Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-fd
May 28, 2006 - June 20, 2006
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I need to know the two balance points on the aircraft.I suspect one is
on the seat arm rest(for for and aft) and the other on the top of the
wing for left and right.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server@
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: 36" center section design |
Would recommend purchasing the 36" CC plans from Bill Rewey, his address wa=
s
listed a couple days ago on this list. Basically you are correct the only
real difference is that the cabane fittings on the spars are separate from
the wing attach fittings at the ends of the spars. Actually makes things
easier I think. In my case, since I widened my fuselage 2" the top bolt
holes for the cabane fittings mated with the top bolt holes of the wing
attach fittings.
Rick H
On 5/28/06, John Egan wrote:
>
> 36" center section: With the direction from group members to build a 36"
> center section, please advise me if my thoughts are reasonable regarding
the
> design.
>
>
> - Cut the center section spars to 36".
> - Lengthen the plywood laminated plates so they span from the end
> of the center spar back to the cabane strut attach points.
> - The wing attachment brackets (flat stock) will be at the same
> geometry as in the Vi Kaplar drawing, however they will not be welded
to the
> cabane strut weldment. A spacer will be needed to cleanly overlap the
> brackets on the wing.
> - Fabricate the cabane strut attachment welment and locate it
> directly above the fuselage so the struts remain square to the fuselag=
e and
> wing.
>
> So basically, fabricate the weldment as usual, without welding the flat
> stock wing bracket to the strut weldment... A person could also use
> something to the Grega plans however the traditional design calls for eas=
y
> to use flat stock.
>
> I appreciate your thoughts and advice.
>
> Thanks,
>
> John
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
Mike
Looking at your wing with the bottom covered made me think of something. Di=
d
you glue (poly-tak) the fabric to the bottom of each rib, or is it best to
wait till you rib stitch to pull the bottom fabric up to the undercambere=
d
ribs?
Rick
On 5/26/06, Michael D Cuy wrote:
>
>
> Rick-- good to hear you have completed one wing. You will be amazed at
> how FAST the other wing will go.
>
> Wings go together wayyyyy faster than the fuselage. Everything bolts to
> the fuselage and all the controls and systems
>
> are in there. The wings were really satisfying for me to build.
>
>
> Here is a wing pic for all you builders to get you enthused
> again. Remember--this is a three day weekend for most of
>
> us so let your family know that you are going to be working in the shop
> some on either Saturday, Sunday, or Monday.....or
>
> perhaps all three !
>
> Mike C.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: 36" center section design |
John
Sounds like you got it right. I am looking at one here in my shop built
as you described. The only thing I did additionally, is to add 3 bottom
plates under the fuel tank. Also, I have a 24" cut out.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Egan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: 36" center section design
36" center section: With the direction from group members to build a
36" center section, please advise me if my thoughts are reasonable
regarding the design.
a.. Cut the center section spars to 36".
b.. Lengthen the plywood laminated plates so they span from the end
of the center spar back to the cabane strut attach points.
c.. The wing attachment brackets (flat stock) will be at the same
geometry as in the Vi Kaplar drawing, however they will not be welded to
the cabane strut weldment. A spacer will be needed to cleanly overlap
the brackets on the wing.
d.. Fabricate the cabane strut attachment welment and locate it
directly above the fuselage so the struts remain square to the fuselage
and wing.
So basically, fabricate the weldment as usual, without welding the
flat stock wing bracket to the strut weldment... A person could also use
something to the Grega plans however the traditional design calls for
easy to use flat stock.
I appreciate your thoughts and advice.
Thanks,
John
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rob Stapleton" <foto(at)alaska.net> |
| Subject: | FW: Flying the Alaska Highway...? |
Any one venturing up to Alaska?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-----Original Message-----
From: Alaska Airmen's Association [mailto:info(at)alaskaairmen.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2006 9:31 AM
Subject: RE: Flying the Alaska Highway...?
Yes, we still have the 3rd edition of the "Logbook," Flying to, from and in
Alaska. They are available by calling the office here at 245-1251.
Dee
-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Stapleton [mailto:foto(at)alaska.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 24, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: Flying the Alaska Highway...?
Importance: High
I have several contacts that are flying up the Alaska highway this summer
and are looking for info. Didn't the AAA used to have a book, and material
to help Lower 48 pilots with their trips.Also I remember a log or something
that they sign when the make it.
Can you advise so I can post it on a list serve, I couldn't find it on the
web site.
Cheers,
Rob Stapleton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
In a message dated 5/28/2006 8:09:10 PM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
Did you glue (poly-tak) the fabric to the bottom of each rib, or is it best
to wait till you rib stitch to pull the bottom fabric up to the undercambered
ribs?
Rick,
Allow me to jump in here. You should NOT glue the fabric to the bottom
(or top) of the wing ribs, or when you shrink the fabric it could warp the
ribs. The Stits method says the fabric will shrink by 10%.
The way I did it, was to glue the fabric on the bottom first, then the
top, then the wing tips, keeping the wrinkles out. I clamped the fabric in place
with spring clamps and cloths pins. Then did the leading and trailing edge
tapes, then do a fabric shrink with 75% to 80%of the suggested heat setting,
then rib stitch - pulling the fabric up in the undercambered portion, then the
final 100% of the full max suggested heat setting - keeping a close eye on the
temp of the iron, then tape over the the stitches. You can hear the fabric
moving all over the place when you shrink it. The stitches are closer together
in the prop was area, plus one rib each side. I used just over 500 stitches !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://nx770cg.com/Wing.html
Too windy to fly in the Land of Oz...I wonder if anyone ever did a takeoff -
going in reverse !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | Two New Email Lists at Matronics and Wiki Reminder! |
Dear Listers,
I have added two new email Lists to the Matronics Line up today. These include
a Continental engine List and a Lightning aircraft List:
===========
continental-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Continental-List
Everything related to the Continental aircraft engine. Sky's the limit on discussions
here.
===========
===========
lightning-list(at)matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Lightning-List
This is an exciting new design from Arion Aircraft LLC in Shelbyville Tennessee. Pete Krotje has a very nice web site on the aircraft that can be found here: http://www.arionaircraft.com/
===========
Also, if you haven't checked out the new Matronics Aircraft Wiki, swing by and
have a look. Remember, a Wiki is only as good as the content that the members
put into it. Have a look over some of the sections, and if you've got some interesting
or useful, please add it to the Wiki! Its all about YOU! :-) The
URL for the Matronics Wiki is:
http://wiki.matronics.com
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tenpol-List:weight and balance |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I have searched through the drawings and have come up empty as to the
balance locations on the aircraft for a weight and balance.The AME has
asked me to get in touch with the web to find out what these
are.Thankyou in advance for any info you can provide.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net> |
Corky,
Recieved the package. Thanks. Money order is on it's way.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
In a message dated 5/29/2006 2:29:40 PM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
The way I did it, was to glue the fabric on the bottom first, then the top
Only at the leading edge, and trailing edges.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight and Balance |
In a message dated 5/28/2006 6:29:57 PM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I need to know the two balance points on the aircraft.I suspect one is on the
seat arm rest(for for and aft) and the other on the top of the wing for left
and right.
I have searched through the drawings and have come up empty as to the
balance locations on the aircraft for a weight and balance.The AME has
asked me to get in touch with the web to find out what these
are.Thankyou in advance for any info you can provide.
I think what you are looking for is the forward and aft Center of
Gravity locations. This is the tolorance where the weight of the aircraft loads
the wing. When doing Weight & Balance, there is no right & left balance
points. For the Pietenpol Airfoil, Bernard H. Pietenpol said that it should be
maintained between 1/4 to 1/3 of the chord.
This amounts to 25% of the chord for the forward limit, and for the
aft limit it would be 33 1/3%. The chord is 60", so the forward limit is 25%
of 60", which is 15" behind the leading edge. For the aft limit it would be
33 1/3% of 60", which is 20" behind the leading edge. Therefore, your C. of
G. limits are between 15 and 20 inches behind the leading edge. Pietenpols
are notorious for coming out with the C. G. close to the aft limit. If the C.
G. is behind the aft limit, this is a very dangerous way to fly the plane.
Should the wing stall in flight, it might be impossible to get it out of the
stalled condition.
I don't know of any other airfoils with an aft limit as far back as the
Pietenpol. I believe this is because of the undercambered airfoil, which has a
large amount of nose down pitching moment. In saying that, if you use
anything other than the Pietenpol airfoil, you Should Not use these limits. You
Must use the limits of the particular airfoil being used.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Weight and Balance |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Thanks very much for this info,very useful.I was wondering during the
weight and balance process where one puts the level on the horizontal
and the AME said he wanted the level point for even weight on either
side?Thanks.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: May 29, 2006 10:15 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Weight and Balance
In a message dated 5/28/2006 6:29:57 PM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I need to know the two balance points on the aircraft.I suspect
one is on the seat arm rest(for for and aft) and the other on the top of
the wing for left and right.
I have searched through the drawings and have come up empty as to the
balance locations on the aircraft for a weight and balance.The AME has
asked me to get in touch with the web to find out what these
are.Thankyou in advance for any info you can provide.
I think what you are looking for is the forward and aft Center
of Gravity locations. This is the tolorance where the weight of the
aircraft loads the wing. When doing Weight & Balance, there is no right
& left balance points. For the Pietenpol Airfoil, Bernard H. Pietenpol
said that it should be maintained between 1/4 to 1/3 of the chord.
This amounts to 25% of the chord for the forward limit, and
for the aft limit it would be 33 1/3%. The chord is 60", so the forward
limit is 25% of 60", which is 15" behind the leading edge. For the aft
limit it would be 33 1/3% of 60", which is 20" behind the leading edge.
Therefore, your C. of G. limits are between 15 and 20 inches behind the
leading edge. Pietenpols are notorious for coming out with the C. G.
close to the aft limit. If the C. G. is behind the aft limit, this is a
very dangerous way to fly the plane. Should the wing stall in flight,
it might be impossible to get it out of the stalled condition.
I don't know of any other airfoils with an aft limit as far back as
the Pietenpol. I believe this is because of the undercambered airfoil,
which has a large amount of nose down pitching moment. In saying that,
if you use anything other than the Pietenpol airfoil, you Should Not use
these limits. You Must use the limits of the particular airfoil being
used.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:weight and balance |
Harvey,
A traditional rectangluar wing, flat bottomed, so called NACA wing, has a
standard loaded CG range. The CG range is calculated to provide the CG
range slightly forward of the center of lift. This forward shift of loaded
CG is due to the nature of the weight of the tail feathers and whether they
provide additional lift in flight. This standard NACA wing loaded CG range
is 25% to 33% of chord. So, assuming a 60" chord line, then this means the
loaded operational CG range is 12" to 20" from the leading edge of the wing.
The center of lift would be slightly behind the 20" back limit, to assure a
nose over stall instead of a tail heavy flat non-recoverable stall. Each
moveable item loaded in the plane would have a calculated ARM or distance
forward of or behind this datum point (in the case above, meaning the
leading edge of the wing). The empty (setting longerons level in hanger) is
less important, other than the fact the plane may fall over on it's prop if
the empty CG is too far forward of the landing gear. So, here's how you do
it, assuming the Pietenpol undercamber wing qualifies as a NACA type.
Level up the top longerons, north/south and east/west. You may have to add
weight to the tail wheel to keep the nose from tipping over. Now weigh the
plane at all three wheels. Drop plumb from the leading edge of the wing and
mark it on the floor. Now measure the distance each wheel behind this zero
datum line. Multiply the weights at each point the plane touches the ground
x distance from datum and you'll get moment. Example- the tail wheel could
weigh 10 lbs and be 170" behind the leading edge of wing therefore it's
moment is 1700"/lbs. Main gear axles could weigh each 300lbs and be 3"
behind the leading edge therefore 1800"/lbs. Divide total moment by total
weight and you'll get the empty CG of the plane. Example above continued--
total weight= 610lbs. total moment= 3500"/lbs, therefore empty CG is 5.7"
behind the leading edge of the wing. Each plane is different. The empty
CG in inches will probably be within a couple inches of the actual main
gears axles'. Now sit in the pilot's seat and repeat the process, back
calulating the actual movement aft of the loaded CG vs the empty CG,
therefore you'll get the actual ARM of the pilot's seat. Do the same for
the passenger seat and back calculate the ARM of the passenger. Do the same
for fuel added and back calculate. Etc. Do back calculation technique for
each moveable thing to be added to the empty plane, to get the safe range
for flying loaded CG. Make a chart for your plane and stay within the safe
loaded CG range for flying. You'll need help so get someone from the local
EAA chapter to help and maybe they have nice accurate scales you can use for
these needed weighings. The only variable in the above procedure is the
fact that the Piete traditional wing may have less than the 25-33% of chord
tolerances for safe loaded flying.
