Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ey
March 03, 2006 - March 19, 2006
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | 1/4 x 1/4 rib material |
A year or two ago someone posted that he recovered ( or helped recover )
a couple of Piets that were around 30 years old and found that the cap
strips sagged down between the diagonal bracing. I always thought that
the Piet ribs looked like they ought to have more bracing with the
joints closer together. but I built mine to the plans. If 1/4 x 1/2 sagg
over time, I would bet 1/4 x 1/4 start sagging much sooner.
Chuck: sorry to hear that you had been robbed. I useto take my kids
shooting and they would talk about it in school to their friends. Well,
as the years go by, some friends got into gangs and drugs but their
memory remained clear that I had a collection of military rifles
and.......you guessed it. They were caught after they got rid of
everything, but did no time for my loss because other crimes they
committed were far worse. MORAL..Tell your kids to keep their mouths
shut about anything you have at home. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: I've been robbed |
In a message dated 3/3/2006 3:31:17 AM Central Standard Time,
Wizzard187(at)aol.com writes:
Gang, Does anyone know how to start a VCR and camera with a motion
detector? Seems like a good system for long term protection.
Ken Conrad with a farm house that has been ripped in cool Iowa
Thank you all for your comments on this subject. It has been a real eye
opener for me. I now have a lot more security in place, with more to come,
including video surveillance.
I suppose if you already have the camera and VCR, you could start it with
one of those motion detector lights. Just tap in the wire inside the unit to
turn on the camera and VCR. The type that Dick N. mentioned would be much
better, though.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 1/4 x 1/4 rib material; rib design & construction |
As Leon Stefan said, the capstrips on Pietenpol ribs tend to sag between
clusters with age. My Pietenpol is over 35 years old and the 1/4" x 1/2"
inch spruce upper capstrips have been sagging for perhaps the past fifteen
years. Not much, but enough to make a visible irregularity in the
once-smooth curvature. What this does to the airplane's performance is
difficult to measure; in fact, it seems to fly as well as it ever did. (But
it sure doesn't look very good!)
The rib truss is essentially a Warren type which has rather long unsupported
capstrip lengths. Over time, fabric tension tends to straighten them. I
regret not installing extra vertical members (see tip rib construction in
plans) when I recovered my airplane twenty years ago. Since then, I
repaired the wings from another Pietenpol which exhibited upper capstrip
sagging, and installed 1/4" x 1/2" vertical members, using epoxy adhesive
and a single 3/8" brass nail to hold one end in position until the epoxy
cured. The other end fits in the gusseted cluster and is held in place by a
dab of epoxy. No additional gussets are necessary. [If you are incorporating
this modification when building a new set of ribs, take care to position the
vertical members so they will clear the drag/antidrag bracing!]
This reduces the unsupported length of the capstrip by about one half. Ergo,
no more sagging problems.
In my humble opinion, one should stay with the 1/4" x 1/2" rib material and
install these extra vertical members. The small amount of extra weight is
well-justified in providing long-term durability. Using 1/4" x 1/4" spruce
isn't worth the weight savings--and would in any case make the addition of
the extra vertical members essential to prevent sagging.
Rather than skimping on the rib structure to save weight, significant
weight savings could be achieved by using a formed .016", or .020", 2024 T3
leading edge instead of the very "sturdy" wooden leading edge. If this
approach isn't acceptable, then remove excess wood from this part by
routing. A vee-shaped aluminum channel for the trailing edge could save some
weight.
It really isn't a good idea to try to save a few ounces in the wing
ribs--which are perhaps the most fragile parts of a fabric-covered light
airplane.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
Hi Glenn
Doc is right, keeping yourself proficient in taildraggers is a life insurance,
in fact Budd Davisson in at least one of his articles, advises to take some
hours a year (to tricicle pilots) to improve and mantain the landing skills.
Read his great articles here:
http://www.airbum.com/articles.html#How
I have (for myself) printed most of them and carry them in a 3 ring binder,
I get them out of my truck, everytime a line has to be done or wait for the doctor,
dentist, etc.
All the material in his web page is 100% good aviation.
Hope you enjoy.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
Glenn, landing a tail-wheel airplane does take more
experience that tri-gears require. Landing on paved
runways only complicates the problem. Getting the
gear straight (tracking straight) would be very
important. Having some differential braking is also
helpful. But nothing is as good as good old practice,
practice, practice...
Tail wheel planes are not the demons some make them
out to be, but they do need some respect. Don't
listen to the evils of tail wheels, it will only
plant the seed of doubt in your mind and make it
harder to adjust to them. Get with an experienced
tailwheel pilot and do a lot of work.
Best wishes.
Doc (H)
--- Glenn Thomas wrote:
>
>
> At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who
> tried to talk me out of building a Piet) and he said
> he landed the one that he test flew last year on a
> paved runway.
>
> --------
> Glenn Thomas
> N?????
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | set of 1/4 x 1/2 wing ribs on ebay |
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/pietenpol-aircamper-wing-ribs_W0QQitemZ4618700414QQcategoryZ63679QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Fwd: SAA - From Paul's Desk |
Some may know of this orgn and some may not. I'm sending this for the
latter. Membership by contribution. I give $25 per year. You get 4 quarterly
magazines.
In a message dated 3/4/2006 4:32:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
saa.php(at)ameritech.net writes:
Dear SAA Member:
At this writing we have heard from some 500 SAA members with their e-mail
addresses, orders for back issues of To Fly, and orders for pins, decals and
patches. Some have even been kind enough to include financial contributions to
augment the treasury. Your continued support is greatly appreciated. There
are a few out there who do not have access to e-mail, but be assured that
nobody will be left out. We will make sure that everyone can receive our
message in one way or another.
Your responses have included many wonderful comments about our efforts over
these last 53 years. My love of airplanes and people began further back than
I can remember and I have always wanted to share that with everyone that I
could. I am sure there are many with this same feeling.
A comment that showed up fairly often in your e-mails is that =E2=80=9Cwe need
an
organization like SAA.=E2=80=9D My challenge to you today is to tell me why.
I want
to hear from you. What is it that you =E2=80=9Cneed=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9Cwant=E2=80=9D
from an
organization like SAA? There are numerous aviation organizations in existence
that
provide a wide variety of services, publications, and events. What is it=20that
SAA can provide that they do not?
There also appears to be great enthusiasm for another fly-in at Frasca
Field. Mark your calendars for June 23-24-25, as the Frasca family is warmly
welcoming us back again in 2006. All of our headquarters volunteers have again
committed to help, as well as the Replica Fighter group, and Wes Schmid is
putting together another fine list of forums. If we can be blessed with some
good weather, I think we will see an excellent turnout. To help us plan,=20drop
me an e-mail and let me know if you are planning to come. More details on
the event will be forthcoming as the event draws near.
Everyone is welcome to be part of our SAA membership, simply by sending us
their e-mail address. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone you think
may be interested.
I look forward to hearing from you and will be in touch again soon.
Your friend,
Paul
H. Poberezny, President
Sport Aviation Association
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (rly-ya03.mail.aol.com [172.18.141.85]) by
air-ya02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP id MAILINYA23-14f440a156428; Sat, 04 Mar
Received: from web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com (web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com [209.191.86.97])
by rly-ya03.mx.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP id MAILRELAYINYA35-14f440a156428;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
s=s1024; d=ameritech.net;
b=FGJOA0eim3pOs3kAp1UClQP+a5CPghJl4b3jiGg89lERcu9J1VBlNcBe9jxfUMyuROzSVVivj7QrqbGTDUpOSwT3Bx2o7uHcEtkEYeMRYToLEtsLFHVgcLgJjuCDd+sZkFRLMqR2wzoTrR+3v5+ldUx6l76+sWdwnnCcCf+YMbM=
;
Received: from [70.225.9.196] by web82202.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 04
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 14:31:56 -0800 (PST)
From: Paul Poberezny <saa.php(at)ameritech.net>
Subject: SAA - From Paul's Desk
X-AOL-IP: 209.191.86.97
--0-1397719165-1141511516=:30477
Dear SAA Member:
At this writing we have heard from some 500 SAA members with their e-mail addresses,
orders for back issues of To Fly, and orders for pins, decals and patches.
Some have even been kind enough to include financial contributions to augment
the treasury. Your continued support is greatly appreciated. There are
a few out there who do not have access to e-mail, but be assured that nobody
will be left out. We will make sure that everyone can receive our message in
one way or another.
Your responses have included many wonderful comments about our efforts over these
last 53 years. My love of airplanes and people began further back than I
can remember and I have always wanted to share that with everyone that I could.
I am sure there are many with this same feeling.
A comment that showed up fairly often in your e-mails is that we need an organization
like SAA. My challenge to you today is to tell me why. I want to hear
from you. What is it that you need or want from an organization like SAA?
There are numerous aviation organizations in existence that provide a wide variety
of services, publications, and events. What is it that SAA can provide
that they do not?
There also appears to be great enthusiasm for another fly-in at Frasca Field.
Mark your calendars for June 23-24-25, as the Frasca family is warmly welcoming
us back again in 2006. All of our headquarters volunteers have again committed
to help, as well as the Replica Fighter group, and Wes Schmid is putting
together another fine list of forums. If we can be blessed with some good weather,
I think we will see an excellent turnout. To help us plan, drop me an
e-mail and let me know if you are planning to come. More details on the event
will be forthcoming as the event draws near.
Everyone is welcome to be part of our SAA membership, simply by sending us their
e-mail address. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone you think may
be interested.
I look forward to hearing from you and will be in touch again soon.
Your friend,
Paul
Paul H. Poberezny, President
Sport Aviation Association
--0-1397719165-1141511516=:30477
Dear SAA Member: At this writing we have heard from some 500 SAA members with
their e-mail addresses, orders for back issues of To Fly, and orders for pins,
decals and patches. Some have even been kind enough to include financial contributions
to augment the treasury. Your continued support is greatly appreciated.
There are a few out there who do not have access to e-mail, but be assured
that nobody will be left out. We will make sure that everyone can receive our message in
one way or another. Your responses have included many wonderful comments about
our efforts over these last 53 years. My love of airplanes and people began
further back than I can remember and I have always wanted to share that with
everyone that I could. I am sure there are many with this same feeling.
A comment that showed up fairly often in
your e-mails is that we need an organization like SAA. My challenge to you today
is to tell me why. I want to hear from you. What is it that you need or want
from an organization like SAA? There are numerous aviation organizations in
existence that provide a wide variety of services, publications, and events. What
is it that SAA can provide that they do not? There also appears to be great
enthusiasm for another fly-in at Frasca Field. Mark your calendars for June 23-24-25, as the Frasca family
is warmly welcoming us back again in 2006. All of our headquarters volunteers
have again committed to help, as well as the Replica Fighter group, and Wes Schmid
is putting together another fine list of forums. If we can be blessed with
some good weather, I think we will see an excellent turnout. To help us plan,
drop me an e-mail and let me know if you are planning to come. More details
on the event will be forthcoming as the event draws near. Everyone is welcome to be part of our
SAA membership, simply by sending us their e-mail address. Please feel free
to pass this along to anyone you think may be interested. I look forward to
hearing from you and will be in touch again soon. Your friend,
Paul
Paul H. Poberezny, President
Sport Aviation Association
--0-1397719165-1141511516=:30477--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | [ Richard Lamb ] : New Email List Photo Share Available! |
| From: | Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com> |
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Richard Lamb
Lists: Pietenpol-List,Homebuilt-List
Subject: Texas Parasol - Complete Plans CDROM Download (499MB)
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/cavelamb@earthlink.net.03.04.2006/index.html
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: SAA - From Paul's Desk |
To all Peit builders and owners:
I just want to share my support on this invaluable "grass roots" organization.
(I will try and be brief)
Every owner, builder, pilot of any light sport, experimental aircraft should become
a memember of Sport Aviation Association. I have been a member and attended
each form for the past 4 years, when I first learned of its existance. And
here are some of those resons to join.
A. SAA it "headed up" by Paul Poberenz, Sr.-if I have to explain what this one
person has done for the self builder, then don't wast your time reading any further.
B. SAA is organized for the average pilot, (financial status); it's program benefits
all builders; it has a annual 3 day forum whose goal is not to focus on
how much of your money it can take; it's forum is a hands on event, from the set
up (i go a day early to help) to the workshops, (last year hoot Gibson (flew
his Soneri)), William Wynne attends every year, etc.;
C. The quarterly mag you get (written by Paul P) is better than Sport Aviation
from Oshkosh, because its written with the home builder in mind.
D. THERE ARE NO DUES! while that may change, you send a check in the amount for
what you think its worth and what you feel you can afford! Show me one other
organization today that is that democratic!
You owe it to yourself, your family and your reputation as an aircraft builder,
owner and pilot, to at least support the SAA.
see you in Urbana, Ill. June 23
"mean" Gene,
SAA #2419, EAA #78259, NX5893
-----Original Message-----
>From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
>Sent: Mar 4, 2006 4:53 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fwd: SAA - From Paul's Desk
>
>
>Some may know of this orgn and some may not. I'm sending this for the
>latter. Membership by contribution. I give $25 per year. You get 4 quarterly
>magazines.
>
>
>
>In a message dated 3/4/2006 4:32:16 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>saa.php(at)ameritech.net writes:
>
>
>Dear SAA Member:
>
>At this writing we have heard from some 500 SAA members with their e-mail
>addresses, orders for back issues of To Fly, and orders for pins, decals and
>patches. Some have even been kind enough to include financial contributions
to
>augment the treasury. Your continued support is greatly appreciated. There
>are a few out there who do not have access to e-mail, but be assured that
>nobody will be left out. We will make sure that everyone can receive our
>message in one way or another.
>
>Your responses have included many wonderful comments about our efforts over
>these last 53 years. My love of airplanes and people began further back than
>I can remember and I have always wanted to share that with everyone that I
>could. I am sure there are many with this same feeling.
>
>A comment that showed up fairly often in your e-mails is that ?we need an
>organization like SAA.? My challenge to you today is to tell me why. I want
>to hear from you. What is it that you ?need? or ?want? from an
>organization like SAA? There are numerous aviation organizations in existence
that
>provide a wide variety of services, publications, and events. What is it that
>SAA can provide that they do not?
>
>There also appears to be great enthusiasm for another fly-in at Frasca
>Field. Mark your calendars for June 23-24-25, as the Frasca family is warmly
>welcoming us back again in 2006. All of our headquarters volunteers have again
>committed to help, as well as the Replica Fighter group, and Wes Schmid is
>putting together another fine list of forums. If we can be blessed with some
>good weather, I think we will see an excellent turnout. To help us plan, drop
>me an e-mail and let me know if you are planning to come. More details on
>the event will be forthcoming as the event draws near.
>
>Everyone is welcome to be part of our SAA membership, simply by sending us
>their e-mail address. Please feel free to pass this along to anyone you think
>may be interested.
>
>I look forward to hearing from you and will be in touch again soon.
>
>Your friend,
>
> Paul
>H. Poberezny, President
>Sport Aviation Association
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: SAA - From Paul's Desk |
Thanks. I will get in touch with them.
Doc (H)
--- Alan Lyscars wrote:
>
>
> Sport Aviation Association Inc.
> PO Box 2343
> Oshkosh, WI 54903-2343
>
>
>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > browse
> > > Subscriptions page,
> > > FAQ,
> > >
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > >
> > > Admin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> protection around
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dale Johnson" <ddjohn(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: CC: From GN-1 List |
Alen
I have plans for the GN 1 but I built a Pietenpol. I notice that the GN 1 flies
tail low. It just does not look right.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
Sent: 2/27/2006 6:41:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CC: From GN-1 List
Thank you DJ. What do you reccommend for cabane dimensions?
Sincerely,
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: CC: From GN-1 List
don't do the GN-1 to the plans lest you will fly tail low. Set your wing so that
you have a 1.8 AOI. The plans put the wing at an angle quite a bit less than
that.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dale Johnson
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: CC: From GN-1 List
Alan
My GN 1 plans showes 21" for the front struts & 21 3/4" for the rear struts.
Dale
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
Sent: 2/26/2006 7:48:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: CC: >From GN-1 List
Greetings Fellows,
I'm going to copy my question from the GN-1 list to you; I hope that, in the spirit
of scratch building, you all won't take offense at having a GN-1 question
posted to this list. Thanks, to all as ever, for your help.
Alan
Gents:
I've been following a thread on the Piet list concerning the length of cabane struts
on the Pietenpol. In a sample response from builders, all front struts
were taller than the rear-averaging 23" front and 22" rear. Our GN-1 plans call
for 23 1/4" fronts, and 23 1/2" rears. Are you fellows using these plans dimensions
(are they accurate?) or have you altered the lengths of the cabanes?
Alan Lyscars
Portland, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. He said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
> It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or split landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> that skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > browse
> > > Subscriptions page,
> > > FAQ,
> > >
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > >
> > > Admin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> protection around
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
So, I guess with a tailwheel and the training I'm going to get in the Piper PA-12
will make this a go! I like the idea of swapping with a skid. That way I
can send the plane right back to 1932 in a couple simple steps (except for the
1965 Corvair engine). ...and there are some grass strips in CT. Hard to tell
from what I saw if they are still in operation.
Thanks to all
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20075#20075
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Galen Hutcheson <wacopitts(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Landing on paved runways |
Glenn, just a couple of tips on the tail wheel/skid.
You want to keep them both as close to equal weights
when installed as you can to avoid a W&B change. That
is not hard to do, you just have to be aware of it
when building your skid. You will also want to
disconnect the tailwheel steering cables and remove
them when the skid is on the plane so that they can't
interfere with ground operations. All of this is easy
to engineer. Again, you will need to practice,
practice, practice your tailwheel/skid operations to
get all the skill you can. You will really enjoy the
versitility of this setup when you gain the required
skills.
Doc (H)
--- Glenn Thomas wrote:
>
>
> So, I guess with a tailwheel and the training I'm
> going to get in the Piper PA-12 will make this a go!
> I like the idea of swapping with a skid. That way
> I can send the plane right back to 1932 in a couple
> simple steps (except for the 1965 Corvair engine).
> ...and there are some grass strips in CT. Hard to
> tell from what I saw if they are still in operation.
>
> Thanks to all
>
> --------
> Glenn Thomas
> N?????
> http://www.flyingwood.com
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=20075#20075
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Corvair engine disassembly |
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
Regarding Corvair engines. Can anyone offer some information on what
the best method is to remove the rocker arm studs=3F Getting started on
the engine build process. I have a concern that I do not want to back
the cylinder head studs out when I turn the rocker arm studs. The
rocker arm studs have internal (female) threads, and they thread onto
the end of those long head studs coming off the engine case, which I
understand should not be removed. I rotated the engine to it's side,
and squirted a little creeping oil on the stud in hope for it to find
it's way to the threads for now.
Thank you.
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: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
Yesterday I placed one of my completed Piet ribs over a recently acquired full-scale
GN-1 wing rib drawing. I was impressed by the differences at the leading
edge and the next 5" back. I know that the GN-1 folks claim slower stalls with
their wing, based only on this difference. Do you know what they really claim,
and has anyone been able to verify differences?
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
==================================================
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.2006-03-06.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.txt
================================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
================================================
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 03/06/06: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Hans Vander Voort)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (harvey rule)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
From: Hans Vander Voort
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
ngwood.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. He said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
> It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
From: harvey rule
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or split landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> that skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > browse
> > > Subscriptions page,
> > > FAQ,
> > >
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> > >
> > > Admin.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> protection around
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
William Wynne has a new disassembly video (I have not seen it yet) on the Corvair.
It is supposed to explain a lot.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Egan, John
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 10:40 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engine disassembly
Regarding Corvair engines. Can anyone offer some information on what the best
method is to remove the rocker arm studs? Getting started on the engine build
process. I have a concern that I do not want to back the cylinder head studs
out when I turn the rocker arm studs. The rocker arm studs have internal (female)
threads, and they thread onto the end of those long head studs coming off
the engine case, which I understand should not be removed. I rotated the engine
to it's side, and squirted a little creeping oil on the stud in hope for
it to find it's way to the threads for now.
