elliptical trainer
but that's what I'm getting myself for Christmas so I can start exercising
again, which should help. And when the doc told me that I'd have to stay at
home, indoors, in a chair for several weeks after surgery to repair the
tendon, I decided not to have the surgery because I don't know if I could
stand that as easily as I can stand the ankle pain which isn't really all
that bad unless I run on it or hike on a sidehill or something. Plus there
are two tendons down the side of each ankle and I only ruptured one, so I've
still got enough to hold things together ;o)
What I'd like to do is develop a Pietenpol trainer that would be like a
full-scale Piet fuselage from the pilot's seat forward and would have a
decommissioned radial engine on the nose, with only one or two spark plugs
left in the engine and a set of pedals in the pilot's cockpit linked to the
engine. Sort of like a treadmill or stationary bike, except that as you
pedal you'd get the prop to start turning up front. Adding or removing
spark plugs would change the resistance to change the level of your workout
and the big wooden prop would provide some cooling effect. You park this
thing in front of a big-screen TV with Chuck Gantzer's and Mike Cuy's videos
going, and off you go on a fun workout! Watch that blood pressure drop with
every "flight"!
Hey, Santa- get those elves busy in the workshop!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison" <robison(at)mchsi.com> |
| Subject: | Ref. Flying Video |
Pietenpol List
robison(at)mchsi.com
Glenn,
I set $24.00 via check to Chuck for the flying video.
I received it in two days.
Chuck Gantzer
626 Pattie St
Witchita, KS. 67211-2536
Scott Robison
Charleston, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Video-- latest |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Chuck,
Thanks for a very good video. I got it yesterday and watched it straight through
last night, and the part on "landings" again and again, maybe five or six
times. Some of the "river sequence" at low level gives a sense of the real speed
of the plane, and your shots over Kansas near sunset are really great. It
is obvious that you have a passion for "low and slow."
I can recommend Chuck's video to any who have not seen such before, as a great
way to get the feel of flying a Piet. It pumped me, for sure. (It also reminded
me that I still am concerned to be overly wearing the plane. Can you say
"South Beach Diet?"
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Video-- latest |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Chuck,
Thanks for a very good video. I got it yesterday and watched it straight through
last night, and the part on "landings" again and again, maybe five or six
times. Some of the "river sequence" at low level gives a sense of the real speed
of the plane, and your shots over Kansas near sunset are really great. It
is obvious that you have a passion for "low and slow."
I can recommend Chuck's video to any who have not seen such before, as a great
way to get the feel of flying a Piet. It pumped me, for sure. (It also reminded
me that I still am concerned to be overly wearing the plane. Can you say
"South Beach Diet?"
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Nick Harris" <nharris25(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | WEIGHT & BALANCE Confusion |
Hey guys,
I Have the new plans for the GN-1 and have had some problems figuring out his
w&b calculations. I could be all wet, but I do not think the sample w&b on
the plans are correct. At best they are confusing. What is the CG range of
the GN-1? My plans call for a specific cg range of 18.1 to 20.7 and another that
says its 18.9 to 20.1. One of these may be part of a calculation in the sample
but I can't tell.
Nick Harris
nharris25(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmordecai001(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck's video |
Chuck,
Got your video the other day and really enjoyed it. Thanks for all the effort
that went into making a good documentary. I thought tailwheel shots from below
were really cool.
Quick question: what prop do you have on the A-65? I ask because I'm pulling 2200
rpm on takeoff and climbout with a 72 x 42 Hegy. From the video it looked
like you weren't getting the same rpm's out of the same engine/airplane combination,
although cruise looked to be about the same.
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
kmordecai001(at)comcast.net
Chuck,
Got your video the other day and really enjoyed it. Thanks for all the effort that
went into making a good documentary. I thought tailwheel shots from below
were really cool.
Quick question: what prop do you have on the A-65? I ask because I'm pulling 2200
rpm on takeoff and climbout with a 72 x 42 Hegy. From the video it looked like
you weren't getting the same rpm's out of the same engine/airplane combination,
although cruise looked to be about the same.
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
kmordecai001(at)comcast.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morris <don(at)donsplans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Lumber Dimensions |
Howdy.
Just my 2 cents worth. Thank Lou for the help and accept it. We need
to help each other out. However, I would buid your own rib jig. This
is because no to rib jigs are exactly alike, and your rib jig should
stay with the plane forever - in case you ever need to rebuild a rib or
two. This is not a hard and fast rule, but it is nice that way.
Free advice - and can be taken or left as you desire.
-Don
Glenn Thomas wrote:
>
>Thanks Jack and DJ,
> Hopefully once I get the first piece built I'll develop a "sense"
>for the rest of the project. One of the people on the list, Lou Wither, who
>lives only an hour away from me, has offered his help as well as the use of
>his rib jigs. Again, this list and the support and ideas it provides is
>more valuable than I can put to words. I can't believe I'm finally doing
>something I've been waiting to do for over 20 years!
>
>Thanks!
>Glenn
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>To:
>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 3:10 PM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
>
>
>
>
>>
>>the sizes are exact.
>>
>>DJ
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: <glennthomas(at)charter.net>
>>To:
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 11:41 AM
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Lumber Dimensions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Pardon my lack of experience. I'm about to order the 1/4" x 1/2"
>>>
>>>
>capstrip
>
>
>>to start my winter goal of completing the wing ribs and this will be the
>>first stage of my construction. I was just wondering if the sizes listed
>>
>>
>by
>
>
>>Aircraft Spruce and other online sources of Sitka spruce are the exact
>>
>>
>sizes
>
>
>>you get or do you order larger dimensioned wood and plane it to the exact
>>size you need. (..for example a Home Depot 2x4 is really 1.5 x 3.5)
>>
>>
>>>Can you tell I'm a newbie?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>Glenn
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Don Morris <don(at)donsplans.com> |
| Subject: | Re: blood pressure and the Piet |
Oscar,
Add a generator to the whole mix, and use it to power the video player.
That way, you've got to keep going!
-Don
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
>
> Glenn wrote-
>
>> I don't know if this recommendation is for everyone but... I run 7 miles
>> about 3 or 4 times a week, I'm 42, 5' 10" and weigh about 200 lbs.
>
>
> Well, I'm 54, 5'-10" and weigh about 150 lbs. and I started running 35
> years ago and actually competed in a few 10K races, used to run every
> other day. Problem is, I ruptured a tendon in my ankle a few years
> ago and haven't been able to run anymore, don't like to swim laps or
> bicycle, and doc says I'll never run again. I can hardly tolerate
> something like an elliptical trainer but that's what I'm getting
> myself for Christmas so I can start exercising again, which should
> help. And when the doc told me that I'd have to stay at home,
> indoors, in a chair for several weeks after surgery to repair the
> tendon, I decided not to have the surgery because I don't know if I
> could stand that as easily as I can stand the ankle pain which isn't
> really all that bad unless I run on it or hike on a sidehill or
> something. Plus there are two tendons down the side of each ankle and
> I only ruptured one, so I've still got enough to hold things together ;o)
>
> What I'd like to do is develop a Pietenpol trainer that would be like
> a full-scale Piet fuselage from the pilot's seat forward and would
> have a decommissioned radial engine on the nose, with only one or two
> spark plugs left in the engine and a set of pedals in the pilot's
> cockpit linked to the engine. Sort of like a treadmill or stationary
> bike, except that as you pedal you'd get the prop to start turning up
> front. Adding or removing spark plugs would change the resistance to
> change the level of your workout and the big wooden prop would provide
> some cooling effect. You park this thing in front of a big-screen TV
> with Chuck Gantzer's and Mike Cuy's videos going, and off you go on a
> fun workout! Watch that blood pressure drop with every "flight"!