Good luck
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:weight and balance
>
> I have searched through the drawings and have come up empty as to the
> balance locations on the aircraft for a weight and balance.The AME has
> asked me to get in touch with the web to find out what these
> are.Thankyou in advance for any info you can provide.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
I agree with Chuck completely. Gluing directly to the ribs cause some
distortions in the wing later on. Leading and trailing edges only.
We have also had a lot of those nasty winds in Minnesota also.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: you seen one wing, you seen em' both
In a message dated 5/28/2006 8:09:10 PM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
Did you glue (poly-tak) the fabric to the bottom of each rib, or is
it best to wait till you rib stitch to pull the bottom fabric up to the
undercambered ribs?
Rick,
Allow me to jump in here. You should NOT glue the fabric to the
bottom (or top) of the wing ribs, or when you shrink the fabric it could
warp the ribs. The Stits method says the fabric will shrink by 10%.
The way I did it, was to glue the fabric on the bottom first, then
the top, then the wing tips, keeping the wrinkles out. I clamped the
fabric in place with spring clamps and cloths pins. Then did the
leading and trailing edge tapes, then do a fabric shrink with 75% to
80%of the suggested heat setting, then rib stitch - pulling the fabric
up in the undercambered portion, then the final 100% of the full max
suggested heat setting - keeping a close eye on the temp of the iron,
then tape over the the stitches. You can hear the fabric moving all
over the place when you shrink it. The stitches are closer together in
the prop was area, plus one rib each side. I used just over 500
stitches !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://nx770cg.com/Wing.html
Too windy to fly in the Land of Oz...I wonder if anyone ever did a
takeoff - going in reverse !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
Several times, when I was active hang glider pilot. Sometimes we needed 3 wire
men, at count of 3 they let go and the take off was straight up and backwards
with the bar pulled all the way, around 2,000 ft/m.
Severe turbulence and high winds, where a must and piece of cake (about 20 years
ago)...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Twice National Champion in HG (Mex)..
Now Flying in good weather from Chapala, Mexico.
Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
snip
Chuck G.
NX770CG
http://nx770cg.com/Wing.html
Too windy to fly in the Land of Oz...I wonder if anyone ever did a takeoff -
going in reverse !!
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | gluing/stitching sequence bottom of the wing undercamber |
Chuck is correct--- you don't glue the fabric to either the top or the
bottom of the wings. I just did the blanket method where I unrolled
a length of fabric, glued it on all edges, did the same for the top,
overlapping the other side, then partially (like Chuck said, 75-80% according
to your iron temp. that you calibrated ahead of time w/ hobby thermometer,
stitch, then go 100% iron temp. and then apply finishing tapes, finish.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Applying Varnish |
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
Is a paint brush the best method to apply varnish, or can that stuff be
sprayed to get it in the many difficult to brush areas=3F Hope you all
had a safe and enjoyable Memorial weekend.
Thank you,
John
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contai=
n=
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: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | you seen one wing, you seen em' both |
--- 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: | Fabric shrinkage math / was you seen one wing, you seen |
em' both
--- 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 ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tenpol-List:weight and balance |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Thanks very much Gordon.I didn't need the level point for side to side.I
must have misunderstood the AME(not the first time and probably won't be
the last).All I really needed was the longeron level point which you
gave me.14.6 is my c of g probably due to the fact I have a starter
motor in mine.The battery sits in the front seat.I won't be carrying a
passenger.I'm classified basic ultralight (so I don't have the
authority).I figure I'm good for full up gas,including wing tank and a
light sleeping bag with very small light tent.No beer I'm afraid unless
I loose some weight and beer won't help me there anyway ,will it!I weigh
in at about 215lb so I don't see a problem here.The AME sez it will be
tight for load so don't over do it.Anybody out there looking for 50lbs I
'm giving it away for nothing.God it's hard to loose weight!Not hard to
put on though!Getting closer to take off!
Harv Rule
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon
Bowen
Sent: May 29, 2006 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:weight and balance
Harvey,
A traditional rectangluar wing, flat bottomed, so called NACA wing, has
a
standard loaded CG range. The CG range is calculated to provide the CG
range slightly forward of the center of lift. This forward shift of
loaded
CG is due to the nature of the weight of the tail feathers and whether
they
provide additional lift in flight. This standard NACA wing loaded CG
range
is 25% to 33% of chord. So, assuming a 60" chord line, then this means
the
loaded operational CG range is 12" to 20" from the leading edge of the
wing.
The center of lift would be slightly behind the 20" back limit, to
assure a
nose over stall instead of a tail heavy flat non-recoverable stall.
Each
moveable item loaded in the plane would have a calculated ARM or
distance
forward of or behind this datum point (in the case above, meaning the
leading edge of the wing). The empty (setting longerons level in
hanger) is
less important, other than the fact the plane may fall over on it's prop
if
the empty CG is too far forward of the landing gear. So, here's how you
do
it, assuming the Pietenpol undercamber wing qualifies as a NACA type.
Level up the top longerons, north/south and east/west. You may have to
add
weight to the tail wheel to keep the nose from tipping over. Now weigh
the
plane at all three wheels. Drop plumb from the leading edge of the wing
and
mark it on the floor. Now measure the distance each wheel behind this
zero
datum line. Multiply the weights at each point the plane touches the
ground
x distance from datum and you'll get moment. Example- the tail wheel
could
weigh 10 lbs and be 170" behind the leading edge of wing therefore it's
moment is 1700"/lbs. Main gear axles could weigh each 300lbs and be 3"
behind the leading edge therefore 1800"/lbs. Divide total moment by
total
weight and you'll get the empty CG of the plane. Example above
continued--
total weight= 610lbs. total moment= 3500"/lbs, therefore empty CG is
5.7"
behind the leading edge of the wing. Each plane is different. The
empty
CG in inches will probably be within a couple inches of the actual main
gears axles'. Now sit in the pilot's seat and repeat the process, back
calulating the actual movement aft of the loaded CG vs the empty CG,
therefore you'll get the actual ARM of the pilot's seat. Do the same
for
the passenger seat and back calculate the ARM of the passenger. Do the
same
for fuel added and back calculate. Etc. Do back calculation technique
for
each moveable thing to be added to the empty plane, to get the safe
range
for flying loaded CG. Make a chart for your plane and stay within the
safe
loaded CG range for flying. You'll need help so get someone from the
local
EAA chapter to help and maybe they have nice accurate scales you can use
for
these needed weighings. The only variable in the above procedure is the
fact that the Piete traditional wing may have less than the 25-33% of
chord
tolerances for safe loaded flying.
Good luck
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 4:03 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:weight and balance
>
> I have searched through the drawings and have come up empty as to the
> balance locations on the aircraft for a weight and balance.The AME has
> asked me to get in touch with the web to find out what these
> are.Thankyou in advance for any info you can provide.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Fabric shrinkage math / was you seen one wing, you |
seen em' both
Jim,
Think you thinking way tooooo much into this. :^).
It's to explain to people like one of my friends, no matter how you told
him to glue it on relaxed. he would struggle and struggle to pull it
tight like a drum, and have it slip back off and on and on.
Means that on a 60" chord wing you could leave up to 6" extra fabric on
it. ( Get up on a morning after you tossed and turned all night. turn
and look at the sheets on your bed. ) you can glue it on like that and
have it tighten up beautifully. :^)
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ash
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fabric shrinkage math / was you seen one
wing, you seen em' both
One thing mentioned here, and we never really got a straight answer in
the class: Polyfiber claims 10 percent shrinkage. I don't fully
understand what this 10 percent means exactly, and one of my classmates
didn't either, although he and I were the only ones apparently
interested in the answer. If I glue my fabric on mildly tight before I
shrink, then have at it, is my wing going to be 10 percent smaller? I'm
thinking not. It's all about pressures, but that's not how they write it
up in the manual. The manual tries to keep it simple, but we were
interested in a bit more detail.
Jim Ash
http://wiki.matronics.com
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Applying Varnish |
With a brush, 2 guys can paint a wing panel in about 15 minutes. After
it dries, flip it over and hit the missed spots. Remember, the areas
that touch fabric, needs to be painted with epoxy.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Egan, John
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Applying Varnish
Is a paint brush the best method to apply varnish, or can that stuff
be sprayed to get it in the many difficult to brush areas? Hope you all
had a safe and enjoyable Memorial weekend.
Thank you,
John
-----
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in
error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail
and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Applying Varnish |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
The first coat of varnish should be thinned about 50/50 with reducer, to
help it soak in and really seal the wood. Then the second coat should
be full strength. I used the polyfiber epoxy varnish - expensive but
excellent quality. It is pricey, but cheap compared to dry-rot. It
withstands virtually all chemical attack once cured, and is about as
bulletproof a coating for wood as you can find.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Applying Varnish
With a brush, 2 guys can paint a wing panel in about 15 minutes. After
it dries, flip it over and hit the missed spots. Remember, the areas
that touch fabric, needs to be painted with epoxy.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Egan, John <mailto:jegan(at)kcc.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 10:33 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Applying Varnish
Is a paint brush the best method to apply varnish, or can that
stuff be sprayed to get it in the many difficult to brush areas? Hope
you all had a safe and enjoyable Memorial weekend.
Thank you,
John
=09
=09
=09
_____
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.
=09
=09
=09
_____
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege=
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i=
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Applying Varnish |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
With all of the little crevices all over the wings I found it easiest to thin the
varnish a little and spray it on with a pump up bug sprayer. I then went along
with a brush and touched up any runs. Did both panels outside, one coat
per evening. I'm sure there may have been a run or two that was left, but the
coverage was good and it's quick. You'll be kicking yourself when it comes time
to cover up all of that beautiful woodwork!
Don Emch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37491#37491
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Applying Varnish |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
Don,
I assume you varnished the wing assembled? Not individual ribs prior to
assembly. I understand you need to keep the "glued" joints free of
varnish.
Jack Textor
With all of the little crevices all over the wings I found it easiest to
thin the varnish a little and spray it on with a pump up bug sprayer. I
then went along with a brush and touched up any runs. Did both panels
outside, one coat per evening. I'm sure there may have been a run or
two that was left, but the coverage was good and it's quick. You'll be
kicking yourself when it comes time to cover up all of that beautiful
woodwork!
Don Emch
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | spray on varnish/bug sprayer |
I'm with Don Emch using the spray method then brush the drips clean.
I used the thinned stuff from Minwax---spar varnish for the wings. Did it
out in the driveway (stone) on sawhorses, flip, spray, flip.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | 36" center section design |
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
I made mine 48" using the described method. I can carry a bit more gas
(14Gallons) I did it to prevent a scarf joint in the main spars, my
material was only 12'6" or so.
Steve e
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Sunday, May 28, 2006 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 36" center section design
Would recommend purchasing the 36" CC plans from Bill Rewey, his address
was listed a couple days ago on this list. Basically you are correct the
only real difference is that the cabane fittings on the spars are
separate from the wing attach fittings at the ends of the spars.
Actually makes things easier I think. In my case, since I widened my
fuselage 2" the top bolt holes for the cabane fittings mated with the
top bolt holes of the wing attach fittings.
Rick H
On 5/28/06, John Egan wrote:
36" center section: With the direction from group members to build a
36" center section, please advise me if my thoughts are reasonable
regarding the design.
* Cut the center section spars to 36".
* Lengthen the plywood laminated plates so they span from the end
of the center spar back to the cabane strut attach points.
* The wing attachment brackets (flat stock) will be at the same
geometry as in the Vi Kaplar drawing, however they will not be welded to
the cabane strut weldment. A spacer will be needed to cleanly overlap
the brackets on the wing.
* Fabricate the cabane strut attachment welment and locate it
directly above the fuselage so the struts remain square to the fuselage
and wing.
So basically, fabricate the weldment as usual, without welding the flat
stock wing bracket to the strut weldment... A person could also use
something to the Grega plans however the traditional design calls for
easy to use flat stock.
I appreciate your thoughts and advice.
Thanks,
John
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> |
Hello! I need to know the size of the fuel line (Ford A engine). Plans shows 1/4"
copper tube. I.D or O.D? It seems a little small. Which is the size commonly
used?
Sorry about my very limited english. Thank you.
Santiago
__________________________________________________
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam gratis!
Abr tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line size |
We used 3/8" on NX18235 using an A-65.
Bigger is better; less chance of the line becoming blocked with debris.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: santiago morete
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 5:34 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Fuel line size
Hello! I need to know the size of the fuel line (Ford A engine).
Plans shows 1/4" copper tube. I.D or O.D? It seems a little small.
Which is the size commonly used?
Sorry about my very limited english. Thank you.
Santiago
__________________________________________________
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam =A1gratis!