Thank you.
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: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
>Regarding Corvair engines. Can anyone offer some information on
>what the best method is to remove the rocker arm studs? Getting
>started on the engine build process. I have a concern that I do not
>want to back the cylinder head studs out when I turn the rocker arm
>studs. The rocker arm studs have internal (female) threads, and
>they thread onto the end of those long head studs coming off the
>engine case, which I understand should not be removed. I rotated
>the engine to it's side, and squirted a little creeping oil on the
>stud in hope for it to find it's way to the threads for now.
>
>
>Thank you.
John,
Who told you the engine case studs should not be removed? You neeed
to take them out to retap the holes anyway (WW showed us how to do
this at Corvair College # 7 using an old stud with cuts put in it
with a hacksaw to make a homemade tap.). The studs are reset with
Loc-Tite unless WW has changed his mind about that in the past 18
months ( I doubt it). Many of the studs will have rust damage & will
need to be replaced anyway.
The more important issue is that you avoid stripping the case holes
when you pull these studs (if you do they have to be heli-coiled).
WW recommends heating them with a torch & then applying candle wax to
the threads, which wicks the wax into the hole. I got in a hurry &
didn't do this & wound up having a stripped hole. Now I'll need to
get one stud threaded for the heli-coil.
I did not worry about trying to save any of my case studs as I'm
plannig on installing all new stainless ones. The lowere case studs,
which are exposed top & bottom were badly rusted at both ends anyway,
I had to chisel off the nuts to get the heads off.
Hope this helps.
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engine disassembly
Kip:
I am anything but an expert but a quick search turns up:
from:
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/message?sn=3D0&hit=3D140
"There has been considerable discussion on this matter on the list. The
consensus is that it is best to avoid rotating the studs when disassembling
the engine, and the reason has to do with how the studs were installed in
the first place. "
and
"at one time it was suggested that they all be turned
out and the case helicoiled to ensure tight threading of the studs into the
case. That advice has changed, because it's best to try to maintain the
existing stud-to-case fit."
and WW on the issue:
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/message?sn=3D0&hit=3D73
"The stock thread on these studs is not compatible with
helicoils. It is a special thread known as a 3/8NC5. The stock studs have a fairly
high tolerance for tool marks. Even studs with vise grip marks would pull
over 9,500 pounds in tension before permanently deforming."
some more postings of interest on the issue:
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/message?sn=3D0&hit=3D40
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/message?sn=3D0&hit=3D45
thanks:
michael silvius
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tim Willis <strategyguy536(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
Let me be more specific about Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil and stall speeds.
I am asking what you think. I am also clarifying my question with some added data.
>
> The "official sites" for the Piet and GN-1 show different data. The Piet site
("pressenter") addresses a 35 mph landing speed for the Piet, and the GN-1 ("gregagn")
site states that plane has a 25 mph stall speed.
1. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Is one site using "landing speed"
to mean the same as "stall speed"? Or is the 35 mph landing speed where the
Piet pilot cuts the power and flares, actually stalling in a perfect 3-point
at a lower speed (maybe even as low as 25 mph)? Which is it? What is likely
correct?
2. Has anyone personal comparative experience here, seeing Piets vs. GN-1s land,
or flying both? Have you at least heard hangar talk of comparative stall
speeds and landing speeds? What is your personal experience with testing stall
speeds on your craft, whatever its wing?
>
3. On the top end, The GN-1 site claims a 115 mph top speed, while the Piet site
claims 90 mph. Again, what do you think? Is the GN-1 115 mph claim for a "top
speed in level flight," or is that 115 mph really a VNE? Is there really an
apples-to-apples top speed difference?
4. Since the planes are otherwise so similar, I think any REAL differences (e.g.,
"apples-to-apples") pretty much must be attributed to the different shape
in the first 20 percent of their respective airfoils. Is it possible that this
one factor alone would really cause such changes? I can see some differences
in possible stall speeds, or at least more gentle stalls for the GN-1, but
more top end, too?
>
What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
WW suggests in his manual that unless the studs turn out or are pulled out or damaged
(rust) that they can be re-used in modest applications such as a pietenpol.
The top row of studs you're talking about shouldn't turn out and shouldn't
be damaged or rusted because they were continuously bathed in oil inside the
head. I have dissassembled several engines and the only studs which have turned
or been damaged in any way are the lower ones. Usually they're rusted pretty
badly. To make sure if one turns or not, take a white out brush and brush
on a mark on the outer part of the stud and engine case. The rocker studs in
the engines I've worked on have been pretty easy to remove without disturbing
the case / stud fit.
I plan to use my upper studs but replace most if not all of my lowers and helicoil
the lowers as well.
Lot's of opinions on this - do you have WW book? If not, get it, ask him questions...
He's happy to answer them and see that things are done right.
Tom B.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
Re: Pietenpol-List: Corvair engine disassemblyok
it apears that the links I used last night did not work.
but if you go to go to:
http://www.maddyhome.com/corvairsrch/index.jsp
and do a search on "cylinder head studs" it turns up a god bit of discussion on
the issue.
I tend to go directly to WW's posts and then follow up by steping back to the posting
he is responding, or making refference to.
On page 2 of the search: (# 41)
Lon of Corvairunderground writes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++
1) The threads on the block ends are a bit unusual in that they are
actually a form of self-tapping thread. All 12 studs on each side of the
case were installed into pre-drilled holes in one gang operation at the
factory. What this means is that a std 3/8-16 thread is not exactly a
correct repair.
It is not uncommon for attempted stud repairs to "go wrong". Part of
this is because the original method of stud installation yields a stud
that is normally quite secure in the block. Various attempts to remove a
stud and re-install it (whether with an insert or just simply screwing
back in) will almost never duplicate the same result. The factory
oversize studs were intended to be used where a stud had simply
unscrewed. In the case where a stud was actually stripped (or pulled)
out the factory answer was to get another block, rather than repair.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
regarding the removal of studs:
specifically look at: WW's
(#74 Apr 5, 2004)
The Mother Of All Head Stud Posts
he writes:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Typical Situations
Q: I disassembled my motor, and it came apart easily. Should I be worried
about my studs? None of them pulled out of the case.
A: No. In most cases, your studs would be perfectly fine. If you wish to
check them, you can borrow one of the tool sets from us.
Q: The upper row of nuts were rusted on my motor. I used a breaker bar and
impact wrench to take them off. Are my studs ok?
A: A lot of our testing says they're junk, and here's why: A stock head nut
can only take about 55 foot pounds of torque before the threads rip out. You
cannot damage a stud by overtightening it with a stock head nut. However, if the
two are rusted together, and you're using aggressive tools, the bond between
the rusty nut and stud can easily transmit several times this amount of torque
in reverse. We've found almost no weakened lower row studs, however,
virtually all the studs that have rusty tops pull like taffy, frequently stretching
25-30/1000 more at the same level of torque as an undamaged stud. These studs
are wounded by being removed with aggressive methods. If you put a wounded stud
back in, and simply put a piece of pipe on it and torque the nut, it will
torque to the 35 foot pounds, but you will be proving nothing. Such a weakened
stud will not exert the same clamping force on the head as the undamaged ones.
I
would suggest any stud that takes more than 50 foot pounds of torque in
reverse be looked at very carefully. Many people have seen Grace disassemble engines
with 1/2" air impact gun. This said, she knows the trick of hitting it
tighter for a moment and then reversing it. In either case, we now replace all
the
upper studs in all of our production engines.
Q: Should I use a stock or oversize stud if the stud unscrews from the case?
A: It depends on the fit. I'm a big advocate of Loctite 620 and it does a
fantastic job of holding somewhat loose studs in place, even at engine operating
temperatures. It seals the oil in the non blind holes also. I read one post
where someone mentioned helicoiling a hole, torquing a stud into it and getting
drag torque with a stock stud. As said previously, these are incompatible with
helicoils unless they're modified. Helicoiled holes will need Loctite 620 to
seal them in place, otherwise the stud would turn all the way into the case.
Q: The tops of my studs are rusty, but the nuts came off without twisting the
studs. Should I replace the studs?
A: Maybe not. A method to consider is milling the pad on the head where the
nut sits down 1/8" to get the new nut to operate entirely on the clean part of
the threads. We do this on a stud by stud basis on some engines. This may be
of particular interest to people building 3100s who wish to avoid any type of
mod to the base of the studs.
I saw a note where someone was commenting that it would be nice if someone
tested helicoils in the case, strength of studs, etc. Someone did this years ago
in great detail. There is no need for people to reinvent the wheel on this
sort of stuff, nor question my judgment. I tested to destruction every type of
stud and insert repair, every combination of fasteners and lubricants. If you
go back in the photos and look at my cam test rig, you'll notice that it is
built on a case that has 24 ripped out stud holes in it. I do not believe that
anyone else ever engaged in this type of testing, and correlated it to what
people in the field needed to know.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
on page 7 of the cylincer head studs search our friend Oscar Z in a posting listed
as:
corvaircraft: engine teardown
makes some of the salient points on the issue as well.
regards:
Michael Silvius
Scarborough, Maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com" <tmbrant1(at)netzero.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
my upper and lower are reversed.. to add to your confusion
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Tim,
Isn't the GN airfoil a Piper Cub airfoil (USA 35-b)?
Michael Shuck wrote a Airfoil analyses between Pietenpol and Piper.
See the matronics archives or the File share list, Ken Chambers listed it
there in April of 2005.
It does not address the stall-landing speed issue but is very interesting
reading.
My Pietenpol stalls at about 28 Mph. (on Pitot tube ASI)
But how accurate is my ASI ?
I have made my own Johnson type Air speed indicator.
And also have a panel mounted ASI with the traditional Pitot tube.
The Johnson type, I calibrated by sticking it out of the window of a car.
The Pitot tube ASI is calibrated by the factory.
They both read different.
As does my GPS speed which is of course is measuring ground speed, but none
the less averaging up wind and down wind speeds do not produce the same
readings as the ASI's either.
But they are all within 10% of each other, which to me is OK.
Long story short, Air Speed measuring accuracy is subject to instrument
used and slow speeds are difficult to measure, 25 Mph vs 35 Mph both are
very, very slow.
I would consider the 35 Mph as minimum controllable airspeed and a rough
guide for test flying your own Pietenpol.
In normal flight I use a 55 Mph approach speed (on Base and Final) which
gives me a good glide (with part throttle) and good response over all
controls.
When 6 feet over the runway cut the power to idle and the speed bleeds off
quickly, she settles down at around 30 Mph.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
That is identical to my N3 Pup ultralight aircraft which is 3/4 the size
of a cub.In all other aspects is the same as a cub.Interesting.
Hans Vander Voort wrote:
>
>
> Tim,
>
> Isn't the GN airfoil a Piper Cub airfoil (USA 35-b)?
>
> Michael Shuck wrote a Airfoil analyses between Pietenpol and Piper.
> See the matronics archives or the File share list, Ken Chambers listed it
> there in April of 2005.
>
> It does not address the stall-landing speed issue but is very interesting
> reading.
>
> My Pietenpol stalls at about 28 Mph. (on Pitot tube ASI)
> But how accurate is my ASI ?
> I have made my own Johnson type Air speed indicator.
> And also have a panel mounted ASI with the traditional Pitot tube.
> The Johnson type, I calibrated by sticking it out of the window of a car.
> The Pitot tube ASI is calibrated by the factory.
> They both read different.
>
> As does my GPS speed which is of course is measuring ground speed, but none
> the less averaging up wind and down wind speeds do not produce the same
> readings as the ASI's either.
>
> But they are all within 10% of each other, which to me is OK.
> Long story short, Air Speed measuring accuracy is subject to instrument
> used and slow speeds are difficult to measure, 25 Mph vs 35 Mph both are
> very, very slow.
>
> I would consider the 35 Mph as minimum controllable airspeed and a rough
> guide for test flying your own Pietenpol.
> In normal flight I use a 55 Mph approach speed (on Base and Final) which
> gives me a good glide (with part throttle) and good response over all
> controls.
> When 6 feet over the runway cut the power to idle and the speed bleeds off
> quickly, she settles down at around 30 Mph.
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
early Gn-1's used a piper cub wing. some still opt to do that but most use the
modifed Piet airfoil that is shown in the plans. The differences are in the
leading edge of the airfoil. the GN-1 uses a more bluntly rounded edge. other
than that the profile is the same. wing spar locations and other structural
dimensions are different but the overall shape is very close to a Piet airfoil
DJ Vegh
Dir. of Web Development
Editor - Animator - Digital Artist
Larry John Wright, Inc.
1045 E. University Dr.
Mesa, AZ 85203
480.833.8111 - Office
602.743.5768 - Mobile
"The Nation's Number One Retail Advertising Agency"
Achieving Big Time Results for Local and Regional Retailers
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Yesterday I placed one of my completed Piet ribs over a recently acquired full-scale
GN-1 wing rib drawing. I was impressed by the differences at the leading
edge and the next 5" back. I know that the GN-1 folks claim slower stalls
with their wing, based only on this difference. Do you know what they really
claim, and has anyone been able to verify differences?
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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 for matted
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.2006-03-06.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.txt
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 03/06/06: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Hans Va nder Voort)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (harvey rule)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
From: Hans Vander Voort
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
ngwood.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. H e said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:59:32 AM P ST US
From: harvey rule
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be wort h it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or sp lit landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> th at skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found that they
had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking through
but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece. I also
asked if they could get clear and they said the best they could get is #1. I'm
a carpenter so I know something about wood, but my question is, can ponderosa
pine or radiata pine be used? They have a very good selection of doug fir
also. If doug fir is used, where can you downsize to eliminate some weight, or
can you? Also, one last question. Since only recently catching the piet bug
and short on funds right now, where can I find a description of the parts that
I don't know, like spars and longerons and such. Thanks for your help. I'll
see y'all in the skies someday
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
Tim,
All I can add is that in the early flight phase, just me (no passenger)with 10
gallons of fuel in the nose tank, my stall speed was 37mph.
Pietenpol Aircamper built to the prints, empty weight 595#
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list-digest(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:59 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question
Let me be more specific about Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil and stall speeds.
I am asking what you think. I am also clarifying my question with some added
data.
>
> The "official sites" for the Piet and GN-1 show different data. The Piet site
("pressenter") addresses a 35 mph landing speed for the Piet, and the GN-1
("gregagn") site states that plane has a 25 mph stall speed.
1. Is this an apples-to-apples comparison? Is one site using "landing speed"
to mean the same as "stall speed"? Or is the 35 mph landing speed where the
Piet pilot cuts the power and flares, actually stalling in a perfect 3-point
at a lower speed (maybe even as low as 25 mph)? Which is it? What is likely
correct?
2. Has anyone personal comparative experience here, seeing Piets vs. GN-1s land,
or flying both? Have you at least heard h angar talk of comparative stall
speeds and landing speeds? What is your personal experience with testing stall
speeds on your craft, whatever its wing?
>
3. On the top end, The GN-1 site claims a 115 mph top speed, while the Piet
site
claims 90 mph. Again, what do you think? Is the GN-1 115 mph claim for a "top
speed in level flight," or is that 115 mph really a VNE? Is there really an
apples-to-apples top speed difference?
4. Since the planes are otherwise so similar, I think any REAL differences (e.g.,
"apples-to-apples") pretty much must be attributed to the different shape
in the first 20 percent of their respective airfoils. Is it possible that this
one factor alone would really cause such changes? I can see some differences
in possible stall speeds, or at least more gentle stalls for the GN-1, but
more top end, too?
>
What do you think?
Thanks,
Tim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Corvair engine disassembly |
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, "tmbrant1(at)netzero.com"
>
>
>WW suggests in his manual that unless the studs turn out or are
>pulled out or damaged (rust) that they can be re-used in modest
>applications such as a pietenpol. The top row of studs you're
>talking about shouldn't turn out and shouldn't be damaged or rusted
>because they were continuously bathed in oil inside the head. I
>have dissassembled several engines and the only studs which have
>turned or been damaged in any way are the lower ones. Usually
>they're rusted pretty badly. To make sure if one turns or not, take
>a white out brush and brush on a mark on the outer part of the stud
>and engine case. The rocker studs in the engines I've worked on
>have been pretty easy to remove without disturbing the case / stud
>fit.
>
>I plan to use my upper studs but replace most if not all of my
>lowers and helicoil the lowers as well.
>
>Lot's of opinions on this - do you have WW book? If not, get it,
>ask him questions... He's happy to answer them and see that things
>are done right.
>
>Tom B.
OK!
Lots of opinons here, so I guess everyone can do what they feel
comfortable with. But, to reiterate, my previous post was base on
what WW told all of us in June 2005 at Corvair College # 7 (the one
held at my EAA Chapter clubhouse in Alliance, OH). To the best of my
recollection, there was not a single engine case there that had not
had the studs removed. Based on Jim Ash's comments, and William's
apparent preference for doing this (based on what he recommended we
all do), I personally wouldn't not pull & replace the studs. Yeah,
new studs add a hundred-plus bucks to the rebuild, but given that
with the Corvair, you'd be hard pressed to spend even 1/2 the cost of
an A65 overhaul unless you were going with the large-cylinder version
or adding a turbo, 5th bearing, etc. it's just not worth NOT doing it.
As far as I'm concerned, the keys to doing this right, based on that
event were:
Retapping the holes using the 'homemade' tap/stud tool.
Setting ALL the studs in LocTite 620, not just studs that were
heli-coiled because of stripped holes.
My 2nd 2cents
Kip
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | mystery plane in Manhattan |
Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my employer.
what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
Manhattan?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | mystery plane in Manhattan |
I think the more important question is - why are those two brownish
buildings leaning into the others?
I think you've come across some funky composite or Photoshopped image (...
maybe even created by the DeeJ himself???)
>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:56:57 -0700
>
>Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
>employer.
>
>what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
>Manhattan?
>
><< plane_manhattan.jpg >>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
That's odd. Did you find that on Google earth? It looks like a biplane.
Perhaps it is a kids playground? Who knows?
Believe it or not, there is a photo of downtown Manhattan taken from a
Pietenpol.... It was published in one of the 1980's BPA calendars. In the photo,
the Piet is well below the top floor... probably about 70 floors up... just
puttering along among the sky-scrapers.
Anyone on the list know the story behind that Piet Photo?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
I promise... I did nothing to the image. it's for all to see if you google
earth manhattan. The buildings are likely leaning in towards another
because the image is a composite of two or more photos taken from different
sattelites at different times.
wierd wierd wierd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 8:41 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
>
>
> I think the more important question is - why are those two brownish
> buildings leaning into the others?
>
> I think you've come across some funky composite or Photoshopped image (...
> maybe even created by the DeeJ himself???)
>
>
>>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
>>Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 12:56:57 -0700
>>
>>Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
>>employer.
>>
>>what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
>>Manhattan?
>>
>
>
>><< plane_manhattan.jpg >>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
I believe the Pietenpol was flying along the Hudson River corridor and not among
the skyscapers.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: BARNSTMR(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 9:41 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
That's odd. Did you find that on Google earth? It looks like a biplane. Perhaps
it is a kids playground? Who knows?
Believe it or not, there is a photo of downtown Manhattan taken from a Pietenpol....
It was published in one of the 1980's BPA calendars. In the photo, the
Piet is well below the top floor... probably about 70 floors up... just puttering
along among the sky-scrapers.
Anyone on the list know the story behind that Piet Photo?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
Never mind what's it doing there;who has the balls of steel to land
there?!
DJ Vegh wrote:
>
> Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my employer.
>
> what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
> Manhattan?
>
> Name: plane_manhattan.jpg
> plane_manhattan.jpg Type: JPEG Image (image/jpeg)
> Encoding: base64
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Steve,
If they don't call it Sitka, it is probably White spruce. White spruce is about
93% as strong as Sitka. I used #1 White spruce for my Piet (has NOT flown yet)
except for the spars, longerons, wing tip bows and 3 uprights in the fuse sides,
used doug fir, full size, for these things.
If you can do your own grading that spruce sounds like a good deal.
Skip, see you all at Sun n Fun wood shop
----- Original Message -----
found that they had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking
through but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Glass" <redsglass(at)hotmail.com> |
Hi Steve
I have also been keeping an eye open each time I go to the lumber yard.