>
> Hey, Santa- get those elves busy in the workshop!
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Harvey Rule <harvey.rule(at)sympatico.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: WEIGHT & BALANCE Confusion |
I have the plans for the gn-1 but I noticed the other day that I was
missing page 18.How can I go about getting a copy of that one page to
complete my plans?Is it possible that someone could e-mail me that one
page ?Or would this be an infraction of the building codes.I sure would
like to know what happened to that one page.For that matter ,I'd like to
know what was on it.My plane is all but finished.All I have to do adjust
the rudder peddles slightly and adjust the elevator for angles,then
safty wire all the turn buckles for those control surfaces.I also have
to tape them as well.About an hours worth of work to be done.I was
wondering if the elevator angles were on that page?????Thanks in advance
for any info on this.
> Hey guys,
> I Have the new plans for the GN-1 and have had some problems
> figuring out his w&b calculations. I could be all wet, but I do not
> think the sample w&b on the plans are correct. At best they are
> confusing. What is the CG range of the GN-1? My plans call for a
> specific cg range of 18.1 to 20.7 and another that says its 18.9 to
> 20.1. One of these may be part of a calculation in the sample but I
> can't tell.
> Nick Harris
> nharris25(at)yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Ref. Flying Video |
In a message dated 12/14/2005 8:44:09 AM Central Standard Time,
robison(at)mchsi.com writes:
Glenn,
I set $24.00 via check to Chuck for the flying video.
I received it in two days.
Actually, right now, it's just $20
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Video-- latest |
In a message dated 12/14/2005 11:24:30 AM Central Standard Time,
strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com writes:
Chuck,
Thanks for a very good video. I got it yesterday and watched it straight
through last night, and the part on "landings" again and again, maybe five or six
times. Some of the "river sequence" at low level gives a sense of the real
speed of the plane, and your shots over Kansas near sunset are really great.
It is obvious that you have a passion for "low and slow."
I can recommend Chuck's video to any who have not seen such before, as a
great way to get the feel of flying a Piet. It pumped me, for sure. (It also
reminded me that I still am concerned to be overly wearing the plane. Can you
say "South Beach Diet?"
Tim
I'm really glad you enjoyed the video !! It's true, I have a passion for the
'Low & Slow'. Some call it the flying bug, or 'Aeronatica Basilica'. :)
I thought with a video like this, I would be able to portray to others a
tiny little bit of what it's really like !! Actually, it doesn't even come
close...ya just Gotta Do It !!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chuck's video |
In a message dated 12/14/2005 7:04:41 PM Central Standard Time,
kmordecai001(at)comcast.net writes:
Chuck,
Got your video the other day and really enjoyed it. Thanks for all the
effort that went into making a good documentary. I thought tailwheel shots from
below were really cool.
Quick question: what prop do you have on the A-65? I ask because I'm pulling
2200 rpm on takeoff and climbout with a 72 x 42 Hegy. From the video it
looked like you weren't getting the same rpm's out of the same engine/airplane
combination, although cruise looked to be about the same.
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
kmordecai001(at)comcast.net
Dave,
I'm glad you enjoyed the video !!
I built my prop. It's a 72 X 42, Birch wood, Kevlar leading edge, Fiberglass
covered.
Speaking of props...a few days ago, I pulled my prop off to do a little bit
of re-work on it. About 5 or 6 weeks ago, I got hung up on the edge of a
gravel taxi road, and I had to use a LOT of power to get 'er rolling again. Well,
it sucked up some gravel through the prop, and put some little marks on the
leading edge. I'm going to take care of that, as well as work the trailing edge
down a little bit, and thin it down just a tiny bit, to get a few more rpm's.
My tach (reads a little low), and ASI (also reads a little low) both have
errors in them, but to the best of my estimation, I'm getting 2250 rpm at full
power, level flight, and something close to 80 mph. The engine is rated at 2300
rpm, so I'm right in the ball park now, but I would like to get it a little
closer to 2300 rpm at full power level flight.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck Gantzer Flying Video |
ok, where do I get this video everyone's talking about... it would make a great
stocking stuffer for me.. I mean my wife - I like to watch what she watches.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | kmordecai001(at)comcast.net |
| Subject: | Re: Chuck's video & prop size |
Chuck,
Mine is actually an A-75, but I think the horsepower curve is the same as the A-65,
just extends farther out to 2600 rpm, although it can't rev that high with
this prop. It really gets off the ground well pulling 2150-2200 rpm and tops
out at 2400 & about 85 mph indicated. Haven't checked it with GPS yet, but who
flies that fast anyway? I like 65 or so................
Dave
> Dave,
> I'm glad you enjoyed the video !!
> I built my prop. It's a 72 X 42, Birch wood, Kevlar leading edge, Fiberglass
> covered.
> Speaking of props...a few days ago, I pulled my prop off to do a little bit
> of re-work on it. About 5 or 6 weeks ago, I got hung up on the edge of a
> gravel taxi road, and I had to use a LOT of power to get 'er rolling again.
> Well,
>
> it sucked up some gravel through the prop, and put some little marks on the
> leading edge. I'm going to take care of that, as well as work the trailing edge
>
> down a little bit, and thin it down just a tiny bit, to get a few more rpm's.
>
> My tach (reads a little low), and ASI (also reads a little low) both have
> errors in them, but to the best of my estimation, I'm getting 2250 rpm at full
>
> power, level flight, and something close to 80 mph. The engine is rated at 2300
>
> rpm, so I'm right in the ball park now, but I would like to get it a little
> closer to 2300 rpm at full power level flight.
>
> Chuck G.
Chuck,
Mine is actually an A-75, but Ithink the horsepower curve is the same as the A-65,
just extends farther out to 2600 rpm, although it can't rev that high with
this prop. It really gets off the ground wellpulling 2150-2200 rpm and tops out
at 2400 about 85 mph indicated. Haven't checked it with GPS yet, but who flies
that fast anyway? I like 65 or so................
Dave
Dave,
I'm glad you enjoyed the video !!
I built my prop. It's a 72 X 42, Birch wood, Kevlar leading edge, Fiberglass
covered.
Speaking of props...a few days ago, I pulled my prop off to do a little bit
of re-work on it. About 5 or 6 weeks ago, I got hung up on the edge of a
gravel taxi road, and I had to use a LOT of power to get 'er rolling again.
Well,
it sucked up some gravel through the prop, and put some little marks on the
leading edge. I'm going to take care of that, as well as work the trailing edge
down a little bit, and thin it down just a tiny bit, to get a few more rpm's.
My tach (reads a little low), and ASI (also reads a little low) both have
errors in them, but to the best of my estimation, I'm getting 2250 rpm at full
power, level flight, and something close to 80 mph. The
engine is rated at 2300
rpm, so I'm right in the ball park now, but I would like to get it a little
closer to 2300 rpm at full power level flight.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Chuck's video & prop size |
In a message dated 12/15/2005 8:58:30 PM Central Standard Time,
kmordecai001(at)comcast.net writes:
but who flies that fast anyway? I like 65 or so................
That's right, Dave. A lot of times I'll pull power back to about 1800 rpm,
just over 50 mph, sip less than 3 gallons an hour, and just absorb the scenery
!!