=A1Abr=ED tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Fuel line size |
In a message dated 5/30/2006 5:35:56 PM Central Standard Time,
moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar writes:
Hello! I need to know the size of the fuel line (Ford A engine). Plans shows
1/4" copper tube. I.D or O.D? It seems a little small. Which is the size
commonly used?
Sorry about my very limited english. Thank you.
Santiago
Yes, the plans call for 1/4", but I agree, it seems too small. It
wouldn't hurt a thing if you went with 3/8".
The thing you must test before the first flight, is to jack the plane up
nose high to the highest climbing attitude, put minimum fuel in the tank,
remove the fuel line where it enters the carb, and be sure you get 150% of fuel
flow required for full power engine run. In other words, if the engine requires
4 gallons per hour at full power, you MUST get 6 gallons per hour while the
plane is in that attitude.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Applying Varnish |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Jack,
Yes, I varnished the wings after they were assembled and complete. I'm sure some
people varnish the ribs first but it would be very very important to not get
varnish where any glue joints are. If so it would need to be sanded off. The
nice thing about working with regular spar varnish anywhere on the airframe
is that it is easily sanded off if a glue joint is to be made after varnishing.
All of the fabric contact areas however will usually lift the regular spar
varnish. A sample test should be made to check if the poly brush or dope will
lift the varnish. If it does the epoxy varnish should be used as a top coat.
Don Emch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37796#37796
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Tail brace wires |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Hi guys...
For those of you flying, do your tail brace wires vibrate in flight? I had a couple
vibrating so I tightened them and didn't see much change. It's really only
two that I usually see. I can make them stop with application of rudder or
elevator. Do you guys see this much? I asked one very experienced Piet driver
and he said "oh yeah, just don't look back there". I can't help it though
I keep looking!
Don Emch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37797#37797
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | cable vibration--tailsection |
Don-- I see the same thing. I never tried to stop the
vibration. Everything back there is in propwash and turbulence
and I figured as long as I did things to the plans, using cable tho instead
of hardwire, I'd be fine.
Don't let that bother you. If you twang the tail brace cables on other
Piets they are usually not super tight and I figure nobody
talks about the big tailbrace cable or structure failures so we don't have
to worry. You know Don Helmick and the boys there
at Valley City. When I got my Piet done, Don Helmick walked around the
tail surfaced and twanged each of the brace wires to see
if they were about in the same tune---that is all he cared about so good
enough for Don H. , good enough for me.
Keeping the tail surfaces true and not twisted is the key there I think in
the big picture.
What does surprise me on Piets is how many have loose or fairly loose X
brace cables between the wing strut bays. I would think
those should be fairly tight-- I know mine are very snug.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Tail brace wires |
Sometime, when you get the opportunity....look at the "tail feathers" on a B-25....that
makes one wonder.... Of course it was also wartime and whether it was
flapping tail feathers or enemy bullets or flak, it was just another the day
on the job.
Mean Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: Don Emch <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
>Sent: May 31, 2006 9:51 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail brace wires
>
>
>Hi guys...
>For those of you flying, do your tail brace wires vibrate in flight? I had a
couple vibrating so I tightened them and didn't see much change. It's really
only two that I usually see. I can make them stop with application of rudder
or elevator. Do you guys see this much? I asked one very experienced Piet driver
and he said "oh yeah, just don't look back there". I can't help it though
I keep looking!
>Don Emch
>
>
>Read this topic online here:
>
>http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37797#37797
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Model A fuel lines |
Hi Santiago,
Everybody is right about using 3/8" lines. Please be sure you have
excellent books or references to follow as you construct your fuel
system as this is the NUMBER ONE cause of engine failures. You can't
do better than the Tony Bingeles books for starters. Be sure you use
flexible tubing where needed for vibration, avoid running the lines
uphill anywhere, install a gascolator at the lowest point for water, AND
make sure your tank sump in the wing tank is at the lowest point and
will drain all the water from the tank WHEN THE PLANE IS ON THE GROUND.
Be sure to install a screen finger filter in the tank, and an inline
fuel filter that you can ck easily and that is easily replacable, with
your gascolator being the third filter in the system. It astounds me
how much stuff shows up in my inline filter even after I've assured
myself that the system is completely clean. Found what looked like rust
the other day and there is NO steel in the entire system, including the
tank (my engine is on a test stand) which goes to show you how many
foreign objects are introduced into our fuel systems from the pump.
In short, this system seems simple, and it is, but it demands perfection
in design and assembly because it could hold your life in it's hands and
it has proven historically to be a problematic system.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Kip and Beth Gardner <kipandbeth(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Corvair Wings & Wheels Fly-In, Alliance, OH - This Weekend! |
Hi Everyone,
One last reminder that EAA Chapter 82 will be hosting the "Corvair
Wings & Wheels" Fly-IN this Friday-Sun. (June 2-4) at Barber Airport
(2D1, Detroit Sectional) in Alliance, OH
We expect both corvair-powered planes (any Piets planning on coming?)
and hopefuly a good showing of folks from CORSA - The Corvair Society
of America.
Barber airport is a great, laid-back grass strip - no chain-link anywhere!
Camping on the field.
Pancake Breakfast Sat. & Sun.
Hope to see some of you there!
Kip Gardner
--
North Canton, OH
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cable vibration--tailsection |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Mike...
I am surprised too to see how many Piets have flying wires that seem to be loose.
I don't have any vibration with those. My tail wires don't seem to be very
bad it's just that they all have about the same tension and if I tighten just
one or two it kind of throws off the whole thing. I really don't want to tighten
them all because they 'feel' tight enough now, based on others I've felt.
If Don Helmick felt it important that they have similar tension then I would
believe him. He's been around the patch a few times with these things! Thanks
again Mike.
Don Emch
P.S. I moved my plane to York Field which is only a few minutes from my house so
I'm not hangering with Frank anymore [Crying or Very sad] . I am going to
try to make it over to Barber for the Fly-in this weekend though.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931#37931
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cable vibration--tailsection |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Mine are rods not cable and they can be tightened by turning them into
the rod ends that are threaded.I used a level and a protractor(the kind
they sell for stud installation)to set it up as close as I could to a
right angle of 90 degrees for the vertical stab and horizontal stab.They
seem pretty tight.The other cables that cross at the struts are tight
enough to play a tune on em.Taxi test will commence tomorrow.Should also
get wing root covers on if all goes well.All I need after that are
scoops for air intake and a cover over the rear of the carb heat
muff.There is one more minor thing but that won't stop me from flyin.I
need to attach a gas line from the upper wing tank to the lower main
tank.I will also install a shut off valve as well.There is already a
tube of aluminum coming out of the lower tank ready for me to connect up
to but it's not threaded.I might use one of those new pressure type
connectors here.Not sure as yet.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: June 1, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
Mike...
I am surprised too to see how many Piets have flying wires that seem to
be loose. I don't have any vibration with those. My tail wires don't
seem to be very bad it's just that they all have about the same tension
and if I tighten just one or two it kind of throws off the whole thing.
I really don't want to tighten them all because they 'feel' tight enough
now, based on others I've felt. If Don Helmick felt it important that
they have similar tension then I would believe him. He's been around
the patch a few times with these things! Thanks again Mike.
Don Emch
P.S. I moved my plane to York Field which is only a few minutes from my
house so I'm not hangering with Frank anymore [Crying or Very sad] . I
am going to try to make it over to Barber for the Fly-in this weekend
though.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931#37931
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | ferry gas tank installation |
Hey guys, a new topic!
My piet (model A) has a wing tank which holes 12.5 gallons. Since it is
a tailskid plane I'll be limited to grass strips on any cross countries
I might try, like to Brodhead (Lord willing!)
I can see that carrying some extra fuel in the front cockpit could come
in very handy, and I was thinking it would be VERY handy if I could
transfer fuel from that tank to my wing tank in flight.
I was thinking that it should be easy enough to use a boat type gas tank
with an inline handpump to pump fuel up to the wing where an inlite tube
could be welded/brazed in the filler neck. When I wasn't using this
system, this inlet tube in the neck would have a screw on cap.
It sounds fairly straight forward, am I missing something that would
cause problems? I know the cockpit tank has to be well secured as that
has caused problems in the past. IF the inlet tube is in the gas tank
neck, it won't interfere with the workings of the tank, and I'll still
have the forward facing vent in the slipstream. Fly until the wing tank
is low, then pump,pump,pump until it is full again and not have to
deviate to find a grass strip and go into town for auto fuel.
fire away...
Thanks
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
Folks,
Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
properties look great.
Thanks,
Tom Bernie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: cable vibration--tailsection |
Harv
How did you make your rod style braces? What are they made of and what do
the ends look like?
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
> Mine are rods not cable and they can be tightened by turning them into
> the rod ends that are threaded.I used a level and a protractor(the kind
> they sell for stud installation)to set it up as close as I could to a
> right angle of 90 degrees for the vertical stab and horizontal stab.They
> seem pretty tight.The other cables that cross at the struts are tight
> enough to play a tune on em.Taxi test will commence tomorrow.Should also
> get wing root covers on if all goes well.All I need after that are
> scoops for air intake and a cover over the rear of the carb heat
> muff.There is one more minor thing but that won't stop me from flyin.I
> need to attach a gas line from the upper wing tank to the lower main
> tank.I will also install a shut off valve as well.There is already a
> tube of aluminum coming out of the lower tank ready for me to connect up
> to but it's not threaded.I might use one of those new pressure type
> connectors here.Not sure as yet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
> Sent: June 1, 2006 5:11 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
>
> Mike...
> I am surprised too to see how many Piets have flying wires that seem to
> be loose. I don't have any vibration with those. My tail wires don't
> seem to be very bad it's just that they all have about the same tension
> and if I tighten just one or two it kind of throws off the whole thing.
> I really don't want to tighten them all because they 'feel' tight enough
> now, based on others I've felt. If Don Helmick felt it important that
> they have similar tension then I would believe him. He's been around
> the patch a few times with these things! Thanks again Mike.
> Don Emch
> P.S. I moved my plane to York Field which is only a few minutes from my
> house so I'm not hangering with Frank anymore [Crying or Very sad] . I
> am going to try to make it over to Barber for the Fly-in this weekend
> though.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931#37931
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
I would want to investigate their ability to withstand UV radiation.
Most plastics degrade in the presence of UV
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:22 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Folks,
Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
properties look great.
Thanks,
Tom Bernie
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege=
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i=
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N=
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kevlar Drag Wires |
Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Too elastic ?
Hans
"Tom Bernie"
To
Sent by:
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
06/02/2006 11:22
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Folks,
Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
properties look great.
Thanks,
Tom Bernie
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stromberg Carb for sale |
I assume there's more to this story.
----- Original Message -----
From: KMHeide
To: Pietenpol
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Stromberg Carb for sale
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Stromberg Carb for sale |
I have a completely rebuilt Stromberg Carb for sale that is ready to put on your
Corvair engine. It is jetted for the corvair engine. Carb was sent out to a
aircraft mechanic to be rebuild. Must sell $600.00 firm
Ken Heide
Fargo
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Bernie <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
--- 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: | Tom Bernie <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kevlar Drag Wires |
Hans,
The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then under
that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower builders seem to
consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get elasticity or dymanic
stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100# breaking strength,
it costs $.59 @ foot.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com, pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Too elastic ?
>
>Hans
>
>
>
> "Tom Bernie"
> nk.net> To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
> 06/02/2006 11:22
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>
>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>properties look great.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Should be fine then. The other concern would be how to attach and
adjust it. I assume there is hardware available to attach it to the
plane and adjust its tension? I'm sure kevlar is lighter than steel,
and stronger and stiffer. Is it cheap enough to consider?
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 3:27 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Jack,
This cable us used on antenna towers -- it has a full uv protection
jacket.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
From: "Phillips, Jack"
Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:47 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
=09
=09
=09
I would want to investigate their ability to withstand UV
radiation. Most plastics degrade in the presence of UV
Jack Phillips
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Bernie
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 12:22 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Folks,
Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar
cable (Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the
physical properties look great.
Thanks,
Tom Bernie
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If
you have received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese -
Nederlands - Norsk - Portuguese - Svenska:
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege=
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i=
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N=
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Bernie <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
--- 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 ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Kevlar Drag Wires |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Tom,
I googled the elasticity modulus
Kevlar 49 has a elasticity modulus of 120 Gpa
Carbon Steel has a elasticity modulus of 210 Gpa
The higher the number the lower the elasticity.
Kevlar has a higher fatigue life than steel, due to being more elastic.
Probably Kevlar would be more suited as use in bracing wires, where there
is a lot of vibration, or control cables where there is a lot of bending.
Inside the wing with no turbulence and no bending I would not use it, the
additional stretching might exceed the limits of the wood structure.