Maine seemed to have a lot of good choices and I bought some 2x8 x 16 ft and
stored them in my garage. I'm currently in Ontario oregon and have only
seen 1 2x6 x8 that was suitable. Most of the wood I have seen out here is
new quick growth stock but much more fir available than back east. Where
are you located?
Steve G
>From: "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:50:50 -0600
>
>Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found that
>they had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking
>through but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars
>apiece. I also asked if they could get clear and they said the best they
>could get is #1. I'm a carpenter so I know something about wood, but my
>question is, can ponderosa pine or radiata pine be used? They have a very
>good selection of doug fir also. If doug fir is used, where can you
>downsize to eliminate some weight, or can you? Also, one last question.
>Since only recently catching the piet bug and short on funds right now,
>where can I find a description of the parts that I don't know, like spars
>and longerons and such. Thanks for your help. I'll see y'all in the skies
>someday
>
>Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
We do quite a bit of work in NYC, and when you are maybe 60 or so stories up
you see some strange sights. There are alot of odd people with alot of
money who do some strange things. Some roofs have full lawns/shrubs/ and
trees, where if you were sitting there, you'd swear you were in a yard in
Vermont.
I even saw giant painted bird footprints going all the way across the roof
like an 80ft. pidgeon landed there.
Just like we've all seen pics of an airplane on the roof of a diner, this
guy took a lower building and created a scene that literally millions of
people in the other buildings can look down at and smile.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 2:56 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
> Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
> employer.
>
> what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
> Manhattan?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I wanna build |
Steve,
I'm in Lake Geneva, WI. What species of spruce? I think this is white.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Glass" <redsglass(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>
>
> Hi Steve
>
> I have also been keeping an eye open each time I go to the lumber yard.
> Maine seemed to have a lot of good choices and I bought some 2x8 x 16 ft
> and stored them in my garage. I'm currently in Ontario oregon and have
> only seen 1 2x6 x8 that was suitable. Most of the wood I have seen out
> here is new quick growth stock but much more fir available than back east.
> Where are you located?
>
> Steve G
>>From: "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
>>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>To:
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>>Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2006 12:50:50 -0600
>>
>>Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found
>>that they had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in
>>picking through but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23
>>dollars apiece. I also asked if they could get clear and they said the
>>best they could get is #1. I'm a carpenter so I know something about
>>wood, but my question is, can ponderosa pine or radiata pine be used?
>>They have a very good selection of doug fir also. If doug fir is used,
>>where can you downsize to eliminate some weight, or can you? Also, one
>>last question. Since only recently catching the piet bug and short on
>>funds right now, where can I find a description of the parts that I don't
>>know, like spars and longerons and such. Thanks for your help. I'll see
>>y'all in the skies someday
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
Dear DJ and the Rest of The Guys:
I've been following, with great interest, your discussions of airfoils vis-a-vis
GN-1 vs. Piet. But my initial question still stands unanswered: Why are the
rear cabane struts of a GN-1 (plans) longer than the front ones-thereby positioning
the leading edge of the wing at a, presumably, negative angle of attack
during level flight? Do you fellows think I should keep to the plans, or alter
the dimensions of the cabanes to, at least, place the leading edge of the
wing in some degree of positive angle of attack during level flight?
Yours sincerely,
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
early Gn-1's used a piper cub wing. some still opt to do that but most use the
modifed Piet airfoil that is shown in the plans. The differences are in the
leading edge of the airfoil. the GN-1 uses a more bluntly rounded edge. other
than that the profile is the same. wing spar locations and other structural
dimensions are different but the overall shape is very close to a Piet airfoil
DJ Vegh
Dir. of Web Development
Editor - Animator - Digital Artist
Larry John Wright, Inc.
1045 E. University Dr.
Mesa, AZ 85203
480.833.8111 - Office
602.743.5768 - Mobile
"The Nation's Number One Retail Advertising Agency"
Achieving Big Time Results for Local and Regional Retailers
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Yesterday I placed one of my completed Piet ribs over a recently acquired full-scale
GN-1 wing rib drawing. I was impressed by the differences at the leading
edge and the next 5" back. I know that the GN-1 folks claim slower stalls
with their wing, based only on this difference. Do you know what they really
claim, and has anyone been able to verify differences?
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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 for matted
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.2006-03-06.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.txt
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 03/06/06: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Hans Va nder Voort)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (harvey rule)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
From: Hans Vander Voort
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and
we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
ngwood.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. H e said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:59:32 AM P ST US
From: harvey rule
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be wort h it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or sp lit landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> th at skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I wanna build |
----- Original Message -----
From: "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>
>
> Steve,
>
> I'm in Lake Geneva, WI. What species of spruce? I think this is white.
>
> Steve
Just curious. I flew out of that area a long time ago. Are the Americana
and Lake Lawn Lodge airports still open? Used to be great places to go
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
Cinda + Skip Gadd
csfog(at)earthlink.net
----- Original Message -----
From: Cinda Gadd
Sent: 3/9/2006 8:12:47 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
Steve,
If they don't call it Sitka, it is probably White spruce. White spruce is about
93% as strong as Sitka. I used #1 White spruce for my Piet (has NOT flown yet)
except for the spars, longerons, wing tip bows and 3 uprights in the fuse sides,
used doug fir, full size, for these things.
If you can do your own grading that spruce sounds like a good deal.
Skip, see you all at Sun n Fun wood shop
----- Original Message -----
found that they had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking
through but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece.
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Wizzard187(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
Alan, If you take a rib and put flat on the ground it will have angle of
incidence because the thrust line runs from the rear tip of the rib to the
center of the radius on the front. (I hope) Ken Conrad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
Hi Alan,
Changing the cabane length won't affect the airfoil AOA. It will change the fuselage
angle relative to the airfoil.
GN's appear to fly noticeably tail low compared to Pietenpol's.
I'm not familiar enough with the GN plans to discuss the merits, or problems, of
changing the cabane lengths.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Dear DJ and the Rest of The Guys:
I've been following, with great interest, your discussions of airfoils vis-a-vis
GN-1 vs. Piet. But my initial question still stands unanswered: Why are
the rear cabane struts of a GN-1 (plans) longer than the front ones-thereby positioning
the leading edge of the wing at a, presumably, negative angle of attack
during level flight? Do you fellows think I should keep to the plans, or
alter the dimensions of the cabanes to, at least, place the leading edge of the
wing in some degree of positive angle of attack during level flight?
Yours sincerely,
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: DJ Vegh
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
early Gn-1's used a piper cub wing. some still opt to do that but most use
the modifed Piet airfoil that is shown in the plans. The differences are in
the leading edge of the airfoil. the GN-1 uses a more bluntly rounded edge.
other than that the profile is the same. wing spar locations and other structural
dimensions are different but the overall shape is very close to a Piet airfoil
DJ Vegh
Dir. of Web Development
Editor - Animator - Digital Artist
Larry John Wright, Inc.
1045 E. University Dr.
Mesa, AZ 85203
480.833.8111 - Office
602.743.5768 - Mobile
"The Nation's Number One Retail Advertising Agency"
Achieving Big Time Results for Local and Regional Retailers
-
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Willis
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Yesterday I placed one of my completed Piet ribs over a recently acquired
full-scale GN-1 wing rib drawing. I was impressed by the differences at the
leading edge and the next 5" back. I know that the GN-1 folks claim slower stalls
with their wing, based only on this difference. Do you know what they really
claim, and has anyone been able to verify differences?
Thanks,
Tim
Pietenpol-List Digest Server wrote:
*
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Online Versions of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
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 for matted
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.2006-03-06.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.2006-03-06.txt
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 03/06/06: 4
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:51 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Hans Va nder Voort)
2. 07:44 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
3. 07:59 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (harvey rule)
4. 09:10 AM - Re: Landing on paved runways (Galen Hutcheson)
________________________________ Message 1 _____________________________________
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
From: Hans Vander Voort
Glenn,
Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a tailskid ?
The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only a tailskid, some of
us
still build them that way, but they are hard to handle on paved runways.
The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass runway.
If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel are a must have.
Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and brakes and tailwheel)
as I liked the looks of it.
But straight or split landing gear should make no difference on paved or
grass.
For safety sake you should have brakes and a tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in the 21st Century and
we
should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons learned.
Keep on Building
Hans
"Glenn Thomas"
ngwood.com> To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved
runways
03/03/2006 09:58
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
At the last EAA meeting I talked with our DAR (who tried to talk me out
of
building a Piet) and he said he landed the one that he test flew last year
on a paved runway. H e said there aren't any grass strips in Connecticut.
I haven't heard of anyone doing this yet. Would the J3 cub style landing
gear (like Chuck has on his plane) be a must for this type of scenario?
--------
Glenn Thomas
N?????
http://www.flyingwood.com
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
________________________________ Message 2 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
Extra work to do but will be worth it to me as I plan
to do a lot of traveling.
Doc (H)
--- Hans Vander Voort
wrote:
> Voort
>
> Glenn,
>
> Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> tailskid ?
> The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> a tailskid, some of us
> still build them that way, but they are hard to
> handle on paved runways.
> The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> runway.
> If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> are a must have.
>
> Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> brakes and tailwheel)
> as I liked the looks of it.
> But straight or split landing gear should make no
> difference on paved or
> grass.
>
> For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> tailwheel.
It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> the 21st Century and we
> should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> learned.
>
> Keep on Building
>
> Hans
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> browse
> Subscriptions page,
> FAQ,
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
> Admin.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 3 _____________________________________
Time: 07:59:32 AM P ST US
From: harvey rule
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and jetison the
tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass and you encounter a
paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change that skid to a wheel
while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to take off with
skids,they go all over the place,no control.You would be better to
install a wheel lock.
Galen Hutcheson wrote:
>
>
> I'm building mine with and interchangeable tailskid
> and steerable tailwheel. It will be a quick change
> and I can use the skid on grass runways and the wheel
> when traveling when paved runways may be encountered.
> Extra work to do but will be wort h it to me as I plan
> to do a lot of traveling.
>
> Doc (H)
>
> --- Hans Vander Voort
> wrote:
>
> > Voort
> >
> > Glenn,
> >
> > Did your DAR fly a Pietenpol without brakes and a
> > tailskid ?
> > The classic 1930's Pietenpol had no brakes and only
> > a tailskid, some of us
> > still build them that way, but they are hard to
> > handle on paved runways.
> > The skid works (almost) as a brake but only on grass
> > runway.
> > If you fly from paved runways brakes and a tailwheel
> > are a must have.
> >
> > Personally I chose to go with spit landing gear (and
> > brakes and tailwheel)
> > as I liked the looks of it.
> > But straight or sp lit landing gear should make no
> > difference on paved or
> > grass.
> >
> > For safety sake you should have brakes and a
> > tailwheel.
> > It is nice to be authentic 1930's but we are now in
> > the 21st Century and we
> > should allow ourselves to take advantage of lessons
> > learned.
> >
> > Keep on Building
> >
> > Hans
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Read this topic online here:
> >
> >
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > browse
> > Subscriptions page,
> > FAQ,
> > http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> >
> > Admin.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________ Message 4 _____________________________________
From: Galen Hutcheson
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Landing on paved runways
Harvey, been there-done that. I have had a couple of
planes (both antique bipes that origionally came out
with tail skids and later converted to wheels) and I
really liked the set up. Like I said, if I am heading
off cross country, then I put the tailwheel on. I
only flew the skid at the grass location. But I have
landed a skid on pavement (but I had differential
brakes) and it wasn't all that bad. With a skid, you
use the rudder as the steering device. If you need to
change direction of travel while the skid in on the
ground, you give a blast from the prop to make the
rudder more effective. It takes a lot more skill than
a tailwheel, but as I said earlier, practice,
practice, practice...
Don't care much for tailwheel locks...but that's
another story.
Doc (H)
--- harvey rule wrote:
>
>
> You would be better to stick with the tail wheel and
> jetison the
> tailskid.What happens when you take off from grass
> and you encounter a
> paved run way.Who is going to climb out and change
> th at skid to a wheel
> while in mid fight.Besides,I've seen guys trying to
> take off with
> skids,they go all over the place,no control.You
> would be better to
> install a wheel lock.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Read this topic online here:
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=3D19358#19358
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I wanna build |
Mark,
Yea, they're both open but Americana is now Grand Geneva and it's a huge
place with an indoor water park and some really fine amenities. LLL is
still the same.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
>
>
>>
>>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I'm in Lake Geneva, WI. What species of spruce? I think this is white.
>>
>> Steve
>
> Just curious. I flew out of that area a long time ago. Are the Americana
> and Lake Lawn Lodge airports still open? Used to be great places to go
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | plans and modifications |
I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there cad
drawings? Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
Diesel powered piet
http://www.wilksch.com/
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I wanna build |
Steve
If you want to consider using Sitka, you are close to McCormack lumber on the southe
end of Madison, Wi. They usually have a good selection.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Schuerrs
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found that they
had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking through
but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece. I also
asked if they could get clear and they said the best they could get is #1.
I'm a carpenter so I know something about wood, but my question is, can ponderosa
pine or radiata pine be used? They have a very good selection of doug fir
also. If doug fir is used, where can you downsize to eliminate some weight,
or can you? Also, one last question. Since only recently catching the piet
bug and short on funds right now, where can I find a description of the parts
that I don't know, like spars and longerons and such. Thanks for your help.
I'll see y'all in the skies someday
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: I wanna build |
Dick,
Very cool. Thanks
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
Steve
If you want to consider using Sitka, you are close to McCormack lumber on the
southe end of Madison, Wi. They usually have a good selection.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: The Schuerrs
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 12:50 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: I wanna build
Hello everyone, I went to my local VERY high end lumber yard and found that
they had about 50 16' long spruce 1x12. There's a lot of work in picking through
but there's definitely useable wood. And get this 23 dollars apiece. I
also asked if they could get clear and they said the best they could get is #1.
I'm a carpenter so I know something about wood, but my question is, can ponderosa
pine or radiata pine be used? They have a very good selection of doug
fir also. If doug fir is used, where can you downsize to eliminate some weight,
or can you? Also, one last question. Since only recently catching the piet
bug and short on funds right now, where can I find a description of the parts
that I don't know, like spars and longerons and such. Thanks for your help.
I'll see y'all in the skies someday
Steve
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil |
this may sound wierd but front/rear cabane length relationships are not what they
seem when determining AOI.
what really counts is the chord line of the airfoil. it's possible that you could
have a rear cabane that is 10" longer than the front cabane and still have
0=B0 AOI. How? if the front wing spar plates were REALLY long and made the
up for the difference in length.
This is what is going on in a GN-1. The wing spar plates are of different dimensions
between chord line and attach point of the cabane. look closely and do
the math and it all becomes clear.
DJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Piet vs. GN-1 airfoil
Alan, If you take a rib and put flat on the ground it will have angle of incidence
because the thrust line runs from the rear tip of the rib to the center
of the radius on the front. (I hope) Ken Conrad
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
Question:
I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there cad
drawings? Thanks.
Answer:
Lets see the plans that I know of for sale are:
The original plans in the Flying and Glider Magazine, reprints available from the
EAA (Expensive Aircraft Association)
The Improved Pietenpol plans from Don Pietenpol or is it his son Andrew (?) selling
them now.
The British Pietenpol plans are not available in USA, liability concerns.
Then there are the GN-1 plans, which WAS NOT designed by Pietenpol but by John
Grega. Even though the GN-looks like a Piet, the GN-1 has some significant differences
and is not a Pietenpol its a Grega. I here they are good planes, maybe
slightly heavier. I understand the GN-1 plans have recently been re-drawn in
CAD.
There is the Pietenpol knock-off that was sold by some other company, but I cant
remember the name right now.
Keri-Ann's Price's plans are for subcomponents not the whole plane and seem expensive.
I have not see their quality but I would imagine they are good based
on the plane she built.
I personally have the Improved Pietenpol plans from Don and the Grega GN-1 plans.
I think the Pietenpol plans are way better to understand. Not perfect but
after a while you realize everything you need in on there. I think it's cool to
build from the old plans. I would recommend them and besides this way you are
building a true Pietenpol. No offence GN-1 guys
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
Chris,
Thanks, seems to make sense. Do you have a three piece wing?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Catdesign
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: plans and modifications
Question:
I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there
cad drawings? Thanks.
Answer:
Lets see the plans that I know of for sale are:
The original plans in the Flying and Glider Magazine, reprints available from
the EAA (Expensive Aircraft Association)
The Improved Pietenpol plans from Don Pietenpol or is it his son Andrew (?) selling
them now.
The British Pietenpol plans are not available in USA, liability concerns.
Then there are the GN-1 plans, which WAS NOT designed by Pietenpol but by John
Grega. Even though the GN-looks like a Piet, the GN-1 has some significant
differences and is not a Pietenpol its a Grega. I here they are good planes, maybe
slightly heavier. I understand the GN-1 plans have recently been re-drawn
in CAD.
There is the Pietenpol knock-off that was sold by some other company, but I cant
remember the name right now.
Keri-Ann's Price's plans are for subcomponents not the whole plane and seem expensive.
I have not see their quality but I would imagine they are good based
on the plane she built.
I personally have the Improved Pietenpol plans from Don and the Grega GN-1 plans.
I think the Pietenpol plans are way better to understand. Not perfect but
after a while you realize everything you need in on there. I think it's cool
to build from the old plans. I would recommend them and besides this way you
are building a true Pietenpol. No offence GN-1 guys
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
Yes I have the 3-piece wing plans form Vi Kapler, purchased from Don. Guess I
should say there are also the Long fuselage supplemental plans available from
Don.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: The Schuerrs
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: plans and modifications
Chris,
Thanks, seems to make sense. Do you have a three piece wing?
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Catdesign
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 11:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: plans and modifications
Question:
I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there
cad drawings? Thanks.
Answer:
Lets see the plans that I know of for sale are:
The original plans in the Flying and Glider Magazine, reprints available from
the EAA (Expensive Aircraft Association)
The Improved Pietenpol plans from Don Pietenpol or is it his son Andrew (?)
selling them now.
The British Pietenpol plans are not available in USA, liability concerns.
Then there are the GN-1 plans, which WAS NOT designed by Pietenpol but by John
Grega. Even though the GN-looks like a Piet, the GN-1 has some significant
differences and is not a Pietenpol its a Grega. I here they are good planes,
maybe slightly heavier. I understand the GN-1 plans have recently been re-drawn
in CAD.
There is the Pietenpol knock-off that was sold by some other company, but I
cant remember the name right now.
Keri-Ann's Price's plans are for subcomponents not the whole plane and seem
expensive. I have not see their quality but I would imagine they are good based
on the plane she built.
I personally have the Improved Pietenpol plans from Don and the Grega GN-1
plans. I think the Pietenpol plans are way better to understand. Not perfect
but after a while you realize everything you need in on there. I think it's cool
to build from the old plans. I would recommend them and besides this way you
are building a true Pietenpol. No offence GN-1 guys
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Pietenpol "knock-offs" |
"Catdesign" wrote-
>There is the Pietenpol knock-off that was sold by some other company,
>but I cant remember the name right now.
I may be mistaken, but that might be Chad Wille's "St. Croix Aircraft"
offering, which I understand is simply the Flying & Glider Manual plans run
off on a copier. If I'm wrong about this, I apologize in advance.
(PS- although I own all of the Flying & Glider manual reprints, my plans and
supplements were proudly purchased directly from the Pietenpol family!)
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: | Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
For Pietenpol Air Camper Plans: http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp/
For GN-1 Aircamper Plans: http://www.gregagn-1.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve" <redsglass(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
I wonder if anybody is going to convert the new Honda diesel to fly.
Steve G
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Catdesign
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 8:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
Diesel powered piet
http://www.wilksch.com/
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
Hey, Mike-
I think I pointed this out before, but this site-
http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm
purportedly showing the "St. Croix Aircraft Pietenpol Aircamper", has a
picture of your Piet as the display image.