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
Well, the list is kind of slow, so I present to you a request for some
help. As most of you know, I'm putting together a Pietenpol Building Video, and
I want to make it as complete, and comprehensive as possible. I need some
help to hear what everyone thinks should be included in the video.
I'm going to include a detailed look at the plans. There has NEVER been
a set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not have errors in them,
and in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be changed. They fit
the era of the aircraft you are building, and are a part of the whole history of
the Pietenpol. Quite often, it is concluded that an error exists, but upon
further study, and some questions asked, the light bulb goes off, and it
becomes crystal clear. Granted there are errors in the plans, but given the
enormous amount of information that is included in the plans, the errors are not
that
many. Having said that, builders NEED to know what, and where the errors
are. They also need clarification in some areas. Done correctly, and with good
workmanship, in the 76 year history of the Pietenpol, there has NEVER been an
airframe failure (at least none that has been reported). I can make that
claim, because a couple years ago, I did an extensive, and exhaustive study=20of
all the NTSB accident reports, back as far as they go, found about 80 reports,
and NO airframe failures, if it was built to the plans.
Hence, the reason for this e-mail. I'd like to ask everyone who knows of
an area of the plans that are confusing, or has an error, to let the list
know.
Here are the things I've come up with:
1) The scarf splice shown on Dwg 5, shows the scarf to be horizontal. The
scarf should be a 12 to 1, as a reference to AC 43.13 publication.
2) The angle of the lift strut fitting, on Dwg 4 (lower left corner), and
Dwg 5 (at the bottom) should NOT be at the angle indicated. The angle should be
what ever the angle the lift strut is, so as to be in alignment with the lift
strut. This angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts, and is
on an individual airplane basis, because the length of the cabane struts are
altered so often.
3) The cabane strut fitting that bolts to the spar, on Dwg 4, (lower left
corner) is open to interpolation. It shows the a U strap around under the spar,
with a tab welded on each side, which is 3 pieces total for each fitting. If
you are not all that good of a weldor, then I think this fitting should be
built with two U straps, that fit inside each other.
4) The belly strap should be included at the front & rear, between the lift
strut / gear lug fittings. On Dwg 3 (lower left corner) it shows the tab
should be bent up 20=BA, but is should read closer to 30=BA, but again, this angle
is
determined by the length of the cabane struts.
5) The cross piece at the forward lower fuselage, shown to be a 3/4 X 3/4
spruce on Dwg 1(lower right hand portion of the page), is held short of going
all the way to the inside of the longerons, as shown on Dwg 6 (lower edge of the
page), it says "Cut off end of cross strut", to allow the inside engine mount
fitting to install on the inboard side of the longeron.
6) If you loft the dimension numbers of the rib Dwg 5, it makes a little
curve down on the top, just past the 50% chord. You should just blend that
little curve out.
7) I think there must be a dimension on the leading edge of the rudder, that
when added up, it causes the rudder to extend about 1/2" below the bottom of
the fuselage. When laying out the locations of the rudder hinges, you MUST
accommodate the thickness of the fabric on the top of the fuselage, top and
bottom of the horizontal stab, and the fabric on the bottom of the vertical=20stab,
BEFORE you locate the bottom rudder hinge.
These are some of the things I'm going show in my video. If anyone can think
of anything else that needs to be addressed in the plans, or anything about
building the airplane, please make the comment to the list, and lets talk about
it.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Lou Wither <nav8799h(at)sbcglobal.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
I think the most confusing thing in the build was not the errors in the plans but
the weight and balance. The weight and balance issue is a real problem and
it can not always be addressed by just moving the wing. I spoke to a few people
when I put mine together and I moved the engine (C-85) out 5" further than
shown on the motor mount drawing. I also moved the wing back 2" in the construction
process keeping my cabanes vertical. When it was all said in done my
weight came in not too bad (680 lbs) but my CG as built is only good really for
a 170 lb pilot when there is no fuel in the fuselage tank. I weigh considerably
more than that. That ultimately left me with some options, all of which
were not very attractive. A metal prop would take care of the problem (just doesn't
fit a Piet), ballast attached to the engine mount (current solution), or
reinstall the starter and generator that I initially didn't install (the future
solution). I think Piets should be hand proped,
but as
long as I have to haul extra weight I might just as well have it usefull.
Now that I am done, I pretty much enjoyed building to the plans, once I came
to that they had some errors. It make you think before you leap and that is the
beauty of building a plane to this type of plans. I maintain if someone want
cookie cutter build a RV, insert part A into slot B and rivet with type C.
Sounds pretty boring to me.
Lou Wither
N799LJ
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
An addition
When making fixed gear leg fittings, as per Flying Glider Manual, increase dinmensions
to clear the ash brace on the floor.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, December 17, 2005 12:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building Video
Well, the list is kind of slow, so I present to you a request for some help.
As most of you know, I'm putting together a Pietenpol Building Video, and
I want to make it as complete, and comprehensive as possible. I need some help
to hear what everyone thinks should be included in the video.
I'm going to include a detailed look at the plans. There has NEVER been
a set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not have errors in them, and
in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be changed. They fit the
era of the aircraft you are building, and are a part of the whole history of
the Pietenpol. Quite often, it is concluded that an error exists, but upon further
study, and some questions asked, the light bulb goes off, and it becomes
crystal clear. Granted there are errors in the plans, but given the enormous
amount of information that is included in the plans, the errors are not that
many. Having said that, builders NEED to know what, and where the errors are.
They also need clarification in some areas. Done correctly, and with good
workmanship, in the 76 year history of the Pietenpol, there has NEVER been an
airframe failure (at least none that has been reported). I can make that claim,
because a couple years ago, I did an extensive, and exhaustive study of all
the NTSB accident reports, back as far as they go, found about 80 reports, and
NO airframe failures, if it was built to the plans.
Hence, the reason for this e-mail. I'd like to ask everyone who knows of
an area of the plans that are confusing, or has an error, to let the list know.
Here are the things I've come up with:
1) The scarf splice shown on Dwg 5, shows the scarf to be horizontal. The scarf
should be a 12 to 1, as a reference to AC 43.13 publication.
2) The angle of the lift strut fitting, on Dwg 4 (lower left corner), and Dwg
5 (at the bottom) should NOT be at the angle indicated. The angle should be
what ever the angle the lift strut is, so as to be in alignment with the lift
strut. This angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts, and is on
an individual airplane basis, because the length of the cabane struts are altered
so often.
3) The cabane strut fitting that bolts to the spar, on Dwg 4, (lower left corner)
is open to interpolation. It shows the a U strap around under the spar,
with a tab welded on each side, which is 3 pieces total for each fitting. If
you are not all that good of a weldor, then I think this fitting should be built
with two U straps, that fit inside each other.
4) The belly strap should be included at the front & rear, between the lift
strut / gear lug fittings. On Dwg 3 (lower left corner) it shows the tab should
be bent up 20=BA, but is should read closer to 30=BA, but again, this angle
is determined by the length of the cabane struts.
5) The cross piece at the forward lower fuselage, shown to be a 3/4 X 3/4 spruce
on Dwg 1(lower right hand portion of the page), is held short of going all
the way to the inside of the longerons, as shown on Dwg 6 (lower edge of the
page), it says "Cut off end of cross strut", to allow the inside engine mount
fitting to install on the inboard side of the longeron.
6) If you loft the dimension numbers of the rib Dwg 5, it makes a little curve
down on the top, just past the 50% chord. You should just blend that little
curve out.