Then again the certified aircraft builders Boeing and Airbus seem to use
Kevlar in secondary structures, why not in primary ?
Hans
Tom Bernie
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
06/02/2006 02:38
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hans,
The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then
under that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower builders
seem to consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get elasticity
or dymanic stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100#
breaking strength, it costs $.59 @ foot.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Too elastic ?
>
>Hans
>
>
> "Tom Bernie"
> nk.net> To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
> 06/02/2006 11:22
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>
>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>properties look great.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Tom Bernie <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Kevlar Drag Wires |
Thanks for looking that up Hans. I'm drooling over the weight aspect, but guess
I'll take the conservative approach and stick with steel.
Tom
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 4:18 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Tom,
>
>I googled the elasticity modulus
>
>Kevlar 49 has a elasticity modulus of 120 Gpa
>Carbon Steel has a elasticity modulus of 210 Gpa
>
>The higher the number the lower the elasticity.
>
>Kevlar has a higher fatigue life than steel, due to being more elastic.
>
>Probably Kevlar would be more suited as use in bracing wires, where there
>is a lot of vibration, or control cables where there is a lot of bending.
>Inside the wing with no turbulence and no bending I would not use it, the
>additional stretching might exceed the limits of the wood structure.
>
>Then again the certified aircraft builders Boeing and Airbus seem to use
>Kevlar in secondary structures, why not in primary ?
>
>Hans
>
>
>
> Tom Bernie
> nk.net> To
> Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> owner-pietenpol-l cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com Subject
> Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
> Wires
> 06/02/2006 02:38
> PM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Hans,
>
>The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then
>under that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower builders
>seem to consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get elasticity
>or dymanic stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100#
>breaking strength, it costs $.59 @ foot.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Bernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
>pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>>
>
>>
>>Too elastic ?
>>
>>Hans
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> "Tom Bernie"
>
>>
>> nk.net> To
>
>> Sent by:
>
>> owner-pietenpol-l cc
>
>> ist-server@matron
>
>> ics.com Subject
>
>> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>>
>
>> 06/02/2006 11:22
>
>> AM
>
>>
>
>>
>
>> Please respond to
>
>> pietenpol-list@ma
>
>> tronics.com
>
>>
>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>>properties look great.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>
>>Tom Bernie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | inter-cylinder baffles |
I finally got around to taking a couple of photos of the small baffles that
are used on the underside of the cylinders on small Continentals. I put
them on a webpage along with the drawing of how they are made, at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/baffle.html and for scaling the layout, the
drawing shows a grid of 1" squares.
A similar setup is required on VWs and Corvairs as "cooling tin".
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar> |
| Subject: | Model A fuel lines |
Thanks to all . I will use 3/8 for my fuel line.
Santiago
__________________________________________________
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam gratis!
Abr tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cable vibration--tailsection |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I am not sure what is made from.I will ask the AME.I will take pics and
send them back to you next time I go to the field(tomorrow if all goes
well).
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: June 2, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
Harv
How did you make your rod style braces? What are they made of and what
do
the ends look like?
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
> Mine are rods not cable and they can be tightened by turning them into
> the rod ends that are threaded.I used a level and a protractor(the
kind
> they sell for stud installation)to set it up as close as I could to a
> right angle of 90 degrees for the vertical stab and horizontal
stab.They
> seem pretty tight.The other cables that cross at the struts are tight
> enough to play a tune on em.Taxi test will commence tomorrow.Should
also
> get wing root covers on if all goes well.All I need after that are
> scoops for air intake and a cover over the rear of the carb heat
> muff.There is one more minor thing but that won't stop me from flyin.I
> need to attach a gas line from the upper wing tank to the lower main
> tank.I will also install a shut off valve as well.There is already a
> tube of aluminum coming out of the lower tank ready for me to connect
up
> to but it's not threaded.I might use one of those new pressure type
> connectors here.Not sure as yet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Emch
> Sent: June 1, 2006 5:11 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
>
> Mike...
> I am surprised too to see how many Piets have flying wires that seem
to
> be loose. I don't have any vibration with those. My tail wires don't
> seem to be very bad it's just that they all have about the same
tension
> and if I tighten just one or two it kind of throws off the whole
thing.
> I really don't want to tighten them all because they 'feel' tight
enough
> now, based on others I've felt. If Don Helmick felt it important that
> they have similar tension then I would believe him. He's been around
> the patch a few times with these things! Thanks again Mike.
> Don Emch
> P.S. I moved my plane to York Field which is only a few minutes from
my
> house so I'm not hangering with Frank anymore [Crying or Very sad] .
I
> am going to try to make it over to Barber for the Fly-in this weekend
> though.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931#37931
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Roger & Barb <thoreson(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Stromberg Carb for sale |
--- 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: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Stromberg Carb For Sale |
I have a rebuild Stromberg Carb (by a professional aricraft mechanic) which is
jetted for a Corvair engine rated at 90 HP. Excellent condition $600.00 firm
Ken
Fargo, ND
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: ferry gas tank installation |
Douwe
You might want to try the following fuel test. Bring your tail up to
level, climb in and sit for 2 hours. You can listen to the radio and
look around, but after 2 hours, ask yourself how much fuel do you
really need?
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 8:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: ferry gas tank installation
Hey guys, a new topic!
My piet (model A) has a wing tank which holes 12.5 gallons. Since it
is a tailskid plane I'll be limited to grass strips on any cross
countries I might try, like to Brodhead (Lord willing!)
I can see that carrying some extra fuel in the front cockpit could
come in very handy, and I was thinking it would be VERY handy if I could
transfer fuel from that tank to my wing tank in flight.
I was thinking that it should be easy enough to use a boat type gas
tank with an inline handpump to pump fuel up to the wing where an inlite
tube could be welded/brazed in the filler neck. When I wasn't using
this system, this inlet tube in the neck would have a screw on cap.
It sounds fairly straight forward, am I missing something that would
cause problems? I know the cockpit tank has to be well secured as that
has caused problems in the past. IF the inlet tube is in the gas tank
neck, it won't interfere with the workings of the tank, and I'll still
have the forward facing vent in the slipstream. Fly until the wing tank
is low, then pump,pump,pump until it is full again and not have to
deviate to find a grass strip and go into town for auto fuel.
fire away...
Thanks
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Stromberg Carb For Sale |
| From: | John Hofmann <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com> |
On 6/2/06 9:06 PM, "KMHeide" wrote:
For some reason Kens message is not in the body of the email. I was able to
recover it from the source code. Please respond to him and not me!
His message below
-john-
I have a rebuild Stromberg Carb (by a professional aricraft mechanic) which
is jetted for a Corvair engine rated at 90 HP. Excellent condition $600.00
firm
Ken
Fargo, ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "GlennThomas(at)flyingwood.com" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Stromberg Carb For Sale |
Glenn W. Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Hofmann" <jhofmann(at)reesgroupinc.com>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Stromberg Carb For Sale
>
> On 6/2/06 9:06 PM, "KMHeide" wrote:
>
> For some reason Kens message is not in the body of the email. I was able
to
> recover it from the source code. Please respond to him and not me!
>
> His message below
> -john-
>
>
> I have a rebuild Stromberg Carb (by a professional aricraft mechanic)
which
> is jetted for a Corvair engine rated at 90 HP. Excellent condition $600.00
> firm
>
> Ken
> Fargo, ND
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911) |
went out to fly today but didn't get far. On climbout,
noticed more that usual amount of water coming out the
overflow tube from the radiator. I watched the temp
guage and before I knew it, she was in the RED. I
turned around and landed. I put more water in it,
thinking maybe some sort of air bubble caused the old
girl to barf out it's coolant all over my goggles.
Took off again, same deal, turn around and land. Then
I tied to my Jeep, started her up, climbed in, and
tried to get a better feeling as to what was
happening. She will idle all day without puking water
out or getting hot. At 1400 rpm, same deal. At 1500
she will run for 4 minutes and then start puking water
out, at 1600 rpm the puking starts sooner.
This is not "hot water type pressure, as it is still
not that hot. I can stick my finger in the radiator,
no problem.
I am worried about a head gasket (or worse). Any ideas?
Larry Nelson
Springfield, MO
Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
Cessna 195 N9883A
Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
1963 GMC 4106-1618
SV/ Spirit of America
ARS WB0JOT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911) |
went out to fly today but didn't get far. On climbout,
noticed more that usual amount of water coming out the
overflow tube from the radiator. I watched the temp
guage and before I knew it, she was in the RED. I
turned around and landed. I put more water in it,
thinking maybe some sort of air bubble caused the old
girl to barf out it's coolant all over my goggles.
Took off again, same deal, turn around and land. Then
I tied to my Jeep, started her up, climbed in, and
tried to get a better feeling as to what was
happening. She will idle all day without puking water
out or getting hot. At 1400 rpm, same deal. At 1500
she will run for 4 minutes and then start puking water
out, at 1600 rpm the puking starts sooner.
This is not "hot water type pressure, as it is still
not that hot. I can stick my finger in the radiator,
no problem.
I am worried about a head gasket (or worse). Any ideas?
Larry Nelson
Springfield, MO
Beechcraft Bonanza V-35B N2980A
Cessna 195 N9883A
Pietenpol Air Camper N444MH
1963 GMC 4106-1618
SV/ Spirit of America
ARS WB0JOT
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | FTLovley(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911) |
Larry...Suspect you have compression getting into the water...possible head
gasket, and/or cracked head or block...hopefully it is simply the gasket. You
can buy at most parts houses, a kit that contains chemicals that change color
when compression is getting into the water...worth a try.
Forrest Lovley
Jordan MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Matt Dralle <dralle(at)matronics.com> |
| Subject: | List Enclosure Support |
Dear Listers,
Over the years, I have resisted the urge to enable enclosure support on the Matronics
Lists for a number of reasons relating to performance, capacity, capability,
and security. However, its now 2006 and most everyone using email these
days is on an email client that, at some level, supports the viewing and handling
of enclosures. I get a fair amount of email each month from people on the
various Lists asking why their posts of this or that picture didn't go through.
Back quite a while ago by popular request, I enabled enclosure support for a few
Lists such as the RV10-List, Kolb-List, and the Tailwind-List. Contrary to
my fears, there really hasn't been any significant issues on these Lists relating
to the advent of enclosure support and for the most part, members have policed
themselves well with respect to the size of things they have posted.
Having enclosures enabled on some Lists and not others has given me a fair amount
of headaches with respect to filtering messages and content since the formats
are often quite different between a typical MIME encoded message and a generic
plain-text message. The spammers are getting more cleaver all the time and
are constantly trying to thwart my best efforts at keeping them from posting
to the Lists.
So, for these reasons, I've have decided to go ahead and enable limited enclosure
posting on all of the email Lists at Matronics. This will not only increase
the utility of the Lists, but will afford me a better opportunity to filter
out the chaff.
Here are some of the features and limits of enclosures on the Matronics Lists:
1) Enclosures will only be posted to the Real Time version of the
Lists.
2) Enclosures will NOT be included in the Daily Digest version of
the Lists.
3) Enclosures WILL BE forwarded on to the BBS Forum Web site.
4) Enclosures will NOT be appended to the Archives.
5) Enclosures will NOT be available in the List Browse feature.
6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
All other enclosures types will be rejected and email returned to
sender. The enclosure types listed above are relatively safe from
a virus standpoint and don't pose a particularly large security risk.
7) !! All incoming enclosures will be scanned for viruses prior to posting
to the List. This is done in real time and will not slow down
the process of posting the message !!
Here are some rules for posting enclosures. Failure to abide by these rules could
result in the removal of a subscriber's email address from the Lists.
1) Pay attention to what you are posting!! Make sure that the files
you are enclosing aren't HUGE (greater that 1MB). Remember that there
are still people checking they're email via dial up modem. If you post
30MB worth of pictures, you are placing an unnecessary burden on these
folks and the rest of us, for that matter.
2) SCALE YOUR PICTURES DOWN!!! I don't want to see huge 3000 x 2000
pictures getting posted that are 3 or 4MB each. This is just
unacceptable. Use a program such as Photoshop to scale the picture
down to something on the order of 800 x 600 and try to keep the
file size to less-than 200KB, preferably much less.
Microsoft has a really awesome utility available for free that allows
you to Right-Click on a picture in Explorer and automatically
scale it down and resave it. This is a great utility - get it, use it!
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Look for the link "Image Resizer"
3) !! This would seem to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Do not
post anything that would be considered offensive by your grandmother.
And you know what I'm saying; I don't want to see anything even
questionable. !!
4) REMEMBER THIS: If you post a 1MB enclosure to a List with 1000 members
subscribed, your 1MB enclosure must be resent 1000 times amounting
to 1MB X 1000 = 1 Gigabyte of network traffic!! BE CAREFUL and BE COURTEOUS!