"People feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and
say anything to you, of any kind of natureand it wont hurt your
feelingslike its happening to your clothing." --Marilyn Monroe
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: Diesel powered piet |
How much does it weigh?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
Cc: Oscar Zuniga
Mike,
I suppose you would have to assume that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
When you have the most visually recognizable Piet out there it's bound
to happen. That doesn't excuse them though for advertising their product with
your work.
---- Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> Hey, Mike-
>
> I think I pointed this out before, but this site-
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm
> purportedly showing the "St. Croix Aircraft Pietenpol Aircamper", has a
> picture of your Piet as the display image.
>
> "People feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you and
> say anything to you, of any kind of natureand it wont hurt your
> feelingslike its happening to your clothing." --Marilyn Monroe
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
Correction..That doesn't excuse them from advertiseing someone else's
product (The Pietenpol Families' plans) with your workmanship...Ed G.
>From: <glennthomas(at)charter.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>CC: Oscar Zuniga
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web
>Sites
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 7:26:15 -0800
>
>
>Mike,
>I suppose you would have to assume that imitation is the sincerest form of
>flattery. When you have the most visually recognizable Piet out there it's
>bound to happen. That doesn't excuse them though for advertising their
>product with your work.
>
>---- Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> >
> > Hey, Mike-
> >
> > I think I pointed this out before, but this site-
> > http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm
> > purportedly showing the "St. Croix Aircraft Pietenpol Aircamper", has a
> > picture of your Piet as the display image.
> >
> > "People feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you
>and
> > say anything to you, of any kind of natureand it wont hurt your
> > feelingslike its happening to your clothing." --Marilyn Monroe
> >
> > Oscar Zuniga
> > San Antonio, TX
> > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Martens <gary_martens(at)umanitoba.ca> |
| Subject: | bracing wire tape |
Do you tie the bracing wires together in the wing where they cross? If
so, tape? What kind of tape? gary martens, manitoba, canada
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
True
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:36 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web
Sites
>
>
> Correction..That doesn't excuse them from advertiseing someone else's
> product (The Pietenpol Families' plans) with your workmanship...Ed G.
>
> >From: <glennthomas(at)charter.net>
> >Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >CC: Oscar Zuniga
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web
> >Sites
> >Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 7:26:15 -0800
> >
> >
> >Mike,
> >I suppose you would have to assume that imitation is the sincerest form
of
> >flattery. When you have the most visually recognizable Piet out there
it's
> >bound to happen. That doesn't excuse them though for advertising their
> >product with your work.
> >
> >---- Oscar Zuniga wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hey, Mike-
> > >
> > > I think I pointed this out before, but this site-
> > > http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm
> > > purportedly showing the "St. Croix Aircraft Pietenpol Aircamper", has
a
> > > picture of your Piet as the display image.
> > >
> > > "People feel fame gives them some kind of privilege to walk up to you
> >and
> > > say anything to you, of any kind of nature-and it won't hurt your
> > > feelings-like it's happening to your clothing." --Marilyn Monroe
> > >
> > > Oscar Zuniga
> > > San Antonio, TX
> > > mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> > > website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | bracing wire tape |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
I used nylon cable ties
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gary
Martens
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: bracing wire tape
Do you tie the bracing wires together in the wing where they cross? If
so, tape? What kind of tape? gary martens, manitoba, canada
Working together. For life.(sm)
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use
of the email by you is prohibited.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
Guys-- I agree with you all completely.
I have a lousy feeling about this Chad Willie guy anyway, but I've never
given him flack for using my photo for his
advertisement. I'm not sure what he's been up to all these years by
exploiting the Pietenpol family, but that is between
him and our maker. I might ruffle his feathers offline just to see what
his response is.
My feeling is that if he doesn't give a flip what the Pietenpol family,
God, or Pietenpol enthusiasts think of him, then he
probably has no regard for what we think of him.
Mike C.
please archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vote John Bell <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
I'm almost finished with the woodworking phase on my GN-1 built from the CAD plans.
The full-size fittings are great, but there some serious errors in the airframe
drawings that have caused me endless grief. They probably happened in
the conversion to CAD and were not caught in the editing process. Also, there
are no illustrations or 3D drawings that would be extremely helpful. As a result
I
use the proven community standard Piet plans.
My two cents -- good luck.
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: The Schuerrs <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
>Sent: Mar 9, 2006 8:17 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
>
>I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there cad
drawings? Thanks.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: bracing wire tape |
The AME that is working with me,manufactured silver dollar sized nylon
discs that he drilled holes into and we wired the disc in the middle
between the two cables.We just used safety wire for this application.The
discs are only about 1/16 width.
Gary Martens wrote:
>
>
> Do you tie the bracing wires together in the wing where they cross? If
> so, tape? What kind of tape? gary martens, manitoba, canada
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: GN-1 vs. Piet Airfoil-- rephrase the Question |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Yesterday evening it was perfect spring flying weather here in Texas, no
need for winter gear and light wind.
Took my Pietenpol up and decided to fly a track to compare GPS and ASI's
more accurately.
I flew a triangular track with 1 mile each leg and a constant speed of 60
Mph on my cockpit ASI.
I flew the track twice with the same speed.
Started the track with my handheld GPS (Garmin E-trex Vista) and resetting
the trip log.
The trip log gives you an average speed over a track.
The results where as follows:
Cockpit (Pitot) ASI 60 Mph
Johnson (home made) ASI 67 Mph
GPS average over track 65 Mph
In a previous e-mail a stated a stall speed of 28 Mph (Cockpit ASI) but
most likely my Factory calibrated Cockpit ASI is reading a bout 5 Mph to
low.
And stall speed is closer to 33 Mph.
At least the Cockpit ASI is indicating lower than actual, its error is on
the safe side.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: bracing wire tape |
Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Gary,
I used chaffing tape, left over from the covering process, the fabric tape
that goes underneath the poly fiber and over sharp metal corners.
Wrapped the tape around the cables a few times and then tied it all up
with safety wire.
You want to avoid metal to metal (cable to cable) contact as it could wear
out the cable.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | cable crossing locations |
Gary in Canada,
If you go to Home Depot, Lowes, or the aquarium section of the Wal Mart pet
department, you'll find Tygon clear
plastic flexible tubing. You can cut two small lengths of that and then
slice them longways so they open up like
a hot dog bun. You slip those over each cable where they X cross and then
use small zip ties or tye-wraps around
the affair in the center. Keeps the cables from rubbing against each
other and the zip tie keeps the tubing in place.
I simply used leftover 1/4" black plastic tubing that I had for when I ran
my pitot tube hose out to the wing. Works just
as good.
Another place to protect the cables from each other is in your wings---the
drag and anti-drag cables or rods where they cross
in the various wing bays.
Mike C.
PS---- I little tip on running your airspeed flexible plastic tubing----- I
was able to hide my tubing 100% by running it from my
ASI backside out up, under, and THRU the middle of one of my rear cabane
struts up into the wing center section ! All I did
was chamfer a little 45 degree nip from the backside bottom of one of the
cabanes on a grinding wheel, filed and sanded the edges
smooth (as per Tony B. and metalworking musts) and it allowed for the
tubing to be routed right up there, sight unseen.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | stall speed/ gps compared |
Nice calibration work, Hans and good flying I'll bet !
I did a comparison of my ASI with the gps doing several runs, speeds,
stalls, and it turns out that my
ASI is surprisingly on target.
With a 625 pound empty wt. short fuselage Piet with a stock 65 Cont.
engine, 72-42P prop I cruise
at 71 mph at 2150 rpm and power off stalls occur at 29 to 30 mph.
Mike C.
PS-- Lomcevak entry speeds vary, but I pretty much just stick with around
90......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | bad news with good |
well good news and bad.
bad? I have decided to quit the unmanned aerial video/surveillance
business.... had an electronics mishap yesterday that cost me a helicopter.
I need to let technology get a little better before I put expensive gear in
the air.
good news? I can now focus on the GN-1!!! YES!! I'm already getting
pumped to pull her out of the shop.. dust her off, fire up the Corvair and
get my motivational juices flowing. I think within a month I'll start
working on her again. Hey with any luck and alot of work I could be flying
by years end!
DJ Vegh
www.imagedv.com/aircamper
www.azchoppercam.com
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Vote John Bell <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
I should have said -- if I had to do it all over again, I would not build the GN1.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Vote John Bell <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Mar 10, 2006 12:08 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
>
>
>I'm almost finished with the woodworking phase on my GN-1 built from the CAD plans.
The full-size fittings are great, but there some serious errors in the
airframe drawings that have caused me endless grief. They probably happened in
the conversion to CAD and were not caught in the editing process. Also, there
are no illustrations or 3D drawings that would be extremely helpful. As a
result I
>use the proven community standard Piet plans.
>
>My two cents -- good luck.
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: The Schuerrs <schuerrs(at)charter.net>
>>Sent: Mar 9, 2006 8:17 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
>>
>>I have found lots of different plans and mods for the piet. Who has the easiest
to decipher? How about Keri-Ann's three piece wing? Gas tank? Are there
cad drawings? Thanks.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | bad news with good |
That sounds great DJ - glad you didn't sell it last year. Just wondering -
have you been keeping up with all the recent Corvair crank discussions and
William Wynne's nitriding requirements? I recall watching the videos of
your really nice engine running so you've probably taken care of all that
but I just wondered.
Eric
>From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: bad news with good
>Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 10:38:24 -0700
>
>
>well good news and bad.
>
>bad? I have decided to quit the unmanned aerial video/surveillance
>business.... had an electronics mishap yesterday that cost me a
>helicopter.
>I need to let technology get a little better before I put expensive gear in
>the air.
>
>good news? I can now focus on the GN-1!!! YES!! I'm already getting
>pumped to pull her out of the shop.. dust her off, fire up the Corvair and
>get my motivational juices flowing. I think within a month I'll start
>working on her again. Hey with any luck and alot of work I could be flying
>by years end!
>
>DJ Vegh
>www.imagedv.com/aircamper
>www.azchoppercam.com
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
I worked with Bob Grega when he decided to create the CAD drawings. I can
tell you that while they still need work they are of great improvement over
the original had drawn plans. The hand drawn plans were in need of serious
work.
Bob contantly makes revisions to the plans and sends them out to plans
holders. In fact he called me a several weeks ago and we talked for well
over an hour abotu some changes that needed made. About 2 weeks later I got
the revisions in the mail.
These things take time and before long the new GN1 CAD plans will be nearly
error free.
DJ
>
They probably happened in the conversion to CAD and were not caught in the
editing process. Also, there are no illustrations or 3D drawings that would
be extremely helpful.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Bernie <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
DJ,
Next time you talk to him, point out that the horizontal scale view of the fuselage
shows all diagonal and vertical members aft of station 3 at 1" wide (a scale
view should show those members as 1/2 and 3/4 inch).
Regards,
Tom
-----Original Message-----
>From: DJ Vegh <djv(at)imagedv.com>
>Sent: Mar 10, 2006 1:28 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
>
>
>I worked with Bob Grega when he decided to create the CAD drawings. I can
>tell you that while they still need work they are of great improvement over
>the original had drawn plans. The hand drawn plans were in need of serious
>work.
>
>Bob contantly makes revisions to the plans and sends them out to plans
>holders. In fact he called me a several weeks ago and we talked for well
>over an hour abotu some changes that needed made. About 2 weeks later I got
>the revisions in the mail.
>
>These things take time and before long the new GN1 CAD plans will be nearly
>error free.
>
>DJ
>
>>
>They probably happened in the conversion to CAD and were not caught in the
>editing process. Also, there are no illustrations or 3D drawings that would
>be extremely helpful.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com> |
| Subject: | Re: plans and modifications |
I think he reads this list.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
>
> DJ,
>
> Next time you talk to him, point out that the horizontal scale view of the
fuselage shows all diagonal and vertical members aft of station 3 at 1" wide
(a scale view should show those members as 1/2 and 3/4 inch).
>
> Regards,
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: DJ Vegh <djv(at)imagedv.com>
> >Sent: Mar 10, 2006 1:28 PM
> >To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> >Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: plans and modifications
> >
> >
> >I worked with Bob Grega when he decided to create the CAD drawings. I
can
> >tell you that while they still need work they are of great improvement
over
> >the original had drawn plans. The hand drawn plans were in need of
serious
> >work.
> >
> >Bob contantly makes revisions to the plans and sends them out to plans
> >holders. In fact he called me a several weeks ago and we talked for well
> >over an hour abotu some changes that needed made. About 2 weeks later I
got
> >the revisions in the mail.
> >
> >These things take time and before long the new GN1 CAD plans will be
nearly
> >error free.
> >
> >DJ
> >
> >>
> >They probably happened in the conversion to CAD and were not caught in
the
> >editing process. Also, there are no illustrations or 3D drawings that
would
> >be extremely helpful.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
Mike, et al,
A bunch of lawyers in Hollywood make a very handsome living by representing famous
people whose images are appropriated without permission. Famous faces may
be all over the place, but that doesn't give people the right to use
them without permission. You can't use Reese Witherspoon's face, for example,
on your product just because it was in every paper after the Academy Awards.
Famous objects that become associated with individual people can be in the same
boat. Your exemplary Piet is a very famous object in this community, even though
most of us don't know what you look like. On this list, your airplane IS
you. Pictures of it can be legally recognized as your image.
The people at St. Croix Aircraft use your image of your airplane for their financial
gain. You put a lot of effort into what became a beautiful example of an
Aircamper. It was YOUR effort, but they are reaping the benefit.
Furthermore, YOUR image is now associated with those folks whose business practices
you have no control over. If they cheat someone, or they sell someone something
that causes a harm to someone, YOU are associated with that. This is
wrong.
Mike, if you haven't given permission to the St.Croix folks to use your airplane
to advertise their stuff, you can make them stop. You can also force them to
share some of the benefit they have already reaped from your hard work.
I don't recommend that you see a lawyer right off, talk to the guys at St. Croix.
They may turn out to be perfectly reasonable. If not, then call a lawyer.
It's your airplane, not theirs.
Mike Hardaway
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>
> >
> > Guys-- I agree with you all completely.
> >
> > I have a lousy feeling about this Chad Willie guy anyway, but I've never
> > given him flack for using my photo for his advertisement. I'm not sure what
he's been up to all these years by
> > exploiting the Pietenpol family, but that is between him and our maker.
I might ruffle his feathers offline just to see
> > what his response is.
> >
> > My feeling is that if he doesn't give a flip what the Pietenpol family,
> > God, or Pietenpol enthusiasts think of him, then he probably has no regard
for what we think of him.
> >
> > Mike C.
> >
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | St. Croix advertisement with photo of my NON-St. Croix |
plans built Pietenpol Air Camper
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Dear Dave---
Just a note to let you know that I've notice that on your Ultralight
news.com web site that Chad Willie of St. Croix
aircraft plans has a classified ad there which totally mis-represents my
aircraft--the aircraft that I built using authentic
Pietenpol Family plans, not the St. Croix plans.
The classified ad implies that my plane was built using St. Croix plans
from Willie which is totally in error and fraudulent.
I have not contacted Chad in this matter since this is your web site, not
his, and am requesting that
you remove or replace the photo of my aircraft, NX48MC with another
aircraft that more accurately might represent what Chad is
trying to advertise.
I in no way endorse Chad's classified ad being posted in conjunction with a
photo of my aircraft (taken by me as well)
and would not like my aircraft to be associated in any way, shape, or form
to the St. Croix outfit or Willie.
Best regards,
Michael Cuy
216-433-3159
Ohio, USA
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | St. Croix advertisement with photo of my NON-St. Croix |
plans built Pietenpol Air Camper
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Attaboy, Mikeee
Jack Phillips
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 3:07 PM
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: St. Croix advertisement with photo of my
NON-St. Croix plans built Pietenpol Air Camper
Dear Dave---
Just a note to let you know that I've notice that on your Ultralight
news.com web site that Chad Willie of St. Croix
aircraft plans has a classified ad there which totally mis-represents my
aircraft--the aircraft that I built using authentic
Pietenpol Family plans, not the St. Croix plans.
The classified ad implies that my plane was built using St. Croix plans
from Willie which is totally in error and fraudulent.
I have not contacted Chad in this matter since this is your web site,
not
his, and am requesting that
you remove or replace the photo of my aircraft, NX48MC with another
aircraft that more accurately might represent what Chad is
trying to advertise.
I in no way endorse Chad's classified ad being posted in conjunction
with a
photo of my aircraft (taken by me as well)
and would not like my aircraft to be associated in any way, shape, or
form
to the St. Croix outfit or Willie.
Best regards,
Michael Cuy
216-433-3159
Ohio, USA
Working together. For life.(sm)
or otherwise private information. If you have received it in error,
please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other use
of the email by you is prohibited.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jimboyer(at)direcway.com |
| Subject: | Re: stall speed/ gps compared |
What have you been smoking Mike?
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Date: Friday, March 10, 2006 9:39 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: stall speed/ gps compared
>
> Nice calibration work, Hans and good flying I'll bet !
>
> I did a comparison of my ASI with the gps doing several runs,
> speeds,
> stalls, and it turns out that my
>
> ASI is surprisingly on target.
>
>
> With a 625 pound empty wt. short fuselage Piet with a stock 65
> Cont.
> engine, 72-42P prop I cruise
>
> at 71 mph at 2150 rpm and power off stalls occur at 29 to 30 mph.
>
>
> Mike C.
>
>
> PS-- Lomcevak entry speeds vary, but I pretty much just stick with
> around
> 90......
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Schuerrs: I bought all of the Kerri Price mods plans. They are excellent
drawings. I only used the piano hinge ailerons, fuel tank and front
cockpit door. Dan (I think that was "his" name back then) was a regular
contributor to the Buckeye news letter and built a better than beautiful
Piet. I always wished the Pietenpol family had approached him to redraw
the Pietenpol plans. Speaking of the Price fiberglass fuel tank, at EAA
last month we had a frightening discussion about the govt. plans to put
alcohol in all gasoline. The rosins that stood up to gasoline may not
stand up to alcohol. One guy quoted an expert on the subject claims that
alcohol attacks aluminum and that you need to anodize the inside of
aluminum fuel tanks, al. fuel lines etc, More crap o be worried about.
Leon S. Worried about more crap in Kansas.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: bracing wire tape |
My mentor explained it this way. Use rib stitching cord, make about three
turns around the crotch of the "X", then about three whips horizontally,
around the cord in a horizontal plane. This gives a "standoff" of about 1/8"
and separates the cables. Pull the whole "knot" tight, and it will fall into
place. Double knots and cut the ends. Dab the whole thing with some varnish.
comes out great. I used this where ever two cables crossed. Wing
cables,cabane cables,wing cables. Keeps cables from rubbing each other, and
it's authentic from the 20's.
Tried and true for about 100 years.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Martens" <gary_martens(at)umanitoba.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 11:16 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: bracing wire tape
>
>
> Do you tie the bracing wires together in the wing where they cross? If so,
> tape? What kind of tape? gary martens, manitoba, canada
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | stall speed/ gps compared |
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
I've had a hard time getting more than one or two revolutions in the
Lom... Just not enough weight and too much drag going end over end...
Steve E
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: stall speed/ gps compared
Nice calibration work, Hans and good flying I'll bet !
I did a comparison of my ASI with the gps doing several runs, speeds,
stalls, and it turns out that my
ASI is surprisingly on target.
With a 625 pound empty wt. short fuselage Piet with a stock 65 Cont.
engine, 72-42P prop I cruise
at 71 mph at 2150 rpm and power off stalls occur at 29 to 30 mph.
Mike C.
PS-- Lomcevak entry speeds vary, but I pretty much just stick with
around
90......
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: mystery plane in Manhattan |
mystery solved
http://www.nyc-architecture.com/LM/LM028-77WATERSTREET.htm
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "DJ Vegh" <djv(at)imagedv.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 11:56 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: mystery plane in Manhattan
> Found this on Google earth today while working on a project for my
> employer.