7) I think there must be a dimension on the leading edge of the rudder, that
when added up, it causes the rudder to extend about 1/2" below the bottom of
the fuselage. When laying out the locations of the rudder hinges, you MUST accommodate
the thickness of the fabric on the top of the fuselage, top and bottom
of the horizontal stab, and the fabric on the bottom of the vertical stab,
BEFORE you locate the bottom rudder hinge.
These are some of the things I'm going show in my video. If anyone can think
of anything else that needs to be addressed in the plans, or anything about building
the airplane, please make the comment to the list, and lets talk about
it.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Chuck;
Noble undertaking! I wouldn't consider the following to be "errors" in the
plans, but they certainly have proven to need updating to make the plane
easier to understand how to build.
1. Many have pointed out, Mike Cuy in his video especially, that many of the
fittings are dimensioned so close that the bolt tabs are too close to the
fabric or wood to allow the bolt and nut to be installed readily, much less
get a socket and wrench on them. There isn't any exhaustive list of which
fittings this applies to, but generally speaking, anything with a mounting
tab protruding from a finished surface, could stand to have a bit of extra
length.
2. Many, many of the clarification questions asked here have to do with
"what does 12 gauge fence wire convert to if I'm using 7x19 aircraft cable",
and the like. Metal gauges, turnbuckle callouts, tension wire nomenclature,
and a few bits and pieces of old-time materials that are scarce or
unavailable, such as the streamline tubing that the plans call for. It
isn't difficult to cross-reference to a newer material, but it could stand
some updating.
3. Can anybody explain why the old Flying & Glider manuals show the plywood
seat back for the front cockpit, on the FRONT of the framing, while the
newer plans show it on the BACK? 41CC is built per plans, with the plywood
on the BACK of the framing (facing the rear cockpit) and I'm going to add a
cushion to that because it's uncomfortable for the passenger to lean against
the framing members.
PS- I just started watching Chuck's "Flying NX770CG" video and it is a hoot!
Excellent! I will say this, though... Chuck goes through the takeoff roll
over and over from several different camera angles and it makes it seem like
his airplane requires about 4000 ft. of grass to takeoff from ;o) Every
Piet lover has to have this video!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: building video |
In a message dated 12/18/2005 12:33:24 PM Eastern Standard Time,
taildrags(at)hotmail.com writes:
PS- I just started watching Chuck's "Flying NX770CG" video and it is a hoot!
Excellent! I will say this, though... Chuck goes through the takeoff roll
over and over from several different camera angles and it makes it seem like
his airplane requires about 4000 ft. of grass to takeoff from ;o) Every
Piet lover has to have this video!
Where can we get a copy of this video?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Waytogopiet(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
In a message dated 12/17/2005 1:11:17 PM Central Standard Time,
Rcaprd(at)aol.com writes:
There has NEVER been a set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not
have errors in them, and in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be
changed.
Excellent comment....and presented, as you have with a solution to the
acknowledged problem. Don Hicks
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Miller" <philip_miller_3(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
Chuck,
The plans have all the metal parts in gauge thicknesses. Consulting the machinists
equivalents, they seem to fall between the current available thicknesses
of 4130. Assuming that one would use 4130 aircraft steel for all those fittings,
what is the rule of conversion? Go to the next size up, down, or round to
the nearest? I can think of convincing arguments for any of them.
Size up - safer, and 4130 is more brittle than cold rolled steel.
Size down - The Pietenpol is an over-engineered plane. BHP said as much in the
Flying and Glider Manual.
Round to the nearest - stays as close to plans as possible.
I'd also like to see about pulleys. The plans call for 2" pulleys for the controls,
but AC 43.13 and Tony Bingelis would preach against such small sized pulleys.
The loads shown for pulleys don't seem out of line. Sizing up to larger
pulleys would mean changing the angles for the brackets, especially the bracket
that holds the pulleys that guide cable to the aileron horns.
And about that pesky elevator cable - the one that seems to rub the top LE on every
Piet I've seen; is there a solution that doesn't do that? Can't you extend
the bellcrank so that the cable exits in the fuse are high enough not to cause
that rubbing?
What about brakes? I've seen hydraulic, mechanical disk, drum, and band brakes.
No brakes in the plans, but that would hardly suffice on our modern ramp full
of very expensive airplanes bordering narrow taxiways that you have to S-turn
your way through. And Tailwheels. You can't have a skid. And I've seen a
lot of very different solutions for tailwheels.
The tube LG given on the plans are hardly ever used to my knowledge. Why? If
you are going with tube gear, there seem to be much better configurations available.
What are the trade-offs?
Plank seats. Lotsa folks complain about them. Couldn't one make a frame of wood
and sling a sheet of thin kevlar, impregnate it with fast epoxy, encase one's
butt in a garbage bag smeared with parafin and just sit on it? Not so good
for the front seat, but it sure makes the pilot's life a lot more comfortable!
And what about Wing LE covering. The plans are somewhat non-specific. I've seen
Aluminum and plywood used. I would imagine you could use some prepreg bendable
composite too if you wanted light and strong.
The bellcrank bearing. The plans don't give enough detail, or if they do, you
wouldn't want to use bearings like that now. Really Good bearing are now available
and cheap. What size?
I would like to see the plans updated. Not so much to correct errors, but to fulfill
omissions, and make compliant to our modern rules and environment. I'd
like to have the LG angles and W&B solutions for more than the Ford Model A.
Even the Corvair LG and W&B data on the plans is only good if you are using the
blower on top - which nobody does any more - and the LG info is very imprecise.
Variances will always occur. What is needed is a best-practices approach
to derive such information in a clear manner, set down in one place where the
nomenclature, data reference points, and assumptions are consistent and spelled
out.
Michael Cuy's video mentions the need to extend the tabs.
Perhaps I'm just nitpicking, but all of these things leave me scratching my head.
Can I build something with this many unknowns? My hats off to all of you
who have. And this list goes a long way to creating a place where the questions
can be answered. Without it, and all of you, I don't think I would attempt
it.
Phil Miller
Altadena, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying NX770CG - Video |
Hey Chuck....Yes, I want a copy of your video. Where can I send my check? Does
$20 include shipping? That's a very reasonable price...Any plans for publishing
it on DVD? You've made a very important contribution to Pietdom...Good work....Carl
Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Flying NX770CG - Video
First of all, I would like to thank the many folks who responded about the
first video I made. Your help was extremely valuable in the making of this
final version. This has been a HUGE project for me, but I'm glad I did it. It's
one of those things that seems like it's never done.
I finally finished 'Flying NX770CG', (I'm close to finishing 'Building NX770CG').
For those that have never seen a Pietenpol fly, or for those who have
never been in one, this video is for you !! I put the viewer in the Pilot
seat to give the sight, sound, and feel of what it's like flying Low & Slow.
It's 1hr 50min long, and here are some of the scenes:
Engine start, taxi, and Detailed take off & landing sequences, with 8 or 9 camera
angles.
Some special effects.
Lots of Smokin' scenes.
Air to Air footage.
Background music to accompany many scenes.
Lots of Voice Over, explaining what's going on.
In air video of Cutting the Toilet Paper, Windmills, Lakes, Hot Air Balloons,
Chasing trains, pacing the shadow on the interstate.
Some of my 3100 mile cross country flight in '04.
River Run - down on the deck.
Detailed landing sequence.