I hope everyone will enjoy the added functionality of enclosures. Please police
yourself and use good judgement when posting messages with enclosures using
the guidelines I've outlined above.
Best regards,
Matt Dralle
Matronics Email List Administrator
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911) |
How does your water (coolant) look? Any foam or "frothy" apperance? The
oil?...is the oil/water level increasing/decreasing...looking
"brown"...discolored in anyway?
A compression check on all four is simple enough to do and may reveal a
problem, whatever it is. (head gasket)...
But...start with the simple stuff first. All hose clamps tight? A visual
inspection could reveal a gasket leaking...split tube (common in
copper).
Go over everything with a BRIGHT light and a good mag glass for those
tight areas.
Look for trouble and you'll probably find it.
Hope this helps
Dave...Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: FTLovley(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911)
Larry...Suspect you have compression getting into the water...possible
head gasket, and/or cracked head or block...hopefully it is simply the
gasket. You can buy at most parts houses, a kit that contains chemicals
that change color when compression is getting into the water...worth a
try.
Forrest Lovley
Jordan MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911) |
Id also suggest a pressure test of the system. Pumping the system up
should tell you where the leak is and what you are facing without
guessing.
----- Original Message -----
From: D.Reid
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911)
How does your water (coolant) look? Any foam or "frothy" apperance?
The oil?...is the oil/water level increasing/decreasing...looking
"brown"...discolored in anyway?
A compression check on all four is simple enough to do and may reveal
a problem, whatever it is. (head gasket)...
But...start with the simple stuff first. All hose clamps tight? A
visual inspection could reveal a gasket leaking...split tube (common in
copper).
Go over everything with a BRIGHT light and a good mag glass for those
tight areas.
Look for trouble and you'll probably find it.
Hope this helps
Dave...Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: FTLovley(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A Pieter's....HELP.....(911)
Larry...Suspect you have compression getting into the
water...possible head gasket, and/or cracked head or block...hopefully
it is simply the gasket. You can buy at most parts houses, a kit that
contains chemicals that change color when compression is getting into
the water...worth a try.
Forrest Lovley
Jordan MN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to full
open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying today,
using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the departure
end. Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject came up and
it sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Hi Dick,
Our Instructor (and Airfield Commander) is also a bush pilot in missionary flights
to the Sierra.
He has a C 180 and and a 220 HP Stintson, both planes have installed "the spring"
because most (if not all) of the strips are no second chance up there. Both
planes are kept in pristine condition always, sometimes I have the chance
to help working in his airplanes.
I dont know what carburator they have...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Dick Navratil wrote:
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to full
open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying today, using
a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the departure end. Sitting
around the hangar chatting later, that subject came up and it sounded like a
good idea.
Dick N.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | covering good news and bad news |
Rick; it makes good sense to use only the iron recommended by Stits (Poly
Fiber) for covering, if you're using the Poly Fiber process. Two reasons...
one is accurate control of temperature, the other is even temperatures
across the face of the iron. A third reason might be "enough power", to
keep the iron at the right temperature while you're covering a large area.
It's very important to use the exact temperatures spelled out in the manual.
Besides, the iron they recommend only costs $30 or so. It happened that
my wife uses one of the recommended irons and I was able to use hers for the
large areas when I recovered my vertical stabilizer, then I bought one of
the small irons from Wicks to use for corners and for heat-smoothing. It's
been very valuable for the small repair patches I've had to do on 41CC as
well. I calibrated it, made marks on the dial, and it works great.
Both my wife's iron and the smaller one that I bought have the "ironstone"
type non-stick coating on them so they don't get messed up with the covering
materials.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
Dick asks-
>Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it
>to full open in case of a linkage failure in flight?
No, but I've thought about it. The way my controls are set up, it would
take a very stout spring to do that (figuring on worst case for a failure,
at the pilot's throttle control end, the spring having to overcome the
friction of the entire control string from end to end). I thought about
some type of circular spring around the throttle shaft pivot as is used in
some hedge clippers, but the easiest would be a regular coil spring. The
problem becomes that the friction on the throttle controls then needs to be
increased to hold a normal power setting against the spring.
When you figure it out, tell me how you did it ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: cable vibration--tailsection |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I sent pics to your personal address;you can't send pics on this web
site.Enjoy!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: June 2, 2006 1:29 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
Harv
How did you make your rod style braces? What are they made of and what
do
the ends look like?
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 10:48 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
> Mine are rods not cable and they can be tightened by turning them into
> the rod ends that are threaded.I used a level and a protractor(the
kind
> they sell for stud installation)to set it up as close as I could to a
> right angle of 90 degrees for the vertical stab and horizontal
stab.They
> seem pretty tight.The other cables that cross at the struts are tight
> enough to play a tune on em.Taxi test will commence tomorrow.Should
also
> get wing root covers on if all goes well.All I need after that are
> scoops for air intake and a cover over the rear of the carb heat
> muff.There is one more minor thing but that won't stop me from flyin.I
> need to attach a gas line from the upper wing tank to the lower main
> tank.I will also install a shut off valve as well.There is already a
> tube of aluminum coming out of the lower tank ready for me to connect
up
> to but it's not threaded.I might use one of those new pressure type
> connectors here.Not sure as yet.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Emch
> Sent: June 1, 2006 5:11 PM
> To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: cable vibration--tailsection
>
>
> Mike...
> I am surprised too to see how many Piets have flying wires that seem
to
> be loose. I don't have any vibration with those. My tail wires don't
> seem to be very bad it's just that they all have about the same
tension
> and if I tighten just one or two it kind of throws off the whole
thing.
> I really don't want to tighten them all because they 'feel' tight
enough
> now, based on others I've felt. If Don Helmick felt it important that
> they have similar tension then I would believe him. He's been around
> the patch a few times with these things! Thanks again Mike.
> Don Emch
> P.S. I moved my plane to York Field which is only a few minutes from
my
> house so I'm not hangering with Frank anymore [Crying or Very sad] .
I
> am going to try to make it over to Barber for the Fly-in this weekend
> though.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=37931#37931
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Hello Oscar,
No is not a very strong spring. Just with the force enough to move the thottle
if the cable brakes. The worse friction it needs to pull is if the control
cable brakes in the handle side. This is similar to the force needed to pull
a free cable from a front brake of a mountain bicicle. Just to make yourself
an idea.
The friction needed to overcome the spring is just very little. Sont use a heavier
spring than needed it will only aply unnecesary force and friction to the
buterfly axle...
Here you can find spring shops that will coustom make all type of springs, some
of them the have in shelves, hand pull a hand full and test/try until you
find the correct one... Just a few bucks.
I dont know if there are this type of spring shops in USA, I am sure they can
be found.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
Dick asks-
>Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it
>to full open in case of a linkage failure in flight?
No, but I've thought about it. The way my controls are set up, it would
take a very stout spring to do that (figuring on worst case for a failure,
at the pilot's throttle control end, the spring having to overcome the
friction of the entire control string from end to end). I thought about
some type of circular spring around the throttle shaft pivot as is used in
some hedge clippers, but the easiest would be a regular coil spring. The
problem becomes that the friction on the throttle controls then needs to be
increased to hold a normal power setting against the spring.
When you figure it out, tell me how you did it ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
>I dont know if there are this type of spring shops in USA
No, Gary... so I'd better go down to Guadalajara to get a spring ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com> |
Hello all,
I believe I am 99% finished with the wing construction as I have the
entire wing and ailerons assembled, glued, and sanded, with the
exception of the wing root rib installation. Over the weekend, I dry
=66it the plywood pieces and the flat steel strap wing brackets on the
root ends of the spars. I have the spars, plywood and fittings drilled
and loosely bolted but not glued. I will need to add a final rib near
the end of the spars and I have been hesitating on this. My question
is:
Does the end rib get the vertical member cut away where it would overlap
the flat steel wing bracket=3F When I made the rib, I offset the vertical
member the same thickness as the plywood with the intent to cut away the
area for the steel strap. A person could also build that first rib with
a solid sheet of plywood on the outside to have a nice flat surface to
glue the fabric to. I'm sure there are many good solutions, and I am
interested to hear some other options. After I get this last rib on, I
can then add varnish.
Thanks,
John
Greenville, Wi.
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may contai
n
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: | "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
Hans,
I got the following reply from Phillystran --
"There are 2 versions of the 2100 product:
The original version is the HPTG 2100 made from parallel Kevlar 49 yarn
with en extruded PE jacket. The modulus for that item would be
17.5x10E6 psi (conditioned rope value).
In 1990 a second generation product was introduced known as HPTG2100I.
Also made from the Kevlar 49 but a stranded resin impregnated rope with
extruded PU jacket. Modulus is 15.0x10E6 psi.
The HPTG-I version is an inventoried item whereas the HPTG is made to
order with a 5K min.
Kenneth Knight
PHILLYSTRAN, INC.
Manager, Industrial Sales
215-368-6611 *107
fax: 215-362-7956
cell: 267-614-5623
kknight(at)phillystran.com"
Is 15.0x10E6 psi a useful value in determining the cable usefulness?
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Vander Voort
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Tom,
I googled the elasticity modulus
Kevlar 49 has a elasticity modulus of 120 Gpa
Carbon Steel has a elasticity modulus of 210 Gpa
The higher the number the lower the elasticity.
Kevlar has a higher fatigue life than steel, due to being more elastic.
Probably Kevlar would be more suited as use in bracing wires, where
there
is a lot of vibration, or control cables where there is a lot of
bending.
Inside the wing with no turbulence and no bending I would not use it,
the
additional stretching might exceed the limits of the wood structure.
Then again the certified aircraft builders Boeing and Airbus seem to use
Kevlar in secondary structures, why not in primary ?
Hans
Tom Bernie
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
06/02/2006 02:38
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hans,
The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then
under that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower
builders
seem to consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get
elasticity
or dymanic stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100#
breaking strength, it costs $.59 @ foot.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Too elastic ?
>
>Hans
>
>
> "Tom Bernie"
> nk.net>
To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l
cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com
Subject
> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
>
> 06/02/2006 11:22
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>
>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>properties look great.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
Sure, Welcome! Any time will be great.
Also if you like, I can get you a couple and send them to you. Just need to
get a feeling of the spring this next Saturday at the Club, The spring shop is
about 5 blocks from my factory, so no big deal to get it.
There they made the spring that we used for towing in my hang gliding days, (20
years ago) also the springs for my Ladder Pou landing gear and lots of others.
Just go there and tell them how much force needed and how much the travel of
the spring. two or 3 days later is ready.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>I dont know if there are this type of spring shops in USA
No, Gary... so I'd better go down to Guadalajara to get a spring ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
I know quiet a few pilots that have the "spring" on their carbs. I
thought about it and came up with a few observations.
I think the cable would probably break when you PULL the throttle to
closed and put tension on the cable. I don't think it would make sense
for a cable to break by PUSHING it through the jacket. If it broke
inside the jacket, it seems that it would still push through, but might
be harder than normal due to frayed ends. This would leave the throttle
on Open.
If the cable came off the carb lever by breakage or the bolt wearing
thru or falling out, then adding a very soft spring would be the best
idea in the world and you would be patting yourself on the back for a
long time after landing successfully.
If the spring is heavy, you will experience throttle creep and will
be constantly adjusting the throttle, it also puts a constant strain on
the cable. Look at the hardware stores or on the internet and look for a
spring with at least 1/2" diameter and very soft and pulls very easily.
If the ends are not long enough, an extender can be made from med to
heavy safety tie wire and anchored somewhere on the engine, not to the
motor mount to isolate constant vibration.
My 172 has one, but the 150 that I own with a partner does not. Go
figure. Our Piets are not flying yet. We just replaced the cable on the
150 and it had several thousand hours on it. It was not having a
problem, but replacement seemed like cheap insurance, especially if our
kids take it out for a spin.
If you ever feel a binding in the throttle, even just once, it is
time to take a look at that cable. By being a stranded cable, usually
one or two strands will break first and cause some friction. Consider
this your fair warning.
You need to have in mind a plan to cope with this type of emergency.