>
> what in Sam Hill is an airplane doing on the roof of a high rise in
> Manhattan?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans and mods |
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com, lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
>Speaking of the Price fiberglass fuel tank, at EAA
>last month we had a frightening discussion about the govt. plans to put
>alcohol in all gasoline. The rosins that stood up to gasoline may not
>stand up to alcohol. One guy quoted an expert on the subject claims that
>alcohol attacks aluminum and that you need to anodize the inside of
>aluminum fuel tanks, al. fuel lines etc, More crap o be worried about.
>Leon S. Worried about more crap in Kansas.
Leon,
Ethanol, the type of alcohol going into gasoline, will attack
polyester resins, but not epoxy resins. There's been discussion about
this on the list before.
As for the so-called 'expert' regarding aluminum, this is a WIDELY
held misconception (probably had its origins in the Oil Co's. early
resistance to ethanol as a gas additive, so they tried to scare
people into not wanting it.). Methanol is the stuff that corrodes
aluminum. It is used in race cars & model airplane engine fuel, but
not in other engine applications to any degree. Ethanol CAN corrode
magnesium and will affect natural rubber tubing, so it's not
recommended for use in vintage applications, such as older cars that
had carbs made of magnesium & rubber fuel lines.
In the automotive world, all cars built in the past 20 years or so
were designed to be OK with ethanol in the fuel , and many of their
fuel system components are made of aluminum - no problems. In fact,
all vehicles are warrantied to take gas with up to 10% Ethanol, but
most can actually take much higher percentages with no problems.
For about the past 10 years, all American car mfrs. have made "flex
fuel" vehicles that can run on gas with any % ethanol up to 85% &
"E85" gas is becoming more common. These models are not significantly
different from their regular vehicles & certainly not with regard to
aluminum components in the fuel system.
In fact, you can run just about any fuel-injected car on 'gas'
containing up to 40-50% ethanol with NO mods & no harm to the
aluminum components in the fuel system. I'm in the process of
building a still (legally!) to process agricultural wastes into
ethanol, which I will blend with gas up to about 45% to run my
'commuter' car. Eventually, I'll install a new mass flow computer
that will allow me to run on 100% alcohol.
Ethanol is going to become a component of virtually all
gasoline-based fuels, like it or not & the FAA would do everyone a
service by getting off its duff & formulating AD's to allow the
necessary mods to certificated aircraft to deal with it.
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mike Whaley" <MerlinFAC(at)cfl.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Authentic Pietenpol and Grega GN-1 Plans Web Sites |
I recall getting a phone call at work from these same characters last year.
(I work for a well-known homebuilt plane company.) They wanted us to send
them plans... if I recall, I think they even asked about getting a free or
discounted copy... so that they could make kits and parts etc. of the same
stuff we sell. That's basically what they do, as far as I can tell, although
I think they *may* have been the ones to develop the Piet Aerial biplane.
>From what I've picked up here and there, the "services" they offer aren't
really that outstanding, though that's more of an impression I've gotten
from others, not based on first-hand experience. It's not that we were
worried about a loss of business, but it's just pretty sad to me that
someone would have the audacity to actually do that and apparently not even
feel ashamed of it. Unless an "OEM" offers poor service, has outlandish
prices, or is involved with something that really goes against your
sensibilities, then why do business with someone who just kind of dabbles
around in other people's designs?
Funny, I just searched Google for more info and came across a nearly
identical discussion about St. Croix using Mike's Piet photo, from this list
in 2003.
(In the interests of full disclosure, I have also "borrowed" a photo of Mike
C.'s plane w/out prior permission... it was last year, for an April Fool's
Day "news release" about a new "sport-pilot version" of our biplane, which
was simplified to the point of looking just like Mike's Piet. Hopefully
Mike's forgiven me by now. 8 months later the boss finally noticed it and I
got reamed a new one, but hey, it was well worth it :)
-Mike
Mike Whaley merlin@ov-10bronco.net
Webmaster, OV-10 Bronco Association
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/
> Mike,
> I suppose you would have to assume that imitation is the sincerest form of
flattery. When you have the most visually recognizable Piet out there it's
bound to happen. That doesn't excuse them though for advertising their
product with your work.
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans and mods |
What do you mean "Dan" WAS his name?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans and mods
>
> Schuerrs: I bought all of the Kerri Price mods plans. They are excellent
> drawings. I only used the piano hinge ailerons, fuel tank and front
> cockpit door. Dan (I think that was "his" name back then) was a regular
> contributor to the Buckeye news letter and built a better than beautiful
> Piet. I always wished the Pietenpol family had approached him to redraw
> the Pietenpol plans. Speaking of the Price fiberglass fuel tank, at EAA
> last month we had a frightening discussion about the govt. plans to put
> alcohol in all gasoline. The rosins that stood up to gasoline may not
> stand up to alcohol. One guy quoted an expert on the subject claims that
> alcohol attacks aluminum and that you need to anodize the inside of
> aluminum fuel tanks, al. fuel lines etc, More crap o be worried about.
> Leon S. Worried about more crap in Kansas.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans and mods |
Cc: , "The Schuerrs"
Actually, "his" name was Gary Price. At some point a few yrs. ago
'he' became Keri-Ann Price. Doesn't change her plans any, but has
been a little confusing to keep track of :).
Kip Gardner
>
>What do you mean "Dan" WAS his name?
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Leon Stefan" <lshutks(at)webtv.net>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 4:03 PM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Plans and mods
>
>>
>>Schuerrs: I bought all of the Kerri Price mods plans. They are excellent
>>drawings. I only used the piano hinge ailerons, fuel tank and front
>>cockpit door. Dan (I think that was "his" name back then) was a regular
>>contributor to the Buckeye news letter and built a better than beautiful
>>Piet. I always wished the Pietenpol family had approached him to redraw
>>the Pietenpol plans. Speaking of the Price fiberglass fuel tank, at EAA
>>last month we had a frightening discussion about the govt. plans to put
>>alcohol in all gasoline. The rosins that stood up to gasoline may not
>>stand up to alcohol. One guy quoted an expert on the subject claims that
>>alcohol attacks aluminum and that you need to anodize the inside of
>>aluminum fuel tanks, al. fuel lines etc, More crap o be worried about.
>>Leon S. Worried about more crap in Kansas.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Frank Metcalfe" <fmetcalf(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel powered piet |
Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
----- Original Message -----
From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>
> How much does it weigh?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Plans and mods |
lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
>>
>> Schuerrs: I bought all of the Kerri Price mods plans. They are excellent
>> drawings. I only used the piano hinge ailerons, fuel tank and front
>> cockpit door. Dan (I think that was "his" name back then) was a regular
>> contributor to the Buckeye news letter and built a better than beautiful
>> Piet. I always wished the Pietenpol family had approached him to redraw
>> the Pietenpol plans. Speaking of the Price fiberglass fuel tank, at EAA
>> last month we had a frightening discussion about the govt. plans to put
>> alcohol in all gasoline. The rosins that stood up to gasoline may not
>> stand up to alcohol. One guy quoted an expert on the subject claims that
>> alcohol attacks aluminum and that you need to anodize the inside of
>> aluminum fuel tanks, al. fuel lines etc, More crap o be worried about.
>> Leon S. Worried about more crap in Kansas.
>>
Well Leon in most places alcohol may already be in the gas, and it may not
necessarily be listed on the pump that its in the gas. Its a fairly simple
test to find out, but I am not really sure what you can do about it anymore.
There was a time when you could drive down the street and get some without
it. The days of 80 oct avgas for most places are long gone and 100ll may
not be a viable option without the infamous TCP additive to deal with the
extra lead.
What I am going to do is to make sure I have as easy access to both
inspection, maintenance and replacement of fuel system parts ect so I can
hopefully head off problems if they occur.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bernard Pietenpol |
Went to funeral of my cousin's wife's mother yesterday (Saturday, 3/11) at
St. John's Evangelical Lutheran Church in Wykoff, MN. As we were walking out to
the church cemetery one of my cousin's friends pointed out Bernard Pietenpol's
(and his wife's) grave marker...so paid my respects there to the fellow who
designed the great little airplane we all love and enjoy.
My cousin's friend grew up near Cherry Grove and recalled seeing Bernard and
his airplanes during the late 40s, 50s and 60s -- he never got a ride in one
though. Maybe when mine is finished.
On the way home we drove past Fountain, MN, where they now have one of
Bernard's hangars at the Fillmore County Museum...but was closed. I imagine it
will
be open during summer months. Some great aviation history in that
area...nearby St. Charles, MN, was home to Art Donahue -- one of only seven Americans
to
fly in combat with the RAF during the Battle of Britain...later earned the DFC
flying Hurricanes in defense of Singapore in 1942. He returned to England and
went back to flying Spits but was lost over the Channel after shooting up a
Ju-88 on 9/11/1942. If anyone is interested, send me a buck ( to cover copying
and postage) and I'll send you a copy of an article that I wrote about Art for
the Battle of Britain Historical Society's annual magazine a couple years
ago.
By the way, I just finished reading a great little book called "Flyers" about
the Wright Brothers by Noah Adams, who used to be on National Public Radio.
Barnes & Noble had 'em on their special table for $5.98 (or was it $4.98)...a
quick but great read and very interesting...learned a few things about the
Wrights I hadn't known. Anyway, for $5 each I bought a few copies and gave 'em
away to friends.
It's starting to seem like spring here in the Great White North of the Upper
Mississippi River region...
As for my Piet, the fuselage is now suspended from basement ceiling joists
while the straight axle landing gear spreader bars are being fabricated. This
has cleared the workbench and so I have been working on the tail
feathers...should have her on the landing gear soon!
Regards to all,
Fred Beseler
1619 Cass St.
La Crosse, WI 54601
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Updates to my Web Site |
Hey All,
I've been doing a lot of updating to my web site, especially the Wing page,
and the Fuel page. I've got lots more planned. Eventually a page dedicated to
Brodhead. In fact if anyone has pictures they would like to see there, and
if the file is not too big, you can e-mail them directly to me, with all
pertinate info about the pictures like who, what and when. I would also like to
hear any suggestions to improve the site.
Chuck G.
http://nx770cg.com/
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | brian jardine <saddleguys(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Steaming cap- strips |
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the 1/2
cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list. Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net> |
I have stated building the center wing section from the Vi Kapler plans. I have
a couple of questions that I am unclear on.
First,.... Should the lower bolt on the aileron pulley support be an AN Bolt or
a common wood screw? If I use a bolt, how do you get clearance with the 3/8"
x 1-3/4" compression strut.
Secondly,...I am using 3/4" spars on the center section and the main wing panels
and my ribs are built for 3/4" spars. It appears that the center section spars
do not have any plywood under the spar butt joint straps. The spar butt joint
straps lie directly on the spruce spars. The 3/32" plywood is just a triangle
below, but not under, the butt joint strap. The plywood basically forms a level
surface for the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression
struts to bear against. Am I reading the plans correctly? What has everyone
else done? If the plans do call for the butt straps to be mounted on the
raw spruce, would there be a problem with wood compression with time?
Thanks,
Rick
Richard Schreiber
lmforge(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
Most havent bothered with a steamer, I never did. I borrowed one of my wifes tall
vases and filled with water and let the ribs set overnight. It's only the
12" on the top cap that have stress. After making many ribs, I even quit soaking
them. I have only broken 2 cap strips.
Just be sure to ask the wife first, before borrowing the vase. Thats where the
ribs really get broken.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: brian jardine
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the 1/2
cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list.
Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
Brian,
You don't really need a "steamer". I did like others,,,got a piece of 1 1/4" or
1 1/2" PVC pipe about 18" long, and secured the bottom with either a PVC cap
or a wooden base. When it's time to bend cap strips, I would fill the tea kettle
with water and boil. when I heard the whistle, fill the PVC pipe like a big
tea cup and add the cap strips. After about 10 minutes the strips are ready
and they bend like taffy. I usually did one a night. Pulled last nights out
of the jig and did the other side gussets, then put this capstrip in and bent
it, and made the next one.
Ain't Life Grand!
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: brian jardine
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the 1/2
cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list.
Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
Hi Brian,
No pictures but I simply used a 24" length of 3" copper pipe with a cap soldered
on one end. Used it to boil two cap strips at a time just before they went into
the jig. You only need to boil the front 12 - 18 inches. Boil for 15 - 20
minutes and bend slowly.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: brian jardine
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 4:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the 1/2
cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list.
Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Steaming cap- strips |
Brian:
I just used a 3 foot section of PVC pipe that was 1.5 to 2" in diameter. Cap one
end with an end cap fitting. To soften the capstrips, stand the tube upright,
boil enough water to fill the tube 3/4 full. Pour the hot water into the tube
and then slide in the capstrip. Let the capstrip soak for about 1/2 hour, remove
and then slide your capstrip into a bending form. Let the capstrip dry for
24 hours and then remove. This system worked well. All my capstrips formed
easily.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From: brian jardine
Sent: 3/12/2006 4:41:25 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the 1/2
cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list. Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
If you have one, a Wagner wallpaper steamer hooked up to a piece of 3" PVC schedule
4 pipe works great. Perfect temperature and all you need is about 5 minutes
of heat to make your cap-strip pliable enough to fit in your jig. Very neat
and no mess.
This idea comes from the esoteric world of skin on frame kayak building. Here my
buddy Brian Nystrom uses one hooked up to a box made of foil face insulation
board to steam ribs for a Greenland skin on frame kayak.
http://community.webshots.com/photo/87936216/1088670558044194919LkzVTn
michael silvius
scarborough, maine
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet)
and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck
and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the
bottom which the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to
screw some kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into
that so I can pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure
with a tire gauge? Any better ways to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
What is the best way to attach front aluminum turtle deck (covering the cowl
tank area and front instrument panel)? Short wood screws into the longerons?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | jboatri(at)emory.edu |
| Subject: | Re: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
That's what our Piet has.
Quoting Rick Holland :
> What is the best way to attach front aluminum turtle deck (covering the cowl
> tank area and front instrument panel)? Short wood screws into the longerons?
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
Rick
I used SS screws every 1.5" on the sides of the turtle deck. First, I used #
6 wood screws to locate the exact position. Then I reamed the holes to accept
a brass thread insert. They screw into the hole and accept a #8x32 screw.
Inserts are available at most hardware stores.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 8:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment
What is the best way to attach front aluminum turtle deck (covering the cowl
tank area and front instrument panel)? Short wood screws into the longerons?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Hi again
Problem is that most bike pumps and fittings leak a bit. We do a lot of pressure
testing at work and some of the guidelines we use are; Pump to a pressure
of no more than 4 psi. Pressure should maintain for 3 minutes.
If using a bike pump, get adapters to adapt from your outlet and install a sensitive
pressure gauge then a ball valve, then to the pump. Use dish soap and water
to identify leaks. Have a grease pencil available to mark problems.
To build the adapter you will need a pipe nipple to go from 1/4 or 3/8 npt, which
ever you installed to a 1/4" Tee, a pressure gauge mounts there and another
1/4" nipple to a 1/4" ball valve. Then adapt to 1/8" with a bushing and 1/8"
nipple. That should screw into a bike pump.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet) and
now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck and cap
on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the bottom which
the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to screw some
kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into that so I can
pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure with a tire gauge?
Any better ways to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Kenneth M. Heide" <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Seeking input.... |
Members of the list: Fellow Pieter's:
While reading through my WW conversion manual I came across a few good pages
on carburetors. My interest is in what other builders are having success with
when applying a gravity feed carb to their set-up. I like the Aero-Carb for instance,
but do not know of any Pieter's using it. So here goes.....tell me what
you are using or plan to use in your conversion of the Corvair engine. I am
just wondering since I am out shopping for same used parts and you never know
what comes your way! Just curious and seeking input!
Ken Heide
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Rick,
How did you find room for 17 gallons?
Thanks,
Jack Textor
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Rick Holland
Sent: Sun 3/12/2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet) and now
have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck and cap
on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the bottom which
the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to screw some kind
of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into that so I can pump
the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure with a tire gauge?
Any better ways to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | fuel tank testing |
Jack asks-
>How did you find room for 17 gallons?
NX41CC has 16 gallons in the tank and I'm sure it could have been made a tad
wider to get 17. With a Corvair or Continental, you don't need the magneto
"shelf" behind the firewall, leaving plenty of room for a generous tank.
As far as pressure testing your tank, you don't really need to run up the
pressure. I've heard of just putting an inflated balloon over the filler
neck and watching it over a day or so to see if the balloon deflates.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Brian,
I used the BBQ setup, see attached pictures.
(See attached file: BBQ Ribs.pdf)
Hans
brian jardine
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap-
strips
03/12/2006 04:37
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the
1/2 cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off
list. Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Rick,
I just used a Balloon, the some what larger Party Balloons are perfect.
Seal of the tank, connect a 3/8' piece of tubing where the fuel line goes.
Blow up the balloon (basket ball size) and quickly slip it over the 3/8"
tubing, ti-off with a ti-wrap.
Balloon will deflate some what until pressure in tank and balloon is equal.
Let it sit overnight, if balloon is still inflated in the morning, you have
a sealed tank, if not find the leak.
If there is a leak it will deflate within the hour.
B-T-W when you have you fuel tank installed you can test the whole fuel
system, valves, gascolator the whole lot, the same way.
Hans
"Rick Holland"
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a
welding aluminum fuel tank
03/12/2006 08:30
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet)
and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck
and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the
bottom which the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to
screw some kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into
that so I can pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure
with a tire gauge? Any better ways to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Seeking input.... |
Ken:
I believe DJ experienced some frustrations with the Aerocarb, but I may be wrong.
There are at least 4 Stromberg NAS3b on ebay right now. I have been watching
them over the last couple of weeks and most go for around $250.00. WW, in his
manual indicates this is his choice for a gravity fed set up. The one with
the 1&3/8" venturi yields the more favorable results. I found one recently rebuilt
for that price from a local A&P.
michael silvius
scarborough, maine
----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth M. Heide
To: Pietenpol
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Seeking input....
Members of the list: Fellow Pieter's:
While reading through my WW conversion manual I came across a few good pages
on carburetors. My interest is in what other builders are having success with
when applying a gravity feed carb to their set-up. I like the Aero-Carb for instance,
but do not know of any Pieter's using it. So here goes.....tell me what
you are using or plan to use in your conversion of the Corvair engine. I am
just wondering since I am out shopping for same used parts and you never know
what comes your way! Just curious and seeking input!
Ken Heide
Fargo, ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
Bernard's recommendation). It measures 17" deep x 17" wide x 16 1/2" high in
front and 12 1/2" high in back. Could have easily have been 20 gallons by
making it wider but I didn't figure I would need that much. You don't need
the fuselage extension to get that much volume though, my fuel tank adviser,
Mike Cuy has an almost 17 gallon tank in his standard fuselage cowl.
Attached some pictures, made a small posterboard model, then a full size
posterboard model, then cut, bent, and welded the aluminum. Still have to
pressure test it, Will be a miracle if it doesn't have any leaks. Not real
proud of the way the welds look, I am taking a couple of thin lengths of the
.040 sheet I used for this to SNF and am going to ask one of the Lincoln or
Miller PhD welding experts to demonstrate the way an 'expert' welds this
stuff.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Jack T. Textor wrote:
>
> Rick,
> How did you find room for 17 gallons?
> Thanks,
> Jack Textor
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Rick Holland
> Sent: Sun 3/12/2006 8:30 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
>
>
> Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet)
> and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck
> and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the
> bottom which the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to
> screw some kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into
> that so I can pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure
> with a tire gauge? Any better ways to do this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Steaming cap- strips |
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
Just cap the end of a 2-3 inch dia pvc pipe and fill it with 18" of
water and then add 1/2cup ammonia. Drop your cap strips in overnight
and put them in a jig the next day and in 24 more hours your done drying
them and they can be built into ribs!
For my drying jig? I used three nails in a board that forced the cap
strip into the shape I wanted.
Steve E
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of brian
jardine
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 3:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam
the 1/2 cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me
off list. Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________
<http://pa.yahoo.com/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D39174/*http:/photomail.m
ail.yahoo.com> makes sharing a breeze.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Bendix mag harness |
Pieters;
After endless fiddling with trying to replace one of the spark plug leads on
my left mag, unsuccessfully, I've come to the conclusion that I don't want
to fly behind a mag harness that I've Mickey-Mouse'd together. Can someone
recommend a good shop or parts house that can work with me on a new harness?