$20
e-mail me direct, if you are interested.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DOUGLAS BLACKBURN" <twinboom(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Flying NX770CG - Video |
Carl,
A DVD is what you will get. That is what I received. Great fun to sit and watch
after a hard day at the office/workplace!!!!!
Doug Blackburn
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Vought<mailto:carbarvo(at)knology.net>
Any plans for publishing it on DVD?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | pesky elevator cable |
Phil mentioned the matter of the elevator cables rubbing the leading edge of
the horizontal stabilizer, and that most Piets seem to have that condition.
Not John Dilatush's "Mountain Piet"!
Check out the pictures at http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/John_piet.html
(second picture from the bottom) and you'll find that engineer John studied
the geometries of the bellcranks, hinge points, and cables and built his
such that everything stays true as it goes about its "four-bar linkage"
motions. This is one fix that should be easy to figure out for those with
the luxury of starting from scratch. Myself, with retensioning the tail
rigging after the repairs to 41CC, I *almost* started to tension the lower
aileron cables to match the uppers, but quickly realized that I'd put the
controls in a bind when I pull the stick back if I did that.
But they fly just fine with the setup 'per plans' and a section of clear
plastic tubing over the upper aileron cables where they contact the LE of
the HS to prevent scuffing the paint.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Well, as long as we're piling onto good old Chuck "Baby Oil" Gantzer with
things to think about for his building video, here's more good information.
Some is in the way of tips, some gives alternate ways to do the same thing,
some is clarification "British style". It's from the UK Piet builders'
website, at http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/buildersnotes/fuznotes.htm . On
that page if you scroll down to "Chris and Fran Barley's Fuselage Notes"
there is some good insight and clarification on some things.
On a cold and rainy day you can spend quite a bit of time perusing the photo
gallery that the Brits have on their website. Just go to their main page,
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/default.htm , and click on 'Photo Gallery'.
For something really nifty, look closely at the image on Peter Hill's image
page (UK Projects) at
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=48&pos=1 to
see the tubing bracket that they used to install passenger cockpit shoulder
harnesses onto. It conceals behind the pilot's instrument panel, doesn't
interfere with any of the cables, and provides a very secure shoulder strap
mounting. There is a similar one on G-BYZY utilizing a single-point
shoulder harness; see image at
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/gallery/displayimage.php?album=31&pos=6 or go
to the images of G-BYZY.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Christmas book idea |
For those who might be looking for a stocking stuffer book idea, try Russell
Hitt's book "Jungle Pilot" (available from Amazon.com, among others).
Corvair/KR builder-pilot Bill Clapp would certainly know what this book is
about; the life of missionary pilot Nate Saint, a pilot with Missionary
Aviation Fellowship who died in Ecuador. If you've looked at Glenda
McElwee's website, she mentions a trip that she and Bill are planning to
fly, down to Ecuador. Bill is familiar with that part of the world!
Nate Saint developed an ingenious backup fuel system for use in small,
single-engine aircraft that are flown over inhospitable terrain. Missionary
Aviation Fellowship used this system on aircraft that they operated, and for
all I know they may still be using it. Nate felt that there were enough
incidents and accidents caused by fuel system problems that a backup system
was justified, so he developed a scheme that uses a small auxiliary fuel
tank piped directly to the engine intake, bypassing the fuel selector valve,
gascolator, and everything else that can get crudded up along the way. It's
controlled by a manual valve, similar to mixture control.
He also developed an ingenious way to lower things from a circling airplane
to the ground below, using a line and bucket, but that would be giving away
the details in the book... ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
For those of you who may have brass radiator parts or brass near the engine,
I understand that brass will tarnish quicker if it's subjected to higher
temperatures (such as on the radiator). Is this the case? Is there any way
to keep it shiny other than frequent polishing with Brasso or equivalent?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: brass tarnish |
I have urathaned(not sure of spelling) brass in order to keep it shiny.I
have no idea how that would react to the heat though.Did a fine job on
my post box.Brass gets tarnished from oxidization.Keep that away and you
got something.Oxygen buggers everything up sooner or later.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
>
> For those of you who may have brass radiator parts or brass near the engine,
> I understand that brass will tarnish quicker if it's subjected to higher
> temperatures (such as on the radiator). Is this the case? Is there any way
> to keep it shiny other than frequent polishing with Brasso or equivalent?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Michael McCarty" <mmccarty(at)zianet.com> |
| Subject: | Re: brass tarnish |
> For those of you who may have brass radiator parts or brass near the engine,
> I understand that brass will tarnish quicker if it's subjected to higher
> temperatures (such as on the radiator). Is this the case? Is there any way
> to keep it shiny other than frequent polishing with Brasso or equivalent?
I doubt that the usual lacquer or urethane clear coats would stand up to the
radiator heat. My wife would say to polish it with olive oil, but I'm sure
that would attract dust. You might want to try a good automotive paste
wax.
-Mac
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I realize I've about worn out my welcome here, but I note one more item that
could be mentioned.
To locate the mounting position of the elevator bellcrank behind the pilot's
seat, on Dwg. #1 (dated 1-19-33 in my plans set), the centerline of the
pivot shaft is dimensioned as 7" up from the lower edge of the lower
longeron. On Dwg. #4 (dated 2-26-34) the detail of the same bellcrank shows
that dimension as 9". Is there a 2" discrepancy, or am I missing something?
If you use pulleys under the pilot's seat to direct the elevator cables to
the bellcrank (rather than holes drilled in the seat framing), go for the
higher mounting location for the bellcrank shaft if you're looking to avoid
having the aileron cables rub on the LE of the horiz. stabilizer. As a
matter of fact, if anyone is interested in what it takes to change the
geometry to eliminate the "pesky elevator cable" problem, I've drawn it up
in AutoCAD to illustrate the problem and I can post some images on my
website. For those who have the video of Chuck's Piet flying and having
fun, watch the elevator cables as Chuck puts his airplane through its paces
and he shows you the view out the back. He has some sort of anti-chafe tape
on the LE of his HS where the cables contact it. Note also the differential
tension (or slack) in the upper and lower cables... all of which can be
eliminated by making some slight dimensional changes in the bellcrank and
its mounting position. Nevertheless... there is that 2" discrepancy between
the mounting locations shown on two different plan sheets.
Merry Christmas to all you low 'n' slow fliers...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building video |
Never noticed the 2" difference until you mentioned it Oscar. I guess I was
looking at drawing #4 the day I installed my bellcrank (fortunately). How
high do you place it to eliminate the cable problem?
Rick H.
On 12/19/05, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>
> I realize I've about worn out my welcome here, but I note one more item
> that
> could be mentioned.
>
> To locate the mounting position of the elevator bellcrank behind the
> pilot's
> seat, on Dwg. #1 (dated 1-19-33 in my plans set), the centerline of the
> pivot shaft is dimensioned as 7" up from the lower edge of the lower
> longeron. On Dwg. #4 (dated 2-26-34) the detail of the same bellcrank
> shows
> that dimension as 9". Is there a 2" discrepancy, or am I missing
> something?