Either turn the engine switch on and off and blow the ends out of the
mufflers or get into a safe position at the airport, shut the engine
down and do a dead stick landing. Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to
full open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying
today, using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the
departure end. Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject
came up and it sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Graham and Robyn" <grhewitt(at)globaldial.com> |
| Subject: | RE: Pietenpol-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 06/05/06 |
Would some one give me the recent web site listing Piet Accidents &
Incidents,
Thanks Graham Hewitt
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Sent: Tuesday, 6 June 2006 2:57 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 06/05/06
*
=================================================
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.200
6-06-05.html
Text Version:
http://www.matronics.com/digest/pietenpol-list/Digest.Pietenpol-List.200
6-06-05.txt
===============================================
EMail Version of Today's List Digest Archive
===============================================
----------------------------------------------------------
Pietenpol-List Digest Archive
---
Total Messages Posted Mon 06/05/06: 5
----------------------------------------------------------
Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 05:43 AM - carb (Oscar Zuniga)
2. 07:00 AM - Wing root rib (Egan, John)
3. 08:55 AM - Re: Kevlar Drag Wires (Tom Bernie)
4. 09:36 AM - Re: carb (Gary Gower)
5. 10:16 AM - Re: carb (Barry Davis)
________________________________ Message 1
_____________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
>I dont know if there are this type of spring shops in USA
No, Gary... so I'd better go down to Guadalajara to get a spring ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________ Message 2
_____________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing root rib
From: "Egan, John" <jegan(at)kcc.com>
Hello all,
I believe I am 99% finished with the wing construction as I have the
entire wing and ailerons assembled, glued, and sanded, with the
exception of the wing root rib installation. Over the weekend, I dry
=66it the plywood pieces and the flat steel strap wing brackets on the
root ends of the spars. I have the spars, plywood and fittings drilled
and loosely bolted but not glued. I will need to add a final rib near
the end of the spars and I have been hesitating on this. My question
is:
Does the end rib get the vertical member cut away where it would overlap
the flat steel wing bracket=3F When I made the rib, I offset the
vertical
member the same thickness as the plywood with the intent to cut away the
area for the steel strap. A person could also build that first rib with
a solid sheet of plywood on the outside to have a nice flat surface to
glue the fabric to. I'm sure there are many good solutions, and I am
interested to hear some other options. After I get this last rib on, I
can then add varnish.
Thanks,
John
Greenville, Wi.
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
contai
n
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.
________________________________ Message 3
_____________________________________
From: "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Hans,
I got the following reply from Phillystran --
"There are 2 versions of the 2100 product:
The original version is the HPTG 2100 made from parallel Kevlar 49 yarn
with en extruded PE jacket. The modulus for that item would be
17.5x10E6 psi (conditioned rope value).
In 1990 a second generation product was introduced known as HPTG2100I.
Also made from the Kevlar 49 but a stranded resin impregnated rope with
extruded PU jacket. Modulus is 15.0x10E6 psi.
The HPTG-I version is an inventoried item whereas the HPTG is made to
order with a 5K min.
Kenneth Knight
PHILLYSTRAN, INC.
Manager, Industrial Sales
215-368-6611 *107
fax: 215-362-7956
cell: 267-614-5623
kknight(at)phillystran.com"
Is 15.0x10E6 psi a useful value in determining the cable usefulness?
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Vander Voort
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Tom,
I googled the elasticity modulus
Kevlar 49 has a elasticity modulus of 120 Gpa
Carbon Steel has a elasticity modulus of 210 Gpa
The higher the number the lower the elasticity.
Kevlar has a higher fatigue life than steel, due to being more elastic.
Probably Kevlar would be more suited as use in bracing wires, where
there
is a lot of vibration, or control cables where there is a lot of
bending.
Inside the wing with no turbulence and no bending I would not use it,
the
additional stretching might exceed the limits of the wood structure.
Then again the certified aircraft builders Boeing and Airbus seem to use
Kevlar in secondary structures, why not in primary ?
Hans
Tom Bernie
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
06/02/2006 02:38
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hans,
The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then
under that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower
builders
seem to consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get
elasticity
or dymanic stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100#
breaking strength, it costs $.59 @ foot.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Too elastic ?
>
>Hans
>
>
> "Tom Bernie"
> nk.net>
To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l
cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com
Subject
> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
>
> 06/02/2006 11:22
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>
>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>properties look great.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
________________________________ Message 4
_____________________________________
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
Sure, Welcome! Any time will be great.
Also if you like, I can get you a couple and send them to you. Just
need to
get a feeling of the spring this next Saturday at the Club, The spring
shop is
about 5 blocks from my factory, so no big deal to get it.
There they made the spring that we used for towing in my hang gliding
days, (20
years ago) also the springs for my Ladder Pou landing gear and lots of
others.
Just go there and tell them how much force needed and how much the
travel of
the spring. two or 3 days later is ready.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>I dont know if there are this type of spring shops in USA
No, Gary... so I'd better go down to Guadalajara to get a spring ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
__________________________________________________
________________________________ Message 5
_____________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
I know quiet a few pilots that have the "spring" on their carbs. I
thought about it and came up with a few observations.
I think the cable would probably break when you PULL the throttle to
closed and put tension on the cable. I don't think it would make sense
for a cable to break by PUSHING it through the jacket. If it broke
inside the jacket, it seems that it would still push through, but might
be harder than normal due to frayed ends. This would leave the throttle
on Open.
If the cable came off the carb lever by breakage or the bolt wearing
thru or falling out, then adding a very soft spring would be the best
idea in the world and you would be patting yourself on the back for a
long time after landing successfully.
If the spring is heavy, you will experience throttle creep and will
be constantly adjusting the throttle, it also puts a constant strain on
the cable. Look at the hardware stores or on the internet and look for a
spring with at least 1/2" diameter and very soft and pulls very easily.
If the ends are not long enough, an extender can be made from med to
heavy safety tie wire and anchored somewhere on the engine, not to the
motor mount to isolate constant vibration.
My 172 has one, but the 150 that I own with a partner does not. Go
figure. Our Piets are not flying yet. We just replaced the cable on the
150 and it had several thousand hours on it. It was not having a
problem, but replacement seemed like cheap insurance, especially if our
kids take it out for a spin.
If you ever feel a binding in the throttle, even just once, it is
time to take a look at that cable. By being a stranded cable, usually
one or two strands will break first and cause some friction. Consider
this your fair warning.
You need to have in mind a plan to cope with this type of emergency.
Either turn the engine switch on and off and blow the ends out of the
mufflers or get into a safe position at the airport, shut the engine
down and do a dead stick landing. Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to
full open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying
today, using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the
departure end. Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject
came up and it sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Pietenpol-List Digest: 5 Msgs - 06/05/06 |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
That would be Chuck G's, www.nx770cg.com. Great site!
Jack Textor
Would some one give me the recent web site listing Piet Accidents &
Incidents,
Thanks Graham Hewitt
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Tom Bernie" <tsbernie(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Kevlar Drag Wires |
Group,
I received this generous and informative email.
"I'm not on the Pietenpol List, but I am on the Kolb List, and went
browsing this morning. Saw this discussion and your email address and if
you care to pass this along, feel free to do so.
I am both an aerospace structural analyst and a sailor, as well as
owning a Cessna Skywagon and Kolb Firestar.
In the multihull sailing world, we often use what we call the
"high-tech" ropes for rigging.
1. They all have varying degrees of UV resistance. Covering extends
that. With no data available, I'd guess that the UV protection for the
wing covering would suffice for the drag and anti-drag cables, if you
used Kevlar or other ropes for that, and especially if you used covered
rope.
2. The applicable ropes are Vectran, Dyneema, or one of the aramids like
Kevlar (another is Technora). They all have roughly the Young's modulus
of about five million psi, so their area will have to be increased to
have the same stiffness performance as steel cable. Interestingly
enough, steel cable has an effective Young's modulus of about 11 million
- so if the rope is twice the area, or about 50% bigger nominal
diameter, it's equivalent stiffness to the steel cable. Remember that
solid tie rods have a Young's modulus of about 29 million psi, so if
you're replacing those, you'll need about 2 1/2 times the diameter for
the rope.
3. All these ropes creep. The initial creep is the most severe. People
typically make the end terminations and then apply a large load for
about 12 hours to prestretch them. If the prestretch tension is greater
than the limit load (limit load is the maximum load the rope will ever
see in service, without any safety factors - the real load) it should
not creep much after that in that load range. Dyneema has the most
creep, the aramids next, and Vectran the least.
4. The various rope manufacturers publish splicing information, and you
can buy "sailmaker's thimbles" for the ends. The "Brummel" splice is
easy to make, and makes a neat eye at the end. Knots, in general, fail
at 50% of the ropes breaking load or less. Use only splices for the rope
cables you make.
5. The end terminations, from the eye to the aircraft, can be made by
lashing thin rope multiple times. Get something like 1/16" Vectran
single braid and tie it to the aircraft. Make the rope cable itself with
both eyes spliced in, but make it about six inches short. Lace the small
line from the aircraft through the rope cable eye and back to the
aircraft, repeating several times, and finally pull tight and tie a knot
in it to terminate it. Since each strand of the small rope is only
minimally loaded, the knot is practical.
6. In one case on my trimaran, I placed a turnbuckle between the hull
and the small rope lashing. Once the final knot was made, the turnbuckle
provided adjustment. This might be most suitable for rope cables - and
you could even skip the lashing, with the final assembly being the
aircraft fitting, the rope, and the turnbuckle to the other aircraft
fitting. But the lashing does allow take-up of large gaps.
7. Ensure that you avoid chafe.
8. Sources are www.layline.com, Annapolis Performance Sailing, and West
Marine.
9. Splicing links are: http://www.neropes.com/splice/default.htm
http://www.samsonrope.com/home/recmarine/splicing/index.cfm
http://www.yalecordage.com/html/splicing_instructions.html
Good luck!
David Paule"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tom
Bernie
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 11:54 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Hans,
I got the following reply from Phillystran --
"There are 2 versions of the 2100 product:
The original version is the HPTG 2100 made from parallel Kevlar 49 yarn
with en extruded PE jacket. The modulus for that item would be
17.5x10E6 psi (conditioned rope value).
In 1990 a second generation product was introduced known as HPTG2100I.
Also made from the Kevlar 49 but a stranded resin impregnated rope with
extruded PU jacket. Modulus is 15.0x10E6 psi.
The HPTG-I version is an inventoried item whereas the HPTG is made to
order with a 5K min.
Kenneth Knight
PHILLYSTRAN, INC.
Manager, Industrial Sales
215-368-6611 *107
fax: 215-362-7956
cell: 267-614-5623
kknight(at)phillystran.com"
Is 15.0x10E6 psi a useful value in determining the cable usefulness?
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Hans
Vander Voort
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
Tom,
I googled the elasticity modulus
Kevlar 49 has a elasticity modulus of 120 Gpa
Carbon Steel has a elasticity modulus of 210 Gpa
The higher the number the lower the elasticity.
Kevlar has a higher fatigue life than steel, due to being more elastic.
Probably Kevlar would be more suited as use in bracing wires, where
there
is a lot of vibration, or control cables where there is a lot of
bending.
Inside the wing with no turbulence and no bending I would not use it,
the
additional stretching might exceed the limits of the wood structure.
Then again the certified aircraft builders Boeing and Airbus seem to use
Kevlar in secondary structures, why not in primary ?
Hans
Tom Bernie
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l
cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com
Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
06/02/2006 02:38
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hans,
The tower instructions call for tensioning to 15% breaking strength then
under that load it relaxes to 10% over a period of 30 days. Tower
builders
seem to consider it equivalent to galvanized. I'm trying to get
elasticity
or dymanic stretching data. It weighs nothing and at .22" dia and 2100#
breaking strength, it costs $.59 @ foot.
Regards,
Tom Bernie
-----Original Message-----
>From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
>Sent: Jun 2, 2006 1:55 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Cc: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com,
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag Wires
>
>
>Too elastic ?
>
>Hans
>
>
> "Tom Bernie"
> nk.net>
To
> Sent by:
> owner-pietenpol-l
cc
> ist-server@matron
> ics.com
Subject
> Pietenpol-List: Kevlar Drag
Wires
>
> 06/02/2006 11:22
> AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> pietenpol-list@ma
> tronics.com
>
>
>
>
>Folks,
>
>
>Anybody have any thoughts about the advisability of using Kevlar cable
>(Phillystran) for Drag/Anti Drag wires? On the surface, the physical
>properties look great.
>
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>Tom Bernie
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
When I was at Brodhead last year, and preparing on Sunday to fly to the
"other fly-in" to the northeast, John Hoffmann gave me a prop and I
pushed the throttle forward to taxi to the runway. Nothing. The engine
sat there at idle. I shut it down and we investigated and found the
bolt attaching the throttle levers to the cable had come loose, so it
can and will happen. In my case, to prevent that occurance it would
require a pretty heavy spring at the carburetor.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
I know quiet a few pilots that have the "spring" on their carbs. I
thought about it and came up with a few observations.
I think the cable would probably break when you PULL the throttle to
closed and put tension on the cable. I don't think it would make sense
for a cable to break by PUSHING it through the jacket. If it broke
inside the jacket, it seems that it would still push through, but might
be harder than normal due to frayed ends. This would leave the throttle
on Open.