It's a Bendix S4RN-20 mag. The magneto ends of the wires have small
screw-on springs that I believe are what Slick uses, this makes it easy to
remove the wires from the plate that holds the ends of the wires and also
the orange-brown insulating gasket that goes behind the plate. I have these
parts off and can send them to a shop to install new ignition leads in it
rather than have to buy a new plate and insulator. A harness with plate and
all is more than $250 from what I see in the catalogs and I'd like to cut
that way down.
This is for an A-65, lower plugs, and I understand that with the new
flexible ignition wiring and no tight cowl, I can dispense with the metal
elbows at the spark plug ends but I'm still learning. I ordered the
"Magneto book" from Sacramento Sky Ranch to help educate myself on these
babies.
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: | fuel tank testing |
You can test the entire fuel system by doing the following: a) disconnect
hose at carb., put in shut off valve at this point, b) seal off the gas cap
with little silicone and solid block wood or AL, c) connect vacuum hose to
fuel tank overflow/tank vent at filler neck and connect this hose to an
altimeter, d) now pull vacuum on carb hose so the altimeter reads about
5000', e) close off hose at carb and see if altimeter holds at 5000'.
Gordon Bowen
Original Message:
-----------------
From: Oscar Zuniga taildrags(at)hotmail.com
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 07:41:46 -0600
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel tank testing
Jack asks-
>How did you find room for 17 gallons?
NX41CC has 16 gallons in the tank and I'm sure it could have been made a
tad
wider to get 17. With a Corvair or Continental, you don't need the magneto
"shelf" behind the firewall, leaving plenty of room for a generous tank.
As far as pressure testing your tank, you don't really need to run up the
pressure. I've heard of just putting an inflated balloon over the filler
neck and watching it over a day or so to see if the balloon deflates.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chad Willie St Croix |
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
Mike, Oscar, and Piet list members,
This bit about Chad Willie comes up from time to time and it got to the
point he no longer participates, preferring to build and fly - not
argue.
I remember the period when Bernard was having trouble printing and
shipping prints (during the IPA days before the BPA). It's my
understanding that Chad was given permission to replicate and distribute
the prints in the interest of keeping the design going from Bernard
himself. I don't know if he sells them any longer.
I think you'll find that
http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm is the
ultralight news website, not Chad Willies.
Chad Willie has been and still is a strong supporter of the design and
Bernard's skills and he respects that heritage. I have corresponded
with him over the years and benefited from his advice and skills. This
group has (over the years) forced out an extremely talented person that
knew Bernard and had visited with him personally. He did try to design
what in essence was a biplane-Pietenpol but called it the "Aerial". Not
a Scout biplane or an Air Camper biplane not even a Pietenpol biplane,
but he felt it important to give just reference to Bernard out of
respect since the basic design came from him and for this he has been
crucified ever since.
I told Chad years ago, I wouldn't write something like this, but I'm
tired of listening to a good person torn down - just like I'd defend
Michael Cuy if some group were blasting him. I've titled the subject
line in the hopes the searches in the future about this matter will
bring this up and hope to leave it at that.
Anyone wanting information about metal fuselages would find vast
knowledge from Chad, and he makes beautiful wooden propellers - even
convinced me to change and go with the original design that Bernard used
with his Model-A.
I sure hope this can put an end to the negative comments about a
Pietenpol enthusiast.
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Great pictures Rick, thanks! Will the tank sit high enough for gravity
fuel flow? I'm contemplating a 0-200.
Jack Textor
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
tank
I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
Bernard's recommendation). It measures 17" deep x 17" wide x 16 1/2"
high in front and 12 1/2" high in back. Could have easily have been 20
gallons by making it wider but I didn't figure I would need that much.
You don't need the fuselage extension to get that much volume though, my
fuel tank adviser, Mike Cuy has an almost 17 gallon tank in his standard
fuselage cowl.
Attached some pictures, made a small posterboard model, then a full size
posterboard model, then cut, bent, and welded the aluminum. Still have
to pressure test it, Will be a miracle if it doesn't have any leaks. Not
real proud of the way the welds look, I am taking a couple of thin
lengths of the .040 sheet I used for this to SNF and am going to ask one
of the Lincoln or Miller PhD welding experts to demonstrate the way an
'expert' welds this stuff.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Jack T. Textor wrote:
Rick,
How did you find room for 17 gallons?
Thanks,
Jack Textor
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Rick
Holland
Sent: Sun 3/12/2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052
sheet) and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a
filler neck and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet
connector on the bottom which the shutoff value will connect to.
Question, is it possible to screw some kind of adapter into the oulet
and screw an auto tire value into that so I can pump the tank up with a
bicycle pump an monitor the pressure with a tire gauge? Any better ways
to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Steaming cap- strips |
Brian,
Forgot to mention,,,The steamed caps don't have to be put into a bending jig.
They go right into the rib jig, and can be glued immediatly. Assuming you are
using T-88. It works fine on wet wood
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 6:14 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Brian,
You don't really need a "steamer". I did like others,,,got a piece of 1 1/4"
or 1 1/2" PVC pipe about 18" long, and secured the bottom with either a PVC cap
or a wooden base. When it's time to bend cap strips, I would fill the tea kettle
with water and boil. when I heard the whistle, fill the PVC pipe like a
big tea cup and add the cap strips. After about 10 minutes the strips are ready
and they bend like taffy. I usually did one a night. Pulled last nights out
of the jig and did the other side gussets, then put this capstrip in and bent
it, and made the next one.
Ain't Life Grand!
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: brian jardine
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Steaming cap- strips
Does anyone have any pictures of the steamer set-ups they used to steam the
1/2 cap strips for the wing ribs? If you have some please, email me off list.
Thanks.
Brian Jardine
Clinton, UT
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
1956 article with letter written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&Ph
otoID=3D2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
supplementary plans.
Of course, as long as your weight and balance work out (i.e. the new
firewall position allows enough room to mount your engine), the only
difference would be the length of your motor mounts, and you get to make
use of that "empty" space that some have ended up with when their W&B
calculations indicated that they needed to extend their motor mounts by
several inches. It will be interesting to see how your numbers work out
- keep us all posted.
Bill
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: March 13, 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
tank
I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
Bernard's recommendation) ...
Rick H.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Chad Willie St Croix |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Just did a web search and found Chad Wille's St. Croix website.
http://stcroix.50webs.com/
Can't find any reference to him offering plans for sale for the Air
Camper or the Sky Scout. Only a note that plans are available for the
"Pietenpol Aerial", which he developed and built. And NO pictures of
Mike Cuy's plane anywhere.
I hadn't heard Bill Sayre's story about Chad Wille having permission
from BHP to distribute the plans, and if that's the case, maybe he
should be cut a little slack. I am sure that if the Pietenpol family
decided that they no longer wanted to be bothered with all the paperwork
and hassles of copying and distributing the plans to all of us, we would
no doubt be relieved to know that someone was willing to do the work to
allow this great little plane to live on. As it stands, we can (and
should) all buy our plans directly from the Pietenpol family (which I
did) but if they had not been available from them at the time when I
decided to take the plunge, I probably would have bought them from
whoever was offering them. Would you have decided not to build only
because you could not buy directly from the descendants of the designer?
Probably not.
.02
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sayre,
William G
Sent: March 13, 2006 10:45 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chad Willie St Croix
-->
Mike, Oscar, and Piet list members,
This bit about Chad Willie comes up from time to time and it got to the
point he no longer participates, preferring to build and fly - not
argue.
I remember the period when Bernard was having trouble printing and
shipping prints (during the IPA days before the BPA). It's my
understanding that Chad was given permission to replicate and distribute
the prints in the interest of keeping the design going from Bernard
himself. I don't know if he sells them any longer.
I think you'll find that
http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm is the
ultralight news website, not Chad Willies.
Chad Willie has been and still is a strong supporter of the design and
Bernard's skills and he respects that heritage. I have corresponded
with him over the years and benefited from his advice and skills. This
group has (over the years) forced out an extremely talented person that
knew Bernard and had visited with him personally. He did try to design
what in essence was a biplane-Pietenpol but called it the "Aerial". Not
a Scout biplane or an Air Camper biplane not even a Pietenpol biplane,
but he felt it important to give just reference to Bernard out of
respect since the basic design came from him and for this he has been
crucified ever since.
I told Chad years ago, I wouldn't write something like this, but I'm
tired of listening to a good person torn down - just like I'd defend
Michael Cuy if some group were blasting him. I've titled the subject
line in the hopes the searches in the future about this matter will
bring this up and hope to leave it at that.
Anyone wanting information about metal fuselages would find vast
knowledge from Chad, and he makes beautiful wooden propellers - even
convinced me to change and go with the original design that Bernard used
with his Model-A.
I sure hope this can put an end to the negative comments about a
Pietenpol enthusiast.
Bill Sayre
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel powered piet |
Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember right
is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs. Very light
weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't see anything
about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel would give great
range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set up....
Ed G.
>From: "Frank Metcalfe" <fmetcalf(at)bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:48:14 -0500
>
>
>
>Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:24 AM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>
>
>>
>>How much does it weigh?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Plans and mods |
Leon,
Don't limit your worries to Kansas. That stuff is everywhere.
A worrier down soouth
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Chad Willie St Croix |
I think several of us were under a misconception about the St.Croix website
(I was, at least).
When I wrote about St. Croix mis-appropriating Mike Cuy's airplane photo as
advertising for their plans sets, I was looking, as were others, at the
Ultralight News website.
http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm
It was, apparently, the folks at UltralightNews in Canada who used an
exemplary Piet (Mike Cuy's) to advertise the St. Croix plans. This may have
been done without examination or approval by Chad Willie. Mike C
communicated with the people running the UltralightNews site and,
miraculously, the beautiful blue Ohio AirCamper disappeared and the
"Pietenpol Aerial", to which Chad Willie apparently owns some interest
(according to one posting), appeared. Note that, under Canadian rules, the
Pietenpol Aircamper does seem to qualify as an ultralight, even though it
does not in US FARs.
It is unfortunate that Willie got blamed, in my mind at least, for taking
Mike's airplane photo for personal gain.
Another thing to remember is that the Pietenpol plans originally drawn by
the teenaged Orrin Hoopman, no matter how our emotions indicate, have long
since been in the public domain, letting anyone sell copies legally. Willie
has done nothing illegal in that regard.
Mike Hardaway
>
> Just did a web search and found Chad Wille's St. Croix website.
>
> http://stcroix.50webs.com/
>
> Can't find any reference to him offering plans for sale for the Air
> Camper or the Sky Scout. Only a note that plans are available for the
> "Pietenpol Aerial", which he developed and built. And NO pictures of
> Mike Cuy's plane anywhere.
>
> I hadn't heard Bill Sayre's story about Chad Wille having permission
> from BHP to distribute the plans, and if that's the case, maybe he
> should be cut a little slack. I am sure that if the Pietenpol family
> decided that they no longer wanted to be bothered with all the paperwork
> and hassles of copying and distributing the plans to all of us, we would
> no doubt be relieved to know that someone was willing to do the work to
> allow this great little plane to live on. As it stands, we can (and
> should) all buy our plans directly from the Pietenpol family (which I
> did) but if they had not been available from them at the time when I
> decided to take the plunge, I probably would have bought them from
> whoever was offering them. Would you have decided not to build only
> because you could not buy directly from the descendants of the designer?
> Probably not.
>
> .02
>
> Bill C.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Sayre,
> William G
> Sent: March 13, 2006 10:45 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Chad Willie St Croix
>
> -->
>
> Mike, Oscar, and Piet list members,
>
> This bit about Chad Willie comes up from time to time and it got to the
> point he no longer participates, preferring to build and fly - not
> argue.
>
> I remember the period when Bernard was having trouble printing and
> shipping prints (during the IPA days before the BPA). It's my
> understanding that Chad was given permission to replicate and distribute
> the prints in the interest of keeping the design going from Bernard
> himself. I don't know if he sells them any longer.
>
> I think you'll find that
> http://www.ultralightnews.com/plansbuyerguide/pietenaircamper.htm is the
> ultralight news website, not Chad Willies.
>
> Chad Willie has been and still is a strong supporter of the design and
> Bernard's skills and he respects that heritage. I have corresponded
> with him over the years and benefited from his advice and skills. This
> group has (over the years) forced out an extremely talented person that
> knew Bernard and had visited with him personally. He did try to design
> what in essence was a biplane-Pietenpol but called it the "Aerial". Not
> a Scout biplane or an Air Camper biplane not even a Pietenpol biplane,
> but he felt it important to give just reference to Bernard out of
> respect since the basic design came from him and for this he has been
> crucified ever since.
>
> I told Chad years ago, I wouldn't write something like this, but I'm
> tired of listening to a good person torn down - just like I'd defend
> Michael Cuy if some group were blasting him. I've titled the subject
> line in the hopes the searches in the future about this matter will
> bring this up and hope to leave it at that.
>
> Anyone wanting information about metal fuselages would find vast
> knowledge from Chad, and he makes beautiful wooden propellers - even
> convinced me to change and go with the original design that Bernard used
> with his Model-A.
>
> I sure hope this can put an end to the negative comments about a
> Pietenpol enthusiast.
>
> Bill Sayre
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve" <redsglass(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
2.2 lbs per kilo
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ed G.
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember right
is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs. Very light
weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't see anything
about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel would give great
range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set up....
Ed G.
>From: "Frank Metcalfe" <fmetcalf(at)bellsouth.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2006 09:48:14 -0500
>
>
>
>Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
>To:
>Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:24 AM
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>
>
>>
>>How much does it weigh?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
You dont need too much pressure to test it. We plug all the oulets but two: one
for the hand pump bicycle valve well sealed., and in another one we use the
best latex tester... a condon. Jut seal them with a thin strip of good old
duct tape and inflate it, we left it overnight when no inmediate holes are present,
If it looses volume look closely for the holes with soapy water.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Rick Holland wrote:
Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet) and
now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck and cap
on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the bottom which
the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to screw some
kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into that so I can
pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure with a tire gauge?
Any better ways to do this?
Thanks
Rick
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel powered piet |
Thanks a lot;I know it has nothing to do with the Piet page but I could
and might use that engine on my N3 Pup.I am using an 80 hp Franklin on
my Piet.Parts are hard to come by I understand.
Frank Metcalfe wrote:
>
>
> Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "harvey rule" <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 10:24 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>
> >
> > How much does it weigh?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
The manufacturer's website
http://www.wilksch.com/
lists the weight of the WAM 100 as 119 kg (262 lb). This weight includes
the propellor, muffler and exhaust, radiator and coolant. The horsepower
is rated at 90 bhp @ 2650 rpm. This is a three cylinder engine that can
run on diesel or jet fuel (kerosene). The only real drawback seems to be
the price - 11,000 pounds ($19,000 US) ouch.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember
right is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs.
Very light weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't
see anything about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel
would give great
range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set
up....
Ed G.
>
>
>
>Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
>
>
>>-->
>>
>>How much does it weigh?
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Bill,
Yeah, but rolling up to the pump in your Pietenpol Aircamper and tell them
to fill'r up with Jet A1, (10 gallons worth) priceless.....
Hans
"Bill Church"
To
Sent by:
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered
piet
03/14/2006 09:00
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
The manufacturer's website
http://www.wilksch.com/
lists the weight of the WAM 100 as 119 kg (262 lb). This weight includes
the propellor, muffler and exhaust, radiator and coolant. The horsepower
is rated at 90 bhp @ 2650 rpm. This is a three cylinder engine that can
run on diesel or jet fuel (kerosene). The only real drawback seems to be
the price - 11,000 pounds ($19,000 US) ouch.
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember
right is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs.
Very light weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't
see anything about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel
would give great
range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set
up....
Ed G.
>
>
>
>Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
>
>
>>-->
>>
>>How much does it weigh?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Diesel powered piet |
woh!horsey!I can't put that on the front of an N3 Pup.I'm maxed out at
123lbs.That's everything.Back to the drawing board for me!If things
didn't work out for my 80 hp Franklin then that engine would do nicely
on my Piet.
Bill Church wrote:
>
>
> The manufacturer's website
> http://www.wilksch.com/
> lists the weight of the WAM 100 as 119 kg (262 lb). This weight includes
> the propellor, muffler and exhaust, radiator and coolant. The horsepower
> is rated at 90 bhp @ 2650 rpm. This is a three cylinder engine that can
> run on diesel or jet fuel (kerosene). The only real drawback seems to be
> the price - 11,000 pounds ($19,000 US) ouch.
>
> Bill C.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
>
> Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
> about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember
> right is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs.
> Very light weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't
> see anything about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel
> would give great
> range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set
> up....
> Ed G.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-->
> >>
> >>How much does it weigh?
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Talked to William Wayne (the Corvair guy) and he had no problem with the
idea. I am mounting it as high as it can go behind the firewall.
Rick
On 3/13/06, Jack T. Textor wrote:
>
> Great pictures Rick, thanks! Will the tank sit high enough for gravity
> fuel flow? I'm contemplating a 0-200.
>
> Jack Textor
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* Monday, March 13, 2006 8:01 AM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
> tank
>
>
> I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
> Bernard's recommendation). It measures 17" deep x 17" wide x 16 1/2" high in
> front and 12 1/2" high in back. Could have easily have been 20 gallons by
> making it wider but I didn't figure I would need that much. You don't need
> the fuselage extension to get that much volume though, my fuel tank adviser,
> Mike Cuy has an almost 17 gallon tank in his standard fuselage cowl.
>
> Attached some pictures, made a small posterboard model, then a full size
> posterboard model, then cut, bent, and welded the aluminum. Still have to
> pressure test it, Will be a miracle if it doesn't have any leaks. Not real
> proud of the way the welds look, I am taking a couple of thin lengths of the
> .040 sheet I used for this to SNF and am going to ask one of the Lincoln or
> Miller PhD welding experts to demonstrate the way an 'expert' welds this
> stuff.
>
> Rick H.
>
> On 3/13/06, *Jack T. Textor* wrote:
>
> Rick,
> How did you find room for 17 gallons?
> Thanks,
> Jack Textor
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com on behalf of Rick Holland
> Sent: Sun 3/12/2006 8:30 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
>
>
> Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet)
> and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck
> and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the
> bottom which the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to
> screw some kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into
> that so I can pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure
> with a tire gauge? Any better ways to do this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
A condom! Yes, that's the best idea yet, I was thinking about going out and
look for some really big balloons but all this time the 'tools' I needed
were right under my nose! (Have to make sure that none of the wife's friends
come into the garage when I am doing this test). Thanks everyone for all the
great fuel tank leak testing methods, I never would have dreamed that there
were so many different ways to do it.
Rick
On 3/13/06, Gary Gower wrote:
>
> You dont need too much pressure to test it. We plug all the oulets but
> two: one for the hand pump bicycle valve well sealed., and in another one
> we use the best latex tester... a condon. Jut seal them with a thin
> strip of good old duct tape and inflate it, we left it overnight when no
> inmediate holes are present, If it looses volume look closely for the
> holes with soapy water.
>
> Saludos
> Gary Gower.
>
>
> *Rick Holland * wrote:
>
> Just finished welding a 17 gal. aluminum cowl fuel tank (.040 5052 sheet)
> and now have to pump it up with air to test for leaks. I have a filler neck
> and cap on top which I think is air tight and the outlet connector on the
> bottom which the shutoff value will connect to. Question, is it possible to
> screw some kind of adapter into the oulet and screw an auto tire value into
> that so I can pump the tank up with a bicycle pump an monitor the pressure
> with a tire gauge? Any better ways to do this?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
>
> ------------------------------
> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=3D39174/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com>makes sharing a breeze.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
I think you are correct Bill, the long fueslage plans are 4" longer measured
from the base of the rear seat to the firewall. Wouldn't be hard sawing off
a few inches if needed. May be the first Piet with the cabanes leaning
forward instead of backward.
Rick
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
>
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
>
> Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> supplementary plans.