>
> If you use pulleys under the pilot's seat to direct the elevator cables to
> the bellcrank (rather than holes drilled in the seat framing), go for the
> higher mounting location for the bellcrank shaft if you're looking to
> avoid
> having the aileron cables rub on the LE of the horiz. stabilizer. As a
> matter of fact, if anyone is interested in what it takes to change the
> geometry to eliminate the "pesky elevator cable" problem, I've drawn it up
> in AutoCAD to illustrate the problem and I can post some images on my
> website. For those who have the video of Chuck's Piet flying and having
> fun, watch the elevator cables as Chuck puts his airplane through its
> paces
> and he shows you the view out the back. He has some sort of anti-chafe
> tape
> on the LE of his HS where the cables contact it. Note also the
> differential
> tension (or slack) in the upper and lower cables... all of which can be
> eliminated by making some slight dimensional changes in the bellcrank and
> its mounting position. Nevertheless... there is that 2" discrepancy
> between
> the mounting locations shown on two different plan sheets.
>
> Merry Christmas to all you low 'n' slow fliers...
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building video |
From experience I can tell you that raising the bellcrank 1 inch is NOT enough
to allow the cables to clear the stabilizer.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
Never noticed the 2" difference until you mentioned it Oscar. I guess I was looking
at drawing #4 the day I installed my bellcrank (fortunately). How high
do you place it to eliminate the cable problem?
Rick H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: building video |
I built my bellcrank to the '34 plans location, Dwg. #4 (dated 2-26-34)
with the 9" call out, and used a piece of thick leather on the L.E. of the
horizontal stab as the anti-chafe. That's what Oscar saw in the video. I also
used a piece of hardwood under the seat, where the stick to bellcrank cables
change direction...no pulleys. I chose the plans method, because it was simple,
it has worked on so many other planes over the years, and didn't want to
spend all the time and effort to change the design...just "Git 'er done".
It has always been my opinion, however, that if there was one place in
the design of the Pietenpol that could be improved, this is it. None of the
control surfaces are mass balanced, and the possibility of flutter has always
concerned me, especially with so much slack in the lower cable with the flippers
in the neutral position. Having said that, I've had my plane over 100 mph
indicated in a shallow dive, and with the ASI error removed, it was probably more
like 110 mph. Absolutely NO flutter was indicated, even with the design
slack in the lower flipper cable. We (Lynn Knoll and I) were at gross weight,
and
chasing a confounded streamer of Toilet Paper !! Hey Lynn...did you know
we were on a test flight ??? :)
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Philip Miller" <philip_miller_3(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pesky elevator cable |
Thanks Oscar! John's "Mountain Piet" was just what I was looking for, at least
for the elevator system. The workmanship on that plane is awesome (and I use
that word in it's dictionary sense).
I've looked at the Brit page before and it is very good. I particularly like the
way they often combine spoked wheels with tubed LG. That just makes a lot
of sense to me.
You guys are great for coming up with the answers.
Phil Miller
Altadena, CA
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building video |
Is that one inch from the 7" position or from the 9" position Greg?
Rick H
On 12/19/05, gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com wrote:
>
> From experience I can tell you that raising the bellcrank 1 inch is NOT
> enough
> to allow the cables to clear the stabilizer.
>
> Greg Cardinal
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rick Holland
>
> Never noticed the 2" difference until you mentioned it Oscar. I guess I
> was looking at drawing #4 the day I installed my bellcrank (fortunately).
> How high do you place it to eliminate the cable problem?
>
> Rick H.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Chuck, the things I remember being flawed were the isometric drawings showing the
compression struts between the spars at the lift strut attach points. The
drawings show them in line vertically, but if you mount the lift strut fittings
as shown in the plans, the strap fittings interfere with the compression struts.
I made my lift strut fittings per the plans (I'l explain why below) and
had to offset the compression struts to clear them.
On your item #2, I was planning to do as you did (and most people would do, since
most modern airplanes do so) and make the lift strut fitting strap in line
with the strut, so the strut would not impose a moment (torque) on the spar.
I assumed that BHP designed it the way he did out of ignorance. Then I decided
to do a little stress analysis to see just how much "better" I could design
it than Bernard did. To my surprise, I found that the fitting as designed by
BHP actually decreased the bending moment in the spars to the extent that by building
the fittings to his design, the wings can withstand almost a full G more
than they can if the fittings are in line with the struts! The ultimate loading
(with a 1050 lb gross weight) goes from 4 G's to 4.9 G's
You might want to include some of the alternate methods of assembly that various
people have done. I made quite a few changes on mine, most of which I'm pleased
with. For example:
a. I made little plywood sockets for the spruce compression struts to nest
in, which allowed them to sit in place until I got the tension on the drag
and anti-drag wires. This allowed me to avoid toe-nailing the struts.
b. I made brackets to hold an extra pulley for the elevator cables, as well
as pulleys for the rudder cables so the fairleads don't have to constrain
a large angle change in the cable. All my pulleys are ball-bearing and the controls
are very smooth.
c. For my tail hinges, I used AN42 eyebolts, inset into the beams to minimize
the gap between the stabilizers and control surfaces. I ground a flat on
the flange of each eyebolt and set them in epoxy before attaching with a locknut,
so they can't rotate and cause binding.
d. I used piano hinges for my aileron hinges, to provide a strong, lightweight
hinge and seal the gaps
e. I laminated my wingtips in a form that held them to the proper curve,
and made them much stronger than a single piece would be. They withstood dragging
on the ground in a groundloop after my forced landing.
f. I also laminated several other structural pieces, including the curved
centersection cutout, all the circular bows which support the aluminum around
the cockpits, and the landing gear struts. Laminating thin strips of spruce
with resorcinol glue makes an incredibly stiff and lightweight structure.
Jack Phillips, PE
Sr. Manager, Disposables Product Development
Clinical Technologies and Services
Cardinal Health
Creedmoor, NC
(919) 528-5212
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Building Video
Well, the list is kind of slow, so I present to you a request for some help.
As most of you know, I'm putting together a Pietenpol Building Video, and I
want to make it as complete, and comprehensive as possible. I need some help
to hear what everyone thinks should be included in the video.
I'm going to include a detailed look at the plans. There has NEVER been a
set of plans, for ANY type of airplane, that does not have errors in them, and
in my humble opinion, I think the plans should NOT be changed. They fit the
era of the aircraft you are building, and are a part of the whole history of the
Pietenpol. Quite often, it is concluded that an error exists, but upon further
study, and some questions asked, the light bulb goes off, and it becomes
crystal clear. Granted there are errors in the plans, but given the enormous
amount of information that is included in the plans, the errors are not that many.
Having said that, builders NEED to know what, and where the errors are.
They also need clarification in some areas. Done correctly, and with good workmanship,
in the 76 year history of the Pietenpol, there has NEVER been an airframe
failure (at least none that has been reported). I can make that claim,
because a couple years ago, I did an extensive, and exhaustive study of all
the NTSB accident reports, back as far as they go, found about 80 reports, and
NO airframe failures, if it was built to the plans.
Hence, the reason for this e-mail. I'd like to ask everyone who knows of an
area of the plans that are confusing, or has an error, to let the list know.
Here are the things I've come up with:
1) The scarf splice shown on Dwg 5, shows the scarf to be horizontal. The scarf
should be a 12 to 1, as a reference to AC 43.13 publication.
2) The angle of the lift strut fitting, on Dwg 4 (lower left corner), and Dwg
5 (at the bottom) should NOT be at the angle indicated. The angle should be what
ever the angle the lift strut is, so as to be in alignment with the lift strut.
This angle is determined by the length of the cabane struts, and is on
an individual airplane basis, because the length of the cabane struts are altered
so often.
3) The cabane strut fitting that bolts to the spar, on Dwg 4, (lower left corner)
is open to interpolation. It shows the a U strap around under the spar, with
a tab welded on each side, which is 3 pieces total for each fitting. If you
are not all that good of a weldor, then I think this fitting should be built
with two U straps, that fit inside each other.