If the cable came off the carb lever by breakage or the bolt wearing
thru or falling out, then adding a very soft spring would be the best
idea in the world and you would be patting yourself on the back for a
long time after landing successfully.
If the spring is heavy, you will experience throttle creep and will
be constantly adjusting the throttle, it also puts a constant strain on
the cable. Look at the hardware stores or on the internet and look for a
spring with at least 1/2" diameter and very soft and pulls very easily.
If the ends are not long enough, an extender can be made from med to
heavy safety tie wire and anchored somewhere on the engine, not to the
motor mount to isolate constant vibration.
My 172 has one, but the 150 that I own with a partner does not. Go
figure. Our Piets are not flying yet. We just replaced the cable on the
150 and it had several thousand hours on it. It was not having a
problem, but replacement seemed like cheap insurance, especially if our
kids take it out for a spin.
If you ever feel a binding in the throttle, even just once, it is
time to take a look at that cable. By being a stranded cable, usually
one or two strands will break first and cause some friction. Consider
this your fair warning.
You need to have in mind a plan to cope with this type of emergency.
Either turn the engine switch on and off and blow the ends out of the
mufflers or get into a safe position at the airport, shut the engine
down and do a dead stick landing. Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil <mailto:horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it
to full open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying
today, using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the
departure end. Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject
came up and it sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing root rib |
Yes, the uprights must be ground to fit over the wing attach fittings.
You can add another one beside what's left after it is on the wing. As
for the solid plywood cap, it is not necessary and will add weight. The
fabric will be glued to the piece of ply on top and bottom of the end
ribs and that is enough.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Egan, John
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing root rib
Hello all,
I believe I am 99% finished with the wing construction as I have the
entire wing and ailerons assembled, glued, and sanded, with the
exception of the wing root rib installation. Over the weekend, I dry
fit the plywood pieces and the flat steel strap wing brackets on the
root ends of the spars. I have the spars, plywood and fittings drilled
and loosely bolted but not glued. I will need to add a final rib near
the end of the spars and I have been hesitating on this. My question
is:
Does the end rib get the vertical member cut away where it would
overlap the flat steel wing bracket? When I made the rib, I offset the
vertical member the same thickness as the plywood with the intent to cut
away the area for the steel strap. A person could also build that first
rib with a solid sheet of plywood on the outside to have a nice flat
surface to glue the fabric to. I'm sure there are many good solutions,
and I am interested to hear some other options. After I get this last
rib on, I can then add varnish.
Thanks,
John
Greenville, Wi.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Model-A carb mounting |
I apologize in advance for the lengthy post, but I'm working on my
Model-A's intake manifold and this question keeps coming up.The plans
call for the removal of a wedge from the intake manifold of about 3/16"
which introduces a "tilt" in the carb's "working angle" of some 7
degrees. I don't understand why. Maybe someone out there can enlighten
me...I hope so. The engine was designed to go into the automobile frame
with the PTO (transmission) end of the engine lower than the "front" of
the engine by three degrees. The lubrication of the stock engine
(largely gravity fed) was designed to function at that engine attitude.
Notwithstanding the modifications that have been made to the engine's
lubrication system for Pietenpol application, it makes good sense to
install it in the airplane at the angle it was originally designed to
operate at...which Mr. Pietenpol did. The engine bearers introduce a
nose-down "tilt" of one inch in 22 inches or a little over 2.6
degrees.This being the case, it would seem that in lever flight, there
would be no interest at all in inclining the carb from it's original
factory position. When the airplane is resting on it's gear, however,
depending upon the gear configuration, it's in a nose-high attitude of
some twelve or so degrees. The way the carb is "tilted" does tend to
reduce this angle somewhat, making the float sit at a more normal angle.
But is this important enough to upset the mounting of the carb at cruise
attitude? Without the "tilt", would a nose-high tilt of 12 degrees
cause the carb to leak gas when it's on the ground? Somebody please help
me out here...Thanks...Carl Vought
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
John or Barry....
Would you have a picture of what you are describing?
Jack Textor
________________________________
Yes, the uprights must be ground to fit over the wing attach fittings.
You can add another one beside what's left after it is on the wing. As
for the solid plywood cap, it is not necessary and will add weight. The
fabric will be glued to the piece of ply on top and bottom of the end
ribs and that is enough.
Barry
Hello all,
I believe I am 99% finished with the wing construction as I have
the entire wing and ailerons assembled, glued, and sanded, with the
exception of the wing root rib installation. Over the weekend, I dry
fit the plywood pieces and the flat steel strap wing brackets on the
root ends of the spars. I have the spars, plywood and fittings drilled
and loosely bolted but not glued. I will need to add a final rib near
the end of the spars and I have been hesitating on this. My question
is:
Does the end rib get the vertical member cut away where it would
overlap the flat steel wing bracket? When I made the rib, I offset the
vertical member the same thickness as the plywood with the intent to cut
away the area for the steel strap. A person could also build that first
rib with a solid sheet of plywood on the outside to have a nice flat
surface to glue the fabric to. I'm sure there are many good solutions,
and I am interested to hear some other options. After I get this last
rib on, I can then add varnish.
Thanks,
John
Greenville, Wi.
________________________________
This e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee(s) only and may
contain privileged, confidential, or proprietary information that is
exempt from disclosure under law. If you have received this message in
error, please inform us promptly by reply e-mail, then delete the e-mail
and destroy any printed copy. Thank you.
________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Wing root rib |
John,
Yeah, you have to cut away some stuff. Just remember that the verticals
weren't even on the original prints. They were added so to make it easy
to get all the ribs lined up evenly. I didn't cap the end of the rib
with ply, no need and adds weight. It does need the extra structure
pieces which the root and the tip ribs have. Also the root ribs need
the 2" wide ply on top and bottom to prevent distortion from the fabric.
I covered the wing root with fabric with an overlap on the 2" ply, the
brought the top and bottom fabric over the ends to get the required 1"
overlap.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Egan, John
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Wing root rib
Hello all,
I believe I am 99% finished with the wing construction as I have the
entire wing and ailerons assembled, glued, and sanded, with the
exception of the wing root rib installation. Over the weekend, I dry
fit the plywood pieces and the flat steel strap wing brackets on the
root ends of the spars. I have the spars, plywood and fittings drilled
and loosely bolted but not glued. I will need to add a final rib near
the end of the spars and I have been hesitating on this. My question
is:
Does the end rib get the vertical member cut away where it would
overlap the flat steel wing bracket? When I made the rib, I offset the
vertical member the same thickness as the plywood with the intent to cut
away the area for the steel strap. A person could also build that first
rib with a solid sheet of plywood on the outside to have a nice flat
surface to glue the fabric to. I'm sure there are many good solutions,
and I am interested to hear some other options. After I get this last
rib on, I can then add varnish.
Thanks,
John
Greenville, Wi.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
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: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Jack
I was hoping you would respond. I was thinking of your problem at
Brodhead when I posted. If you would have lost that bolt in flight
maybe even a lighter spring could have given you power to find a landing
site??? If the bolt had departed as in your case on start up and the
spring opened the carb before start, the idler jets should be cut off
and the engine hopefully would not start.
Just a few thoughts
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Jack
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: carb
When I was at Brodhead last year, and preparing on Sunday to fly to
the "other fly-in" to the northeast, John Hoffmann gave me a prop and I
pushed the throttle forward to taxi to the runway. Nothing. The engine
sat there at idle. I shut it down and we investigated and found the
bolt attaching the throttle levers to the cable had come loose, so it
can and will happen. In my case, to prevent that occurance it would
require a pretty heavy spring at the carburetor.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:14 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
I know quiet a few pilots that have the "spring" on their carbs. I
thought about it and came up with a few observations.
I think the cable would probably break when you PULL the throttle
to closed and put tension on the cable. I don't think it would make
sense for a cable to break by PUSHING it through the jacket. If it broke
inside the jacket, it seems that it would still push through, but might
be harder than normal due to frayed ends. This would leave the throttle
on Open.
If the cable came off the carb lever by breakage or the bolt
wearing thru or falling out, then adding a very soft spring would be the
best idea in the world and you would be patting yourself on the back for
a long time after landing successfully.
If the spring is heavy, you will experience throttle creep and
will be constantly adjusting the throttle, it also puts a constant
strain on the cable. Look at the hardware stores or on the internet and
look for a spring with at least 1/2" diameter and very soft and pulls
very easily. If the ends are not long enough, an extender can be made
from med to heavy safety tie wire and anchored somewhere on the engine,
not to the motor mount to isolate constant vibration.
My 172 has one, but the 150 that I own with a partner does not.
Go figure. Our Piets are not flying yet. We just replaced the cable on
the 150 and it had several thousand hours on it. It was not having a
problem, but replacement seemed like cheap insurance, especially if our
kids take it out for a spin.
If you ever feel a binding in the throttle, even just once, it is
time to take a look at that cable. By being a stranded cable, usually
one or two strands will break first and cause some friction. Consider
this your fair warning.
You need to have in mind a plan to cope with this type of
emergency. Either turn the engine switch on and off and blow the ends
out of the mufflers or get into a safe position at the airport, shut the
engine down and do a dead stick landing. Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to
full open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying
today, using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the
departure end. Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject
came up and it sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "pietflyr" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net> |
Or, if the bolt came loose before engine start and I had such a spring in
place, old John could have found himself in front of a prop going full
throttle, with nothing but my marginal brakes between him and being
shredded!
I think such a spring is a good idea, but I have so much friction in my
cable, I'm not sure it would help in my situation. Of course, if the bolt
came loose in flight at cruise or climb power, it wouldn't be much of a
problem. Only if I had throttled back to idle, then decided I needed more
power (often the case, considering the wondrous glide capabilities of a
Pietenpol) would it be a problem.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Dick Navratil
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 8:52 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
Jack
I was hoping you would respond. I was thinking of your problem at
Brodhead when I posted. If you would have lost that bolt in flight maybe
even a lighter spring could have given you power to find a landing site???
If the bolt had departed as in your case on start up and the spring opened
the carb before start, the idler jets should be cut off and the engine
hopefully would not start.
Just a few thoughts
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Jack
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:29 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: carb
When I was at Brodhead last year, and preparing on Sunday to fly to the
other fly-in to the northeast, John Hoffmann gave me a prop and I pushed
the throttle forward to taxi to the runway. Nothing. The engine sat there
at idle. I shut it down and we investigated and found the bolt attaching
the throttle levers to the cable had come loose, so it can and will happen.
In my case, to prevent that occurance it would require a pretty heavy spring
at the carburetor.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry Davis
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:14 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: carb
I know quiet a few pilots that have the "spring" on their carbs. I
thought about it and came up with a few observations.
I think the cable would probably break when you PULL the throttle to
closed and put tension on the cable. I don't think it would make sense for a
cable to break by PUSHING it through the jacket. If it broke inside the
jacket, it seems that it would still push through, but might be harder than
normal due to frayed ends. This would leave the throttle on Open.
If the cable came off the carb lever by breakage or the bolt wearing
thru or falling out, then adding a very soft spring would be the best idea
in the world and you would be patting yourself on the back for a long time
after landing successfully.
If the spring is heavy, you will experience throttle creep and will
be constantly adjusting the throttle, it also puts a constant strain on the
cable. Look at the hardware stores or on the internet and look for a spring
with at least 1/2" diameter and very soft and pulls very easily. If the ends
are not long enough, an extender can be made from med to heavy safety tie
wire and anchored somewhere on the engine, not to the motor mount to isolate
constant vibration.
My 172 has one, but the 150 that I own with a partner does not. Go
figure. Our Piets are not flying yet. We just replaced the cable on the 150
and it had several thousand hours on it. It was not having a problem, but
replacement seemed like cheap insurance, especially if our kids take it out
for a spin.
If you ever feel a binding in the throttle, even just once, it is
time to take a look at that cable. By being a stranded cable, usually one or
two strands will break first and cause some friction. Consider this your
fair warning.
You need to have in mind a plan to cope with this type of emergency.
Either turn the engine switch on and off and blow the ends out of the
mufflers or get into a safe position at the airport, shut the engine down
and do a dead stick landing. Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 12:03 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: carb
Has anyone installed a spring on the Stromberg carb to bring it to
full open in case of a linkage failure in flight? I went out flying today,
using a runway with no good emergency landing spots on the departure end.
Sitting around the hangar chatting later, that subject came up and it
sounded like a good idea.
Dick N.
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Liability Insurance |
Does anybody have any good recommendations for liability insurance on
their Pietenpol?
The State of Minnesota keeps sending Dale and me notices to get NX18235
registered and we need to get insurance.
Any ideas?
Also, first flight of the season took place yesterday evening after a 10
month lull to replace the fuel tank and
make a few other corrections.
New fuel tank appears to be successful.