>
> Of course, as long as your weight and balance work out (i.e. the new
> firewall position allows enough room to mount your engine), the only
> difference would be the length of your motor mounts, and you get to make use
> of that "empty" space that some have ended up with when their W&B
> calculations indicated that they needed to extend their motor mounts by
> several inches. It will be interesting to see how your numbers work out -
> keep us all posted.
>
> Bill
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* March 13, 2006 9:15 AM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
> tank
>
> I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
> Bernard's recommendation) ...
>
> Rick H.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | harvey rule <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Make sure you take some Calis or Viagra before you do the test,eh!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Diesel powered piet |
Thanks for the info Bill..Great looking set up..I've never seen a 2 cycle
diesel without a mechanically driven blower before..The 19 grand is a tad
outside of my Piet budget though.....ED
>From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To:
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Diesel powered piet
>Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 10:00:10 -0500
>
>
>
>
>The manufacturer's website
>http://www.wilksch.com/
>lists the weight of the WAM 100 as 119 kg (262 lb). This weight includes
>the propellor, muffler and exhaust, radiator and coolant. The horsepower
>is rated at 90 bhp @ 2650 rpm. This is a three cylinder engine that can
>run on diesel or jet fuel (kerosene). The only real drawback seems to be
>the price - 11,000 pounds ($19,000 US) ouch.
>
>Bill C.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>
>
>Was that 119 pounds or kilograms? I deleted the site but I was wondering
>about the weight too. The Britts go by kilograms which if I remember
>right is 2.3 lbs per kilogram which would put the weight at 273 lbs.
>Very light weight for a diesel and very doable for the Piet. I didn't
>see anything about horsepower. Did they give it anywhere? A diesel
>would give great
>range and dependability and almost no fire hazard. Interesting set
>up....
>Ed G.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Web Site says 119 lbs flying ??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>-->
> >>
> >>How much does it weigh?
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Model A engine costs |
Well trying to finish out my plan of what exactly I am going to do before I
get started and engine choice seems to be the biggest issue. Well that an
the fact that I am about 6ft an 230.
I am trying to decide cost vs performance with my weight and yes it should
come down a bit (I am working on it) but Im never going to be the size of
Mr. Pietenpol.
First question is just how much in a real world sense is an A model engine
going to cost including everything tohave it running right. Ive run into a
lot of things that seem to be less expensive, but once you got into it you
really didn't save any money in the first place.
Second is it going to create enough power to handle my weight? Thanks in
advance
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Warner 145 radial |
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:40:24 PM Central Standard Time,
lmforge(at)earthlink.net writes:
I have stated building the center wing section from the Vi Kapler plans. I
have a couple of questions that I am unclear on.
First,.... Should the lower bolt on the aileron pulley support be an AN Bolt
or a common wood screw? If I use a bolt, how do you get clearance with the
3/8" x 1-3/4" compression strut.
Secondly,...I am using 3/4" spars on the center section and the main wing
panels and my ribs are built for 3/4" spars. It appears that the center section
spars do not have any plywood under the spar butt joint straps. The spar butt
joint straps lie directly on the spruce spars. The 3/32" plywood is just a
triangle below, but not under, the butt joint strap. The plywood basically forms
a
level surface for the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the
compression struts to bear against. Am I reading the plans correctly? What has
everyone else done? If the plans do call for the butt straps to be mounted on
the raw spruce, would there be a problem with wood compression with time?
Thanks,
Rick
Rick,
I notice nobody has responded yet, so I'll chime in on this one, even
though I built the one piece wing. Lynn K. and I talked about that lower bolt
on the aileron pulley bracket a couple of months ago, and we concluded it would
be alright to make a radius notch at the lower aft corner of the compression
strut, just enought to clear the tip of the bolt, with the nut on it. DO NOT
use a wood screw.
You are correct in that the Center Section Spars do Not have plywood
under the spar butt joint straps, and the plywood basically forms a level surface
for the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression struts
to bear against.. However, there IS plywood under both sides of the Wing
spar butt joint straps. This would be so the Wing Straps go on the outside of
the center section straps. If you look at the drawing, the grain of that
plywood runs differently than the grain of the spar. Just be sure you have all
the
wood cut and pre-fit, before you start making these fittings...or you will
likely be doing the fittings over again.
Lynn K. might chime in on this one...or anyone else ??
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Warner 145 radial |
Oscar,
Sorry wrong Piet I think.
Peter.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Oscar Zuniga
Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
In a message dated 3/12/2006 8:45:32 PM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
What is the best way to attach front aluminum turtle deck (covering the cowl
tank area and front instrument panel)? Short wood screws into the longerons?
Thanks
Rick
Rick,
I don't think it's a good idea to violate the longerons with any unnecessary
holes, like for those wood screws. It is a path for moisture to infiltrate.
I glued the top fabric stand off strip on the top edge of the fuselage, and
used this 1/4" X 1/2" strip to anchor the wood screws into...just make sure you
don't drill through the fabric stand off, and that your screws are not long
enough to protrude into the longerons. B.H.P. calls those strips "1/2" X 1/4"
Spruce Filler Strips between the Fittings". I think my small Phillips head
screws are 2" or 3" apart.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
| Subject: | Warner 145 radial |
Oscar,
Check out http://www.wilksch.com/pics_aircamper.html
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 Oscar Zuniga
Sent: Wednesday, 15 March 2006 9:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warner 145 radial |
I've got a small one that I took at Brodhead. I'll try to attach it.....Carl
Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial
>
>
> Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Warner 145 radial |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Oscar,
I have this one posted to Photoshare (from Brodhead 2004)
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/eng@canadianrogers.com.07.29.2004/NX
497AR.jpg
Bill C.
-
-->
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | aileron cable interference |
Has anyone else had trouble with the lower aileron cable getting awfully close
to a bolt head in the spar fitting for the little brace strut? I'm hoping that
with tension it'll stand off, but if not what should I do?
about the only two options I see are"
1. fabricate a plastic rub pad
2. change the spar fairleads a bit to increase the standoff as it passes that
bolt.
any other thoughts?
thanks
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Rick,
I believe you are reading the plans correctly.
Stay away from wood screws for fastening anything like this. You might
want to give some thought to using blindnuts so that you can use machine
screws. Then the nut does not need to interfere with the compression
strut, and your bolt length is simply the 3/4" spar thickness plus two
layers of 3/32" ply plus the fitting thickness (1/16") =3D 1".
Of course, my ideas are rarely original - to see what I'm referring to,
check out Jim Markle's well documented project at MyKitplane.com.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=3D373
&PlaneID=3D52
<http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=3D37
3&PlaneID=3D52>
This link also clearly shows the spar butt joint straps without any
plywood underneath. The plywood is only to act as a spacer for the
cabane fittings and pulley.
I don't think you need to worry about wood compression, as the straps
have quite a large area in contact with the wood, to spread out whatever
compressive forces you manage to impart on the wood through your
mounting bolts. Just be careful that the holes you drill through your
spars are just big enough to allow the bolts to pass through (no slop).
________________________________
In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:40:24 PM Central Standard Time,
lmforge(at)earthlink.net writes:
I have stated building the center wing section from the Vi
Kapler plans. I have a couple of questions that I am unclear on.
First,.... Should the lower bolt on the aileron pulley support
be an AN Bolt or a common wood screw? If I use a bolt, how do you get
clearance with the 3/8" x 1-3/4" compression strut.
Secondly,...I am using 3/4" spars on the center section and the
main wing panels and my ribs are built for 3/4" spars. It appears that
the center section spars do not have any plywood under the spar butt
joint straps. The spar butt joint straps lie directly on the spruce
spars. The 3/32" plywood is just a triangle below, but not under, the
butt joint strap. The plywood basically forms a level surface for the
aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression struts
to bear against. Am I reading the plans correctly? What has everyone
else done? If the plans do call for the butt straps to be mounted on the
raw spruce, would there be a problem with wood compression with time?
Thanks,
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Warner 145 radial |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Was just looking at the photo submitted by Carl Vought compared to the
one I took at Brodhead 2004. It's the same plane with clearly two
different engine mounts - one quite a bit longer than the other. Don't
know the story behind it.
Bill C.
-->
Oscar,
I have this one posted to Photoshare (from Brodhead 2004)
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/eng@canadianrogers.com.07.29.2004/NX
497AR.jpg
Bill C.
-->
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warner 145 radial |
RE: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radialDifferent engines, too.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:01 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Warner 145 radial
Was just looking at the photo submitted by Carl Vought compared to the one I
took at Brodhead 2004. It's the same plane with clearly two different engine mounts
- one quite a bit longer than the other. Don't know the story behind it.
Bill C.
-->
Oscar,
I have this one posted to Photoshare (from Brodhead 2004)
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/eng@canadianrogers.com.07.29.2004/NX497AR.jpg
Bill C.
-->
Does anyone have a picture of Lowell Frank's Warner 145 powered Piet?
Thanks.
Oscar Zuniga
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
So you used 1/4" long phillips wood screws for all your aluminum turtle deck
attachment?
Rick H
On 3/14/06, Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 3/12/2006 8:45:32 PM Central Standard Time,
> at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> What is the best way to attach front aluminum turtle deck (covering the
> cowl tank area and front instrument panel)? Short wood screws into the
> longerons?
>
> Thanks
>
> Rick
>
> Rick,
> I don't think it's a good idea to violate the longerons with any
> unnecessary holes, like for those wood screws. It is a path for moisture to
> infiltrate. I glued the top fabric stand off strip on the top edge of the
> fuselage, and used this 1/4" X 1/2" strip to anchor the wood screws
> into...just make sure you don't drill through the fabric stand off, and that
> your screws are not long enough to protrude into the longerons. B.H.P.
> calls those strips "1/2" X 1/4" Spruce Filler Strips between the
> Fittings". I think my small Phillips head screws are 2" or 3" apart.
>
> Chuck G.
> NX770CG
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Front aluminum turtle deck attachment |
In a message dated 3/15/2006 5:52:40 PM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
So you used 1/4" long phillips wood screws for all your aluminum turtle deck
attachment?
Rick H
Yes, they do NOT go into the longerons. After the cowl is all pre-fit with
the screws in place, I remove them, and put a few drops of the thin C A glue
(thin super glue) so it wicks into the wood fibers, and let it cure all the way
before re-installing any screws. I have never had any come out. I bought a
bag full of 'em at the Yard Store here in Wichita, and use this same screw for
many things on the plane to keep my inventory down...like the front cover for
the instrument panel. I painted them the same red as the rest of the plane.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 3 piece wing |
Chuck,
I'll plan on doing the same thing with the compression strut, notch the corner
and/or move it slightly to get clearance. I never really considered using any
wood screws, I just wanted to find out what every one else was doing.
As far as the plywood plates on the center section spars. My original thoughts
were if I used 1/16" under the center section spar butt joint straps, the width
of the 3/4 " spar plus plywood, plus the two 0.08" straps would only be 1.035".
With the proper ply thickness under the wing spar butt straps everything would
still fit. However, you are probably right, with all of the metal bearing
surfaces, plus the plywood under the cabane straps and aileron pulley, the plywood
is probably overkill.
Thanks,
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: 3/14/2006 4:45:02 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 3 piece wing
In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:40:24 PM Central Standard Time, lmforge(at)earthlink.net
writes:
I have stated building the center wing section from the Vi Kapler plans. I have
a couple of questions that I am unclear on.
First,.... Should the lower bolt on the aileron pulley support be an AN Bolt or
a common wood screw? If I use a bolt, how do you get clearance with the 3/8"
x 1-3/4" compression strut.
Secondly,...I am using 3/4" spars on the center section and the main wing panels
and my ribs are built for 3/4" spars. It appears that the center section spars
do not have any plywood under the spar butt joint straps. The spar butt joint
straps lie directly on the spruce spars. The 3/32" plywood is just a triangle
below, but not under, the butt joint strap. The plywood basically forms a level
surface for the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression
struts to bear against. Am I reading the plans correctly? What has everyone
else done? If the plans do call for the butt straps to be mounted on the
raw spruce, would there be a problem with wood compression with time?
Thanks,
Rick
Rick,
I notice nobody has responded yet, so I'll chime in on this one, even though
I built the one piece wing. Lynn K. and I talked about that lower bolt on
the aileron pulley bracket a couple of months ago, and we concluded it would be
alright to make a radius notch at the lower aft corner of the compression strut,
just enought to clear the tip of the bolt, with the nut on it. DO NOT use
a wood screw.
You are correct in that the Center Section Spars do Not have plywood under
the spar butt joint straps, and the plywood basically forms a level surface for
the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression struts to
bear against.. However, there IS plywood under both sides of the Wing spar
butt joint straps. This would be so the Wing Straps go on the outside of the
center section straps. If you look at the drawing, the grain of that plywood
runs differently than the grain of the spar. Just be sure you have all the wood
cut and pre-fit, before you start making these fittings...or you will likely
be doing the fittings over again.
Lynn K. might chime in on this one...or anyone else ??
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Richard Schreiber" <lmforge(at)earthlink.net> |
Bill,
As I just mentioned to Chuck Gantzer I will be sure to use all AN hardware. Not
putting any plywood under the spar butt straps as shown on the plans will certainly
make life easier.
I made up my Aileron pulley brackets yesterday usingTony Bengelis' information
on Bend Allowance and Set backs. I was amazed how accurate it all works out dimensionally
if you measure accurately and take your time.
Rick Schreiber
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
Sent: 3/15/2006 11:52:50 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: 3 piece wing
Rick,
I believe you are reading the plans correctly.
Stay away from wood screws for fastening anything like this. You might want to
give some thought to using blindnuts so that you can use machine screws. Then
the nut does not need to interfere with the compression strut, and your bolt length
is simply the 3/4" spar thickness plus two layers of 3/32" ply plus the
fitting thickness (1/16") = 1".
Of course, my ideas are rarely original - to see what I'm referring to, check out
Jim Markle's well documented project at MyKitplane.com.
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/buildLogReportDetail.cfm?BuildLogID=373&PlaneID=52
This link also clearly shows the spar butt joint straps without any plywood underneath.
The plywood is only to act as a spacer for the cabane fittings and pulley.
I don't think you need to worry about wood compression, as the straps have quite
a large area in contact with the wood, to spread out whatever compressive forces
you manage to impart on the wood through your mounting bolts. Just be careful
that the holes you drill through your spars are just big enough to allow
the bolts to pass through (no slop).
In a message dated 3/12/2006 4:40:24 PM Central Standard Time, lmforge(at)earthlink.net
writes:
I have stated building the center wing section from the Vi Kapler plans. I have
a couple of questions that I am unclear on.
First,.... Should the lower bolt on the aileron pulley support be an AN Bolt or
a common wood screw? If I use a bolt, how do you get clearance with the 3/8"
x 1-3/4" compression strut.
Secondly,...I am using 3/4" spars on the center section and the main wing panels
and my ribs are built for 3/4" spars. It appears that the center section spars
do not have any plywood under the spar butt joint straps. The spar butt joint
straps lie directly on the spruce spars. The 3/32" plywood is just a triangle
below, but not under, the butt joint strap. The plywood basically forms a level
surface for the aileron pulley support, the cabane fittings and the compression
struts to bear against. Am I reading the plans correctly? What has everyone
else done? If the plans do call for the butt straps to be mounted on the
raw spruce, would there be a problem with wood compression with time?
Thanks,
Rick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Warner 145 radial |
Chris,
This Piet was built at Brodhead in the 1980's by Francis Saunders, Dick Weeden
and Ted Davis. It was powered by a Labond, 90 HP I think. First Piet I ever had
a ride in! Last I knew, last summer it was owned by Don Campbell, the aircraft
was still at Brodhead and had a Model A.
Skip
-----
I always thought this was Mr. Franks plane. But I guess I was wrong.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | BARNSTMR(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Warner 145 radial |
Carl's photo has a 7 cyl Warner it appears. Bill Church's photo has a 5 cyl
LeBlond I think.
Terry
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Actually if you compare the long fuse with the 1933-1934 plans and
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
>
>
> Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> supplementary plans.
>
> Of course, as long as your weight and balance work out (i.e. the new
> firewall position allows enough room to mount your engine), the only
> difference would be the length of your motor mounts, and you get to make use
> of that "empty" space that some have ended up with when their W&B
> calculations indicated that they needed to extend their motor mounts by
> several inches. It will be interesting to see how your numbers work out -
> keep us all posted.
>
> Bill
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* March 13, 2006 9:15 AM
>
> *To: * pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
> tank
>
> I am using the long fuselage plans and extended the front 6 inches (per
> Bernard's recommendation) ...
>
> Rick H.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2"
further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5
3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
>
>
> Rick,
>
> You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
>
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
>
> Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> supplementary plans.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend for
a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't want to
be redundant.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you
will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything
else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's
firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back.
Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?)
AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage
by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary
plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter
written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension
was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Bill
Since I am only a humble Piet builder, and have never flown or finished one
(yet), my opinion is worth very little (almost nothing). However, I have
talked to William Wayne, the Corvair god who built and flew a Corvair Piet
for hundreds of hours, about this and he highly recommends the long
fuselage. Here is one of his email replies to this question:
*Subj: Pietenpol Power Curve, Props* Date: 6/6/03
My nephew & I are researching the possibility of using a Corvair engine on a
Pietenpol. Do you have available the power curve on the engines?? What prop
would you recommend?? Thanks.
Harry Myers, harrymyr(at)vtc.net *Reply from WW: * As you already know, the
Corvair is the ideal engine for the Pietenpol. The updated LONG
FUSELAGEdrawings available from the Pietenpol family are the most
ideal ones to
build from for Corvair power. The Corvair engine, built according to my
Conversion Manual (available for $59 in the U.S. (and $64 including S&H
outside the U.S.), by check or money order payable to William Wynne, P.O.
Box 290802, Port Orange, FL 32129-0802, or by credit card via PayPal
at the Online
Catalog <http://www.davemorris.com/products.html>) produces about 80hp at
2,800rpm, 90hp at 2,950 and 100hp at 3,100rpm. I sell 2-blade Warp Drive 68"
ground adjustable propellers for Pietenpols, the same prop I flew for years
on my own Pietenpol with great satisfaction. Most guys flying wood props use
66" diameter with a pitch in the range of 30-34". Happy building and flying
your family project.
If you haven't already, check out his web site at
http://www.flycorvair.com/and you will want to get one of his Corvair
conversion manuals if you are
thinking about Corvair power.
Good luck.
Rick H
On 3/16/06, The Schuerrs wrote:
>
> So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend
> for a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't
> want to be redundant.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Rick Holland
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
> tank
>
> Bill
>
> If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
> you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
> everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
> the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2"
> further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5
> 3/8" further back.
>
> Rick H.
>
> On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> > 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
> >
> > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
> >
> >
> > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> > supplementary plans.
> >
> >
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "The Schuerrs" <schuerrs(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Thanks.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Bill
Since I am only a humble Piet builder, and have never flown or finished one (yet),
my opinion is worth very little (almost nothing). However, I have talked
to William Wayne, the Corvair god who built and flew a Corvair Piet for hundreds
of hours, about this and he highly recommends the long fuselage. Here is
one of his email replies to this question:
Subj: Pietenpol Power Curve, Props
Date: 6/6/03
My nephew & I are researching the possibility of using a Corvair engine
on a Pietenpol. Do you have available the power curve on the engines?? What prop
would you recommend?? Thanks.
Harry Myers, harrymyr(at)vtc.net
Reply from WW:
As you already know, the Corvair is the ideal engine for the Pietenpol.
The updated LONG FUSELAGE drawings available from the Pietenpol family are the
most ideal ones to build from for Corvair power. The Corvair engine, built according
to my Conversion Manual (available for $59 in the U.S. (and $64 including
S&H outside the U.S.), by check or money order payable to William Wynne,
P.O. Box 290802, Port Orange, FL 32129-0802, or by credit card via PayPal at the
Online Catalog) produces about 80hp at 2,800rpm, 90hp at 2,950 and 100hp at
3,100rpm. I sell 2-blade Warp Drive 68" ground adjustable propellers for Pietenpols,
the same prop I flew for years on my own Pietenpol with great satisfaction.