4) The belly strap should be included at the front & rear, between the lift strut
/ gear lug fittings. On Dwg 3 (lower left corner) it shows the tab should
be bent up 20=BA, but is should read closer to 30=BA, but again, this angle is
determined by the length of the cabane struts.
5) The cross piece at the forward lower fuselage, shown to be a 3/4 X 3/4 spruce
on Dwg 1(lower right hand portion of the page), is held short of going all
the way to the inside of the longerons, as shown on Dwg 6 (lower edge of the page),
it says "Cut off end of cross strut", to allow the inside engine mount fitting
to install on the inboard side of the longeron.
6) If you loft the dimension numbers of the rib Dwg 5, it makes a little curve
down on the top, just past the 50% chord. You should just blend that little
curve out.
7) I think there must be a dimension on the leading edge of the rudder, that when
added up, it causes the rudder to extend about 1/2" below the bottom of the
fuselage. When laying out the locations of the rudder hinges, you MUST accommodate
the thickness of the fabric on the top of the fuselage, top and bottom
of the horizontal stab, and the fabric on the bottom of the vertical stab, BEFORE
you locate the bottom rudder hinge.
These are some of the things I'm going show in my video. If anyone can think of
anything else that needs to be addressed in the plans, or anything about building
the airplane, please make the comment to the list, and lets talk about it.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | pesky elevator cable |
Rick asks-
>How high do you place it to eliminate the cable problem?
To which I would respond, drawing it up with the 9" dimension reveals that
the cable should clear.
And Greg adds-
>I can tell you that raising the bellcrank 1 inch is NOT enough to allow the
>cables to clear the stabilizer.
OK, so 8" won't do it, but 9" should. But Chuck adds-
>I built my bellcrank to the '34 plans location, Dwg. #4 (dated 2-26-34)
>with the 9" call out, and used a piece of thick leather on the L.E. of the
>horizontal stab as the anti-chafe.
Which leaves me puzzled, because graphically (AutoCAD and my Piet drawings),
using the 9" dimension should have the upper elevator cable clear the LE of
the HS. Go figure... or just plan on "using protective measures" since it's
not a big deal anyway.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | teflon, anyone ? |
I put a small pieces of teflon sheet screwed to the LE of my stab.on either
side and been flying happily ever since.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | cable going thru the stabilizer |
I even saw one Piet that allowed the upper elevator cables to go thru the
fabric on the stabilizer.
Neat solution, but in that case you might have to actually lower the
bellcrank !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "John and Phyllis Smoyer" <jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: pesky elevator cable: |
One factor that influences the elevator cable's clearance over the
stabilizer leading edge is the amount of the elevator's downward deflection.
How much down deflection is enough? Maybe the cable doesn't rub the LE at
that angle.
Also, in the Piet's I've seen, it doesn't appear that any amount of "up"
elevator deflection will cause an interference on the stabilizer?.Any
comments on that observation?
This has been a very interesting and illuminating discussion, and I really
appreciate the insights and efforts made by all the contributors. Thanks to
all of you.
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pesky elevator cable: |
In a message dated 12/20/2005 5:24:56 PM Central Standard Time,
jpsmoyer(at)verizon.net writes:
One factor that influences the elevator cable's clearance over the
stabilizer leading edge is the amount of the elevator's downward deflection.
How much down deflection is enough? Maybe the cable doesn't rub the LE at
that angle.
Also, in the Piet's I've seen, it doesn't appear that any amount of "up"
elevator deflection will cause an interference on the stabilizer?.Any
comments on that observation?
John,
The fouling of the flipper cables on the L.E. of the stab, is just one
part of the observation. You see, in addition to that, there is a difference in
symmetry in the bellcrank, and the flipper horns, such that when they are in
the neutral position, the bottom cable is slack. When the flippers are in the
up, or down position, both the top and bottom cables have no slack in them,
but they SHOULD NOT be tight.
I always refer to them as 'Flippers', as opposed to 'Elevators'...even at
work, dealing with jet planes. The name Elevator is a poor description of
what those control surfaces actually do. They are NOT what make the plane go
up & down - POWER controls altitude, and PITCH controls airspeed.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: building video |
1" from the 9" position. Long fuselage. Anti chafe patch
was glued to the LE of the stabilizer.
Elevator horns and walking beam were drilled carefully
to maintain a parallelogram in the cable system. No cable slack issues
except at very extreme limits and even then it is minimal.
Greg Cardinal
Minneapolis
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 8:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: building video
Is that one inch from the 7" position or from the 9" position Greg?
Rick H
On 12/19/05, gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com wrote:
From experience I can tell you that raising the bellcrank 1 inch is NOT enough
to allow the cables to clear the stabilizer.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
Never noticed the 2" difference until you mentioned it Oscar. I guess I was
looking at drawing #4 the day I installed my bellcrank (fortunately). How high
do you place it to eliminate the cable problem?
Rick H.
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pesky elevator cable: |
Group,
The interference between the elevator/"flipper" cable and the leading edge
of the horizontal stabilizer is not restricted to the Pietenpol. Other early
designs, notably the DeHavilland Moths, share this characteristic.
Essentially, it isn't a big problem and, in the case of the Pietenpol, can
be solved by placing rub strips on the L.E. of the stab. Like Michael Cuy, I
use teflon pieces about 1/8"x3/4"x3" screwed to the upper surface of the
L.E.
The interference noted above, together with cable slackening, was
dramatically reduced by restricting the elevator travel. Adjustable stops
were welded to the torque tube (in front of and behind the stick) after the
first 90 hours of operation, allowing 32 degrees up and 25 degrees down
elevator travel. My Piet now has 750 hours on it and this modification has
proved to be satisfactory.
Generally, when the elevators are at, or near, the neutral position, the
upper cable is not in heavy contact with the stabilizer L.E.--at least this
is the case with the four different Pietenpols I have flown. Drastically
changing the geometry of the elevator (oops, "flipper") circuit, in my
humble opinion, really isn't worthwhile.
It is a good idea to inspect the forward elevator cables for wear at the
torque tube pulleys. The plans call for 2 inch pulleys which are pretty
small. Early on, I made the mistake of using aluminum pulleys (I got them
"for free") and the cables wore out very quickly. Buying some fibre pulleys
solved the problem. Nevertheless, I frequently check the cables at this
location. So far, so good!
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
In a message dated 12/20/2005 10:29:45 AM Central Standard Time,
Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com writes:
Chuck, the things I remember being flawed were the isometric drawings showing
the compression struts between the spars at the lift strut attach points.
The drawings show them in line vertically, but if you mount the lift strut
fittings as shown in the plans, the strap fittings interfere with the compression
struts. I made my lift strut fittings per the plans (I=E2=80=99l explain why below)
and had to offset the compression struts to clear them.
On your item #2, I was planning to do as you did (and most people would do,
since most modern airplanes do so) and make the lift strut fitting strap in
line with the strut, so the strut would not impose a moment (torque) on the=20spar.