The weather was perfect. No wind, no bumps, 80+ degrees and no other
traffic in the pattern.
Chris Bobka made a short flight and then he gave Dale his first ride.
They landed and I climbed in. Throttled up and lifted off in within 300
feet. Climbed at 250 fpm and 40 mph. Went to a practice area 1 mile east
of SYN and did a little slow flight, some turns and a stall. The stall
required an unbelievably nose high attitude followed by a gentle buffet.
Used rudder to keep the wings level and it was flying again as soon as I
released the back pressure on the stick.
Then it was time to try a landing. It was very pitch sensitive, even
with the power off, resulting in some mild porpoising about 10' off the
grass. I elected to go-around instead of trying to salvage the landing.
I was ready for it the next time and touched down skid first followed by
the mains. It tracks well on the ground with the skid and only takes a
small burst of power to correct any tail swings. Roll out in 300 - 400
feet.
The plane has a lot of drag allowing incredibly tight patterns. Power
off abeam the threshold and it comes down like a brick, a very
controllable brick. The controls feel solid all the way through the
flare and touchdown.
I put on 1.1 hours and got in 9 or 10 landings.
It's a good feeling.......
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HelsperSew(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Model A (or B) Engine Builder |
Hi all,
I am new to this sight. I am building a 1928 Flying and Glider Manual Piet.
Wing is complete, fuse is almost ready for an engine. I was all set to
pull the trigger on buying a complete Ford A engine from Mr. Bud Rogers of
Travel Air Aviation in DeLand FL, but found out from a family friend that he was
tragically killed on Thanksgiving in a car crash on his way home from a show.
I liked his design because he used two plugs/cylinder, high compression head
and modern bearing inserts with full pressure oil system. Is there anybody
else out there who does the same thing? Please help! Dan Helsper, Poplar
Grove IL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net> |
Greg,
I for one really appreciate this kind of post, and thank you for taking
the time to write it. Those of us still building can vicariously enjoy
these experiences, which help us keep moving forward.
by the way, what was wrong with the old fuel tank?
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A (or B) Engine Builder |
--- 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 ---
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I am looking for the name of these things and where they can be
bought;if anyone can help me with this info,thanks.I figure it would be
a lot cheeper to go this route than to replace the spark pugs with
shielded type and shielded wiring.I would also have to change the mags
to accommodate.Huge cost from what I can gather.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | Liability Insurance |
Greg;
I got my coverage for 41CC through Falcon Insurance. They are somehow
affiliated with EAA, not that the insurance is cheap but at least they know
and understand experimentals and know what a Pietenpol is. They were very
fair and friendly with me.
I have heard that there is another underwriter with good rates on these
types of airplanes, but it is through the Antique Aircraft Association or
some such thing and you have to be a member. I looked into it and didn't
see much benefit for my buck so I didn't join.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
I found the promises made by EAA on the Falcon Insurance to be....mhh...
less than advertised
William Wynne promotes the same Falcon insurance for airplanes with Corvair
conversions.
I contacted Falcon insurance for a Liability only insurance and got the
following:
Fly of your first 40 hours and then we will talk.
No first flight insurance, not even considered.
Corvair engine......car conversion??
The other insurance company all have the same answer.
It is just than Falcon seems to be promoted by the Experimental Aviation
Association with the promise of being more flexible towards homebuilds, Not
So.
I fly currently without insurance, very carefully over open terrain only,
so far I have been lucky.
I have a perfect flying and driving record no violations.
When I get my 40 hours done, I will try again for insurance.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: greg's flight |
The original fuel tank was constructed of galvanized steel with riveted
and soldered seams. It was not as Dale and I expected it would be and
started to leak. On the return flight from Brodhead last year the leak
rate was up to almost 1 gph.
The airplane was taken out of service upon landing and the fuel tank
was removed. We attempted to oxy/acetylene weld a new aluminum tank.
That was a most frustrating and time consuming experience and in the
end it was unsuccessful. We bent up a new tank and had it TIG welded.
Third times a charm.
Wednesday evenings flight was my first flight in the airplane (other
than a brief ride as a passenger last year)and I must tell everyone who
is building to stick with it.
It is now two days after my first flight and I still feel a bit giddy
about it.
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Date: Friday, June 9, 2006 7:31 am
Subject: Pietenpol-List: greg's flight
> Greg,
>
> I for one really appreciate this kind of post, and thank you for
> taking the time to write it. Those of us still building can
> vicariously enjoy these experiences, which help us keep moving
> forward.
> by the way, what was wrong with the old fuel tank?
>
> Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com |
| Subject: | Re: greg's flight |
That second sentence should read "It was not as durable as Dale and I
expected...."
----- Original Message -----
From: GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com
Date: Friday, June 9, 2006 10:15 am
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: greg's flight
>
> The original fuel tank was constructed of galvanized steel with
> riveted
> and soldered seams. It was not as Dale and I expected it would be
> and
> started to leak. On the return flight from Brodhead last year the
> leak
> rate was up to almost 1 gph.
> The airplane was taken out of service upon landing and the fuel
> tank
> was removed. We attempted to oxy/acetylene weld a new aluminum
> tank.
> That was a most frustrating and time consuming experience and in
> the
> end it was unsuccessful. We bent up a new tank and had it TIG
> welded.
> Third times a charm.
> Wednesday evenings flight was my first flight in the airplane
> (other
> than a brief ride as a passenger last year)and I must tell
> everyone who
> is building to stick with it.
> It is now two days after my first flight and I still feel a bit
> giddy
> about it.
>
> Greg
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Douwe Blumberg <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
> Date: Friday, June 9, 2006 7:31 am
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: greg's flight
> To: pietenpolgroup
>
> > Greg,
> >
> > I for one really appreciate this kind of post, and thank you for
> > taking the time to write it. Those of us still building can
> > vicariously enjoy these experiences, which help us keep moving
> > forward.
> > by the way, what was wrong with the old fuel tank?
> >
> > Douwe
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: tenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs |
Harvey......I am using the Dan Price dual ignition head on my engine, (which
is a work in progress). One of the mags, an American Bosch, which I bought
at Brodhead some time ago, will be driven from the crankshaft and will drive
ordinary GM-type plugs.. The other mag is one I bought from Saturn Surplus.
It's a brand-new Slick, RIGHT-TURNING mag with an Impulse coupling set up
for 15 degrees of lag, which, I'm told, is not enough for a Model-A. (I'm
driving it from a modified Ken Perkins side-drive mount, so I needed the
right turning mag.) The Saturn mag can be bought with or without ignition
leads. I got the leads, which are shielded with 5/8-24 terminations (on both
ends). The AS&S catalog lists Champion REJ38 plugs, which are shielded, with
5/8-24 thread and 14 mmX3/8 reach as required by the Price head . They are
pricey...$30.00 each. I don't know about heat range. I tend to believe that
in a cool-running Model-A one would need a hot plug. I looking at getting
four of these for the new Slick to drive. Good luck....Carl Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs
>
> I am looking for the name of these things and where they can be
> bought;if anyone can help me with this info,thanks.I figure it would be
> a lot cheeper to go this route than to replace the spark pugs with
> shielded type and shielded wiring.I would also have to change the mags
> to accommodate.Huge cost from what I can gather.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | tenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I seen an engine once with these things that looked like cans over the
spark plugs for shielding.I'm wondering what these cans are called and
where I can get them.I don't want to go to shielded plugs and wires if I
can help it.I know where I can get all that stuff and it will cost me a
fortune.I have 8 plugs ,two for each cylinder.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Carl
Vought
Sent: June 9, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs
Harvey......I am using the Dan Price dual ignition head on my engine,
(which
is a work in progress). One of the mags, an American Bosch, which I
bought
at Brodhead some time ago, will be driven from the crankshaft and will
drive
ordinary GM-type plugs.. The other mag is one I bought from Saturn
Surplus.
It's a brand-new Slick, RIGHT-TURNING mag with an Impulse coupling set
up
for 15 degrees of lag, which, I'm told, is not enough for a Model-A.
(I'm
driving it from a modified Ken Perkins side-drive mount, so I needed the
right turning mag.) The Saturn mag can be bought with or without
ignition
leads. I got the leads, which are shielded with 5/8-24 terminations (on
both
ends). The AS&S catalog lists Champion REJ38 plugs, which are shielded,
with
5/8-24 thread and 14 mmX3/8 reach as required by the Price head . They
are
pricey...$30.00 each. I don't know about heat range. I tend to believe
that
in a cool-running Model-A one would need a hot plug. I looking at
getting
four of these for the new Slick to drive. Good luck....Carl Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:24 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List:shielded cans for spark plugs
>
> I am looking for the name of these things and where they can be
> bought;if anyone can help me with this info,thanks.I figure it would
be
> a lot cheeper to go this route than to replace the spark pugs with
> shielded type and shielded wiring.I would also have to change the mags
> to accommodate.Huge cost from what I can gather.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
Just talked to the Falcon man. Said Piet is no problem, around $700/yr for
liability ($1,000,000 max), coverage can start with first flight. The
problem is with a non-aircraft engine, with a corvair engine he said forget
it. May go with that O-200 after all. Said he did hear of other comanies
insuring non-aircraft engines though.
Rick H
On 6/8/06, gcardinal wrote:
>
> *Does anybody have any good recommendations for liability insurance on
> their Pietenpol?*
> *The State of Minnesota keeps sending Dale and me notices to get NX18235
> registered and we need to get insurance.*
> *Any ideas?*
> **
> *Also, first flight of the season took place yesterday evening after a 10
> month lull to replace the fuel tank and*
> *make a few other corrections.*
> *New fuel tank appears to be successful.
> The weather was perfect. No wind, no bumps, 80+ degrees and no other
> traffic in the pattern.
> Chris Bobka made a short flight and then he gave Dale his first ride.
> They landed and I climbed in. Throttled up and lifted off in within 300
> feet. Climbed at 250 fpm and 40 mph. Went to a practice area 1 mile east of
> SYN and did a little slow flight, some turns and a stall. The stall required
> an unbelievably nose high attitude followed by a gentle buffet. Used rudder
> to keep the wings level and it was flying again as soon as I released the
> back pressure on the stick.
> Then it was time to try a landing. It was very pitch sensitive, even with
> the power off, resulting in some mild porpoising about 10' off the grass. I
> elected to go-around instead of trying to salvage the landing. I was ready
> for it the next time and touched down skid first followed by the mains. It
> tracks well on the ground with the skid and only takes a small burst of
> power to correct any tail swings. Roll out in 300 - 400 feet.
> The plane has a lot of drag allowing incredibly tight patterns. Power off
> abeam the threshold and it comes down like a brick, a very controllable
> brick. The controls feel solid all the way through the flare and touchdown.
> I put on 1.1 hours and got in 9 or 10 landings.
> It's a good feeling.......
>
> Greg
> *
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HelsperSew(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Model A (or B) Engine Builder |
Hi Jim,
Fred was the family friend that I refer to in my post. He was kind enough
to include some names of the businesses that were working with Bud on his A's.
I suppose I can try to build-up my own Ford A but I wish and prefer to hire
someone else that has done it rather than me reinvent the wheel. There was
no offer to get in contact with his widow. Does Ken Perkins make up full
complete engines for people?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A (or B) Engine Builder |
--- 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: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
Good goin on the first solo Greg. On insurance, I just paid my renewal
from AOPA. I have $9,000 hull and legal liability. Total premium $1216
per yr.
If the weather cooperates, I am planning on coming down to Stanton next
Sun for the fly in.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 11:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Liability Insurance
Does anybody have any good recommendations for liability insurance on
their Pietenpol?
The State of Minnesota keeps sending Dale and me notices to get
NX18235 registered and we need to get insurance.
Any ideas?
Also, first flight of the season took place yesterday evening after a
10 month lull to replace the fuel tank and
make a few other corrections.
New fuel tank appears to be successful.
The weather was perfect. No wind, no bumps, 80+ degrees and no other
traffic in the pattern.
Chris Bobka made a short flight and then he gave Dale his first ride.
They landed and I climbed in. Throttled up and lifted off in within
300 feet. Climbed at 250 fpm and 40 mph. Went to a practice area 1 mile
east of SYN and did a little slow flight, some turns and a stall. The
stall required an unbelievably nose high attitude followed by a gentle
buffet. Used rudder to keep the wings level and it was flying again as
soon as I released the back pressure on the stick.
Then it was time to try a landing. It was very pitch sensitive, even
with the power off, resulting in some mild porpoising about 10' off the
grass. I elected to go-around instead of trying to salvage the landing.
I was ready for it the next time and touched down skid first followed by
the mains. It tracks well on the ground with the skid and only takes a
small burst of power to correct any tail swings. Roll out in 300 - 400
feet.
The plane has a lot of drag allowing incredibly tight patterns. Power
off abeam