Most guys flying wood props use 66" diameter with a pitch in the range of
30-34". Happy building and flying your family project.
If you haven't already, check out his web site at http://www.flycorvair.com/ and you will want to get one of his Corvair conversion manuals if you are thinking about Corvair power.
Good luck.
Rick H
On 3/16/06, The Schuerrs wrote:
So, if you were to recommend a set of plans, which one would you recommend
for a corvair engine? I don't mind buying plans that I need, I just don't want
to be redundant.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rick Holland
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 10:21 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you
will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything
else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's
firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back.
Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further
back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?)
AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage
by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary
plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with
letter written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension
was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary
plans.
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Rick,
Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two
fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The
"improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the
"supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and
Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the
Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP
found that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the
firewall (for W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended
to balance the longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the
right balance, and my assumption is that the supplementary plans must be
very close to where things should be. I think one thing that contributes
to the confusion is that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the
engine mounted. It would be interesting to see the differences between
the various powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side.
But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the
engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than
the engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit
much). Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the
cabanes leaning forward.
Bill C.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by
side you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the
improved, everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range
for a datum the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the
rear seat is 2" further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers
and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans
(supplementary plans 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend
the fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper
plans, before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following
link to 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
=09
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&Ph
otoID=3D2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the
fuselage extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of
the supplementary plans.
=09
=09
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
That's correct Bill, the Ford engine weighs around 260 lbs and I don't know
if that includes the radiator and water. The C-65/75/85s most people put in
their Piets weight from 165-190 lbs. and they nearly all have to move their
wings back 3 to 4 inches to balance. Based on my previous discussion if the
long fuselage was used with these they may have to move their wings back a
bit further.
When I talked to William Wayne about this he said his Piet was a short
fuselage and he built his mount to set his engine 15" from the firewall
(firewall to rear engine mount bolt). This allowed him to have vertical
cabanes. In his manual he says that the Corvair can be mounted as close as 8
1/2" (front starter and remote oil filter). That's a difference of 6
1/2", given that I am heaver than William (and always will be) and I am
building the long fuselage theoretically a 6" fuselage extension may be just
right. If I were going to do it again I think I would compromise at 3".
However since I have not varnished anything yet and have not glued the side
plywood or firewall on cutting off a few inches wouldn't take more than an
hour or two.
Rick H
On 3/16/06, Bill Church wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two
> fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The
> "improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the
> "supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and
> Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the Continental
> and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found that the
> lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for W&B), and
> then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the longer nose
> (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my assumption is
> that the supplementary plans must be very close to where things should be. I
> think one thing that contributes to the confusion is that the drawings don't
> show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would be interesting to see the
> differences between the various powerplant/fuselage combinations
> side-by-side.
> But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the
> engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the
> engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much). Like
> you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning
> forward.
>
> Bill C.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
>
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
> tank
>
> Bill
>
> If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
> you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
> everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
> the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2"
> further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5
> 3/8" further back.
>
> Rick H.
>
> On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
> >
> >
> > Rick,
> >
> > You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> > 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> > As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> > fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> > before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> > 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
> >
> > http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
> >
> >
> > Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> > extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> > supplementary plans.
> >
> >
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Corvair update... |
...William Wynne's website, is at http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html
The latest to fly, Phil Maxson's CH601. Also a bit of info on a distributor
modification that William is now offering.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Glenn Thomas" <glennthomas(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Rick,
Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two fuselages.
The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The "improved" fuselage
was designed around the Ford model A, and the "supplementary" fuselage was intended
for the lighter Continental and Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary
drawings for the Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding
is that BHP found that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from
the firewall (for W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended
to balance the longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance,
and my assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where
things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is
that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would be interesting
to see the differences between the various powerplant/fuselage combinations
side-by-side.
But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the engine
mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the engine mounts
seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much). Like you said,
you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning forward.
Bill C.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick Holland
Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side you
will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved, everything
else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum the supplementary's
firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2" further back.
Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are 5 3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans 1966?)
AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the fuselage
by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans, before the supplementary
plans had been drawn up. (see following link to 1956 article with letter
written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage extension
was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the supplementary plans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Bill & Rick,
I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
Cabanes leaning back slightly.
The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
There are other ways of achieving the same.
Hans
"Bill Church"
To
Sent by:
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/16/2006 04:13 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Rick,
Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two
fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The
"improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the
"supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and
Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the
Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found
that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for
W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the
longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my
assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where
things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is
that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would
be interesting to see the differences between the various
powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side.
But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the
engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the
engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much).
Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning
forward.
Bill C.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2"
further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are
5 3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
1956 article with letter written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=page2.jpg&PhotoID=2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
supplementary plans.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Piet/GN-1 performance |
attn Piet/GN-1 pilots:
I need some input from those of you that have experience with the GN-1 in particular,
but more so, those of you that have flown off short grass.
What I need is a few examples verified of actual "roll out distance on grass" to
clear a 15' obsticle at take off. Even though may particular situation has
no obstacles at either end of this EW strip but farm ground and a country road
at one of the ends. The altitude varies 2 feet from one end to the other and
is at 680' MSL
Here is the situation, i am trying to get dept. of aeronautics to approve a 1330'
grass strip for "restricted use for specified aircraft (i.e. GN-1)", they want
some "performance input" on this scenerio. Other factor(s) include; stock
Corvair turning 3100 RPM on a 2 blade warp drive, 68" ground adjustable prop.
The gear on my GN-1 is basically a J4 with standard tires, and a 4" Scott tail.
"Mean" Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Piet/GN-1 performance |
Gene,
My GN-1 is based at a 2,100' grass strip, and even with two people I routinely
get up in 1,000' or less, even with 18 gallons of fuel. This is with an A-75
turning a 68"x42 prop near 2,400 RPM static. With just me on board and a
slight headwind, I can get off in a few hundred feet.
Here is a picture of the field showing obstructions.
http://www.wotelectronics.com/O44.jpg
On runway 35, I am always up before the "slight bump" indicated in the
picture,
even with two people. Elevation is 1,135'MSL.
Hope this helps, let me know if I can provide any other information.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Gene Beenenga :
>
> attn Piet/GN-1 pilots:
>
> I need some input from those of you that have experience with the
> GN-1 in particular, but more so, those of you that have flown off
> short grass.
>
> What I need is a few examples verified of actual "roll out distance
> on grass" to clear a 15' obsticle at take off. Even though may
> particular situation has no obstacles at either end of this EW strip
> but farm ground and a country road at one of the ends. The altitude
> varies 2 feet from one end to the other and is at 680' MSL
>
> Here is the situation, i am trying to get dept. of aeronautics to
> approve a 1330' grass strip for "restricted use for specified
> aircraft (i.e. GN-1)", they want some "performance input" on this
> scenerio. Other factor(s) include; stock Corvair turning 3100 RPM on
> a 2 blade warp drive, 68" ground adjustable prop. The gear on my
> GN-1 is basically a J4 with standard tires, and a 4" Scott tail.
>
> "Mean" Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
Thanks Hans, just to make sure I understand do you know the measurement from
your firewall to the center of the rear engine mount bolt on your engine
mount tray?
Rick
On 3/17/06, Hans Vander Voort wrote:
>
> hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>
> Bill & Rick,
>
> I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
> The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
> Cabanes leaning back slightly.
>
> The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
> build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
>
> I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
> An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
> The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
>
> There are other ways of achieving the same.
>
> Hans
>
>
> "Bill Church"
> rs.com> To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
> testing a welding aluminum fuel
> 03/16/2006 04:13 tank
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
> Rick,
>
> Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two
> fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The
> "improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the
> "supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and
> Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the
> Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP found
> that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for
> W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the
> longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and my
> assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where
> things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is
> that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would
> be interesting to see the differences between the various
> powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side.
> But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the
> engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the
> engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much).
> Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes leaning
> forward.
>
> Bill C.
>
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
> Holland
> Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank
>
> Bill
>
> If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
> you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
> everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
> the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is 2"
> further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel) are
> 5 3/8" further back.
>
> Rick H.
>
> On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
>
> Rick,
>
> You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
> 1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
> As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
> fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
> before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link to
> 1956 article with letter written by BHP)
>
>
> http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=3Dpage2.jpg&PhotoID=3D2271
>
>
> Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
> extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
> supplementary plans.
>
>
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel tank |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Rick,
I would have to measure it, all I have right now is: I clear the Stainless
steel firewall by 1/4 inch
On the motor mount I just moved the engine mounting points 1/2 inch
forward.
Still using the original BHP design Corvair motor mount.
I also used the urethane bushings that William Wynne suggests, this also
moves the engine up a little.
Keep on building
Hans
"Rick Holland"
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/17/2006 12:08 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Thanks Hans, just to make sure I understand do you know the measurement
from your firewall to the center of the rear engine mount bolt on your
engine mount tray?
Rick
On 3/17/06, Hans Vander Voort wrote:
hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Bill & Rick,
I extended the BHP Corvair engine mount by 1/2 Inch.
The rest is standard long fuselage as per plans.
Cabanes leaning back slightly.
The 1/2 inch extension in the motor mount is needed for the Corvair
build-on Oil filter to clear the firewall.
I have a stainless steel sheet and Fibrefrax covering the firewall.
An FAA requirement not needed in the good old days when BHP build his.
The stainless and Fibrefrax add about 1/4 inch.
There are other ways of achieving the same.
Hans
"Bill Church"
To
Sent by: < pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com>
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: Pressure
testing a welding aluminum fuel
03/16/2006 04:13 tank
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Rick,
Yes, I noticed that those were the main differences between the two
fuselages. The other main difference would be the engine/mount. The
"improved" fuselage was designed around the Ford model A, and the
"supplementary" fuselage was intended for the lighter Continental and
Corvair type engines (as were the supplementary drawings for the
Continental and Corvair engine mounts). My understanding is that BHP
found
that the lighter engines had to be mounted further from the firewall (for
W&B), and then determined that the tail had to be extended to balance the
longer nose (for handling). The trick is to find the right balance, and
my
assumption is that the supplementary plans must be very close to where
things should be. I think one thing that contributes to the confusion is
that the drawings don't show a fuselage with the engine mounted. It would
be interesting to see the differences between the various
powerplant/fuselage combinations side-by-side.
But I have read that several builders have found the need to extend the
engine mounts, so your approach of extending the fuselage rather than the
engine mounts seems logical (just wondering if 6" might be a bit much).
Like you said, you may end up with the first Piet with the cabanes
leaning
forward.
Bill C.
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: March 16, 2006 11:31 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Pressure testing a welding aluminum fuel
tank
Bill
If you compare the improved and supplementary fuselage plans side by side
you will see that the supplemantary is more tail heavy than the improved,
everything else being equal. Using the center of the CG range for a datum
the supplementary's firewall is 2" further forward but the rear seat is
2"
further back. Also the tail post (and the tail feathers and tailwheel)
are
5 3/8" further back.
Rick H.
On 3/13/06, Bill Church wrote:
Rick,
You say that you are using the long fuselage plans (supplementary plans
1966?) AND extending the front 6 inches.
As I have read, I believe Pietenpol's recommendation to extend the
fuselage by 6" was referring to the 1933-34 improved Air Camper plans,
before the supplementary plans had been drawn up. (see following link
to
1956 article with letter written by BHP)
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=page2.jpg&PhotoID=2271
Unless I am mistaken (and that's QUITE possible) I think the fuselage
extension was already incorporated into the "long" fuselage of the
supplementary plans.============================================ ="
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
">http://www.matronics================================================ p;
-Matt Dralle, Li> ===================================================
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
Ok fellows, I've lost my marbles.
Somewhere in my stack of stuff I've got an article about testing wood grain direction
with india ink. I can't remember which publication it's in: Sport Aviation
Tips, Wood, etc.
I've got a chance to purchase some Sitka here in Maine (been at the lumberyard
for about a year, having been brought in from the West Coast on special order
for another customer) for $8 per foot (full 2"x6"). VERY straight grain, with
rings averaging 21 per inch (low 18 rpi, high 30 rpi) throughout the full six
inch width.
Do any of you guys remember this article--maybe from Forest Products Lab publication,
AC 43.13, etc.?
Thanx,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Ink Test |
How about this one. See page 2 under Flat Grain Slope. Dont know where this
came from.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Lyscars
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Ink Test
Ok fellows, I've lost my marbles.
Somewhere in my stack of stuff I've got an article about testing wood grain
direction with india ink. I can't remember which publication it's in:
Sport Aviation Tips, Wood, etc.
I've got a chance to purchase some Sitka here in Maine (been at the
lumberyard for about a year, having been brought in from the West Coast on
special order for another customer) for $8 per foot (full 2"x6"). VERY
straight grain, with rings averaging 21 per inch (low 18 rpi, high 30 rpi)
throughout the full six inch width.
Do any of you guys remember this article--maybe from Forest Products Lab
publication, AC 43.13, etc.?
Thanx,
Alan
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Elevator leading edge |
Dumb question and I suppose if I looked at plans even more closely I'd arrive
at answer myself ... is the leading edge of the elevators the same cross
section as the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer? Or is it the same as
the
trailing edge of the stab, only reversed? Same question for the rudder and
vertical stab ?
Only about 120 days to Brodhead! BTW -- my son brought his computer home
which has MS Flight Simulator -- he has a Model A powered Pietenpol on it. Have
been getting some stick time -- great fun! The glide angle is almost like a
space shuttle! Tried flying the 747-400 -- did okay 'til landing. I at least got
it on the airport when landing...yes, you can land one of these in the grass
(Microsoft grass, that is!).
Have a great weekend!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
| Subject: | Re: Model A engine costs |
Mark: ".....to get a model A to run right" That may never happen. Even
Ken Perkins who has the best Model A set up has had his share of
problems and probably always will. Even the Corvair guys are having
crank shaft problems. But if any one can work that out, WW will do it.
On Cost, I couldn't say. I bought an already converted engine on a test
stand, engine mt. (fwf minus prop) and a whole pickup load of other
stuff for about 3 grand. Including a B which I am told is worth $1500 to
the car guys. As far as carrying your weight, I've watched Perkins (He
told me once he weight 235) take off with a pretty big passenger, and
get off pretty quick and climb good. On the Other hand, last year me and
couple of guys were watching Piets fly (at Brodhead) and Bill Rewey (65
Cont.) took off with a pretty hefty passenger and was still VERY low
when he passed over the road on the east end. I doubt he did a mid field
take off. You couldn't see the west end for the corn. Were all gasping!
It was also quite a show watching the passenger get in and out of the
front pit. I have a Cont. ($$$$) engine waiting in the wings just in
case, but am thinking Corvair because of cost. None of these are real
answers to your questions, so I'm giving $0,000.000.002 worth of some
observations I have. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator leading edge |
Fred,
The LE of the elevators and rudder are the same cross-section as the TRAILING edge
of the stabilizer and vertical fin.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 8:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator leading edge
Dumb question and I suppose if I looked at plans even more closely I'd arrive
at answer myself ... is the leading edge of the elevators the same cross section
as the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer? Or is it the same as the
trailing edge of the stab, only reversed? Same question for the rudder and vertical
stab ?
Only about 120 days to Brodhead! BTW -- my son brought his computer home which
has MS Flight Simulator -- he has a Model A powered Pietenpol on it. Have been
getting some stick time -- great fun! The glide angle is almost like a space
shuttle! Tried flying the 747-400 -- did okay 'til landing. I at least got
it on the airport when landing...yes, you can land one of these in the grass (Microsoft
grass, that is!).
Have a great weekend!
Fred B.
La Crosse, WI
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator leading edge |
This is how I did it. It is easier to explain in picture form.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: TBYH(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 6:48 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator leading edge
Dumb question and I suppose if I looked at plans even more closely I'd arrive
at answer myself ... is the leading edge of the elevators the same cross section
as the leading edge of the horizontal stabilizer? Or is it the same as the
trailing edge of the stab, only reversed? Same question for the rudder and vertical
stab ?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wood Ink Test |
Thanks, Chris;
Yep, it's the ink run method I'm looking for. Now to find where this
document resides!
Alan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Wood Ink Test
> How about this one. See page 2 under Flat Grain Slope. Dont know where
this
> came from.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan Lyscars
> To: Piet List
> Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:51 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wood Ink Test
>
>
> Ok fellows, I've lost my marbles.
>
> Somewhere in my stack of stuff I've got an article about testing wood
grain
> direction with india ink. I can't remember which publication it's in:
> Sport Aviation Tips, Wood, etc.
>
> I've got a chance to purchase some Sitka here in Maine (been at the
> lumberyard for about a year, having been brought in from the West Coast on
> special order for another customer) for $8 per foot (full 2"x6"). VERY
> straight grain, with rings averaging 21 per inch (low 18 rpi, high 30 rpi)
> throughout the full six inch width.
>
> Do any of you guys remember this article--maybe from Forest Products Lab
> publication, AC 43.13, etc.?
>
> Thanx,
>
> Alan
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
Just ran into my Yahoo pic acct. Forgot I had it. Here's the link in case any
one wants to browse my project in a nutshell. Click to make them bigger.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joepiet/album?.dir=3D5f03
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: my Piet pics |
Walt, can you tell me how you added the tail wheel to the standard Piet design?
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: piet list
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Piet pics
Just ran into my Yahoo pic acct. Forgot I had it. Here's the link in case any
one wants to browse my project in a nutshell. Click to make them bigger.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joepiet/album?.dir=3D5f03
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | del magsam <farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A engine costs |
Even the Corvair guys are having
crank shaft problems. But if any one can work that out, WW will do it.
>>>>>not really, its just that the engines are being souped up, extensions made,
and engines run at higher rpms on airplanes that are more yank and bank style....they
are just finding the limits of the crank design.
Del
Del-New Richmond, Wi
"farmerdel(at)rocketmail.com"
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: my Piet pics |
Chris,
I added an L shaped plate under the coil spring to give a surface parallel to the
ground. With a hole for a pivot bolt. Then kind of fabricated a tailwheel
holder to take a cheap 4" (I think) wheel. Then had to make a bracket that holds
2 pullies for cables to go over. These were at the pivot point of the swingarm,
holding the wheel assy. The front of the cables were swaged to the rudder
cables under the seat, and the rear was attached, with springs, to the tailwheel
arms.
Turns out that cause the height of the wheel was like a lever, during tight turns
the swingarm tubes twisted. So had to fabricate like a truss assy on the arms.
Kind of hard to explain, I'll try to dig up pics.
walt evans
NX140DL
----- Original Message -----
From: Catdesign
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my Piet pics
Walt, can you tell me how you added the tail wheel to the standard Piet design?
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: piet list
Sent: Saturday, March 18, 2006 2:18 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: my Piet pics
Just ran into my Yahoo pic acct. Forgot I had it. Here's the link in case
any one wants to browse my project in a nutshell. Click to make them bigger.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joepiet/album?.dir=3D5f03
walt evans
NX140DL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Catdesign" <catdesign(at)intergate.com> |
| Subject: | Re: my Piet pics |
Walt,
I have heard about using heavy duty casters before. So you just used a off the
shelf caster? Any wisdom on selection one? Or did you just grab whatever they
had. How's it holding up? Do you land on grass or pavement? I'll be landing
on pavement. I have heard that if built to the plans the tubing might bend.
I think it was Steve Eldrige who also had this happen. I think he recommended
increasing the size of the down tubes. Pictures would be great.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: my Piet pics
Chris,
I added an L shaped plate under the coil spring to give a surface parallel to
the ground. With a hole for a pivot bolt. Then kind of fabricated a tailwheel
holder to take a cheap 4" (I think) wheel. Then had to make a bracket that
holds 2 pullies for cables to go over. These were at the pivot point of the swingarm,
holding the wheel assy. The front of the cables were swaged to the rudder
cables under the seat, and the rear was attached, with springs, to the tailwheel
arms.
Turns out that cause the height of the wheel was like a lever, during tight turns
the swingarm tubes twisted. So had to fabricate like a truss assy on the
arms.
Kind of hard to explain, I'll try to dig up pics.
walt evans
NX140DL
March 03, 2006 - March 19, 2006
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-ey