I assumed that BHP designed it the way he did out of ignorance. Then I
decided to do a little stress analysis to see just how much =E2=80=9Cbetter=E2=80=9D
I could
design it than Bernard did. To my surprise, I found that the fitting as designed
by BHP actually decreased the bending moment in the spars to the extent that
by building the fittings to his design, the wings can withstand almost a full G
more than they can if the fittings are in line with the struts! The ultimate
loading (with a 1050 lb gross weight) goes from 4 G=E2=80=99s to 4.9 G=E2=80=99s
Jack,
You bring up a Very interesting point here. Bernard Harold Pietenpol's
design genius is profound, so who am I to question it ?? This includes the
Bellcrank. However, for 9 years now, I have been wondering why on earth Bernard
would design the lift strut fittings at that angle. It just seems to me that
with the constant positive / negative loads imposed on those fittings,
applying the moment of torque would eventually wallow out the holes in the wood
spars, even with the 1" strips of wood on each side of the fittings, and the strap
welded across the top between the two straps. Now, after hearing of your
stress analysis, I ran the scenario through my brain again. Be warned: This
could be the Irish Beer talking...
Here is what my brain came up with:
Placing the Lift Strut Spar Fittings in alignment with the Lift struts
(not per plans), and adding G load causes the lift struts to be in tension,=20and
the wing panel outboard of the lift strut fitting will flex upward.
Placing the Lift Strut Spar Fittings at the angle called out in the
plans, with the piece welded across the top, (as per plans), and adding G load
causes the lift strut to be in tension, however, the moment torque applied to the
fittings will tend to cause the outboard wing panel to be pulled down. Could
this be the reason it can withstand almost 1 G more load before failure ???
Maybe the ultimate load is higher with the B.H.P. design angle, but the
drawback is that the fittings will eventually loosen up. I doubt it would
cause an immediate failure, but what would be immediate is a change in the Angle
of Incidence, causing a wing heavy condition in flight. Something to keep a
very close eye on.
Jack: In your stress analysis, specifically, what was it that failed ??
Forgive my skepticism, Jack, but I think it would be Very helpful if you
could run those numbers again, and / or some of you other engineers out there to
run these numbers on the angle of the lift strut fittings, and see if they
agree.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: pesky elevator cable: |
In a message dated 12/20/2005 9:50:02 PM Central Standard Time,
grhans@cable-lynx.net writes:
The interference noted above, together with cable slackening, was
dramatically reduced by restricting the elevator travel. Adjustable stops
were welded to the torque tube (in front of and behind the stick) after the
first 90 hours of operation, allowing 32 degrees up and 25 degrees down
elevator travel. My Piet now has 750 hours on it and this modification has
proved to be satisfactory.
Graham,
I can certainly see how installing stops on the torque tube would
dramatically reduce the cable slack, at the neutral position of the flipper travel.
I
now have another item on my List of To Do's, for this winter.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 12/20/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Guys,
This discussion is very rewarding. Thanks.
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest: 11 Msgs - 12/20/05 |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
Guys,
This discussion is very rewarding. Thanks.
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for the builder of Piet NX497AR |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
I understand that the builder of a blue Piet, number NX497AR, has done some
remarkable things with a particular auto carb.
I'd like to contact the builder. If anyone knows who this is, or if there is
a Piet registry (forgive my ignorance), please reply.
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Looking for the builder of Piet NX497AR |
Pietenpol-List Digest List
I understand that the builder of a blue Piet, number NX497AR, has done some
remarkable things with a particular auto carb.
I'd like to contact the builder. If anyone knows who this is, or if there is
a Piet registry (forgive my ignorance), please reply.
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote: *
==================================================
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
==================================================
=== message truncated ===
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | TRichmo9(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: A bit more on: the builder of Piet NX497AR |
jim call me at home tonight tom
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Rick Holland <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Building Video |
As has been mentioned on this group before, someone wrote an article I think
in an EAA magazine in 54 about Bernie including an interview. When asked
what changes he recommended to the design one item was:
"Where the flying struts are fastened to the wing, slant the wing fittings* at
about the slant of the flying struts."
*On 12/20/05, Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 12/20/2005 10:29:45 AM Central Standard Time,
> Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com writes:
>
> Chuck, the things I remember being flawed were the isometric drawings
> showing the compression struts between the spars at the lift strut attach
> points. The drawings show them in line vertically, but if you mount the
> lift strut fittings as shown in the plans, the strap fittings interfere with
> the compression struts. I made my lift strut fittings per the plans (I'l
> explain why below) and had to offset the compression struts to clear them.
>
> On your item #2, I was planning to do as you did (and most people would
> do, since most modern airplanes do so) and make the lift strut fitting strap
> in line with the strut, so the strut would not impose a moment (torque) on
> the spar. I assumed that BHP designed it the way he did out of ignorance.
> Then I decided to do a little stress analysis to see just how much "better"
> I could design it than Bernard did. To my surprise, I found that the
> fitting as designed by BHP actually decreased the bending moment in the
> spars to the extent that by building the fittings to his design, the wings
> can withstand almost a full G more than they can if the fittings are in line
> with the struts! The ultimate loading (with a 1050 lb gross weight) goes
> from 4 G's to 4.9 G's
>
> Jack,
> You bring up a Very interesting point here. Bernard Harold
> Pietenpol's design genius is profound, so who am I to question it ?? This
> includes the Bellcrank. However, for 9 years now, I have been wondering
> why on earth Bernard would design the lift strut fittings at that angle. It
> just seems to me that with the constant positive / negative loads imposed on
> those fittings, applying the moment of torque would eventually wallow out
> the holes in the wood spars, even with the 1" strips of wood on each side of
> the fittings, and the strap welded across the top between the two straps.
> Now, after hearing of your stress analysis, I ran the scenario through my
> brain again. Be warned: This could be the Irish Beer talking...
>
> Here is what my brain came up with:
> Placing the Lift Strut Spar Fittings in alignment with the Lift struts
> (not per plans), and adding G load causes the lift struts to be in tension,
> and the wing panel outboard of the lift strut fitting will flex upward.
> Placing the Lift Strut Spar Fittings at the angle called out in the
> plans, with the piece welded across the top, (as per plans), and adding G
> load causes the lift strut to be in tension, however, the moment torque
> applied to the fittings will tend to cause the outboard wing panel to be
> pulled down. Could this be the reason it can withstand almost 1 G more load
> before failure ???
> Maybe the ultimate load is higher with the B.H.P. design angle, but
> the drawback is that the fittings will eventually loosen up. I doubt it
> would cause an immediate failure, but what would be immediate is a change in
> the Angle of Incidence, causing a wing heavy condition in flight. Something
> to keep a very close eye on.
> Jack: In your stress analysis, specifically, what was it that failed
> ?? Forgive my skepticism, Jack, but I think it would be Very helpful if
> you could run those numbers again, and / or some of you other engineers out
> there to run these numbers on the angle of the lift strut fittings, and see
> if they agree.
>
> Chuck G.
> NX770CG
>
--
Rick Holland
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Looking for the builder of Piet NX497AR |
Hi,
I remembered a Blue Piet on Mr. Wynne's site. Check out this link. It mentions
the gentleman's name and William Wynne might be able to help contact him (or
you could poke around his site and see if there's a page that goes into detail
on the blue Piet's engine ...and I think he does)
http://flycorvair.com/cc9a.html
>
> From: Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com>
> Date: 2005/12/21 Wed PM 02:57:15 GMT
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com,
> Pietenpol-List Digest List
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Looking for the builder of Piet NX497AR
>
> I understand that the builder of a blue Piet, number NX497AR, has done some
remarkable things with a particular auto carb.
>
> I'd like to contact the builder. If anyone knows who this is, or if there
is a Piet registry (forgive my ignorance), please reply.
November 14, 2005 - December 21, 2005
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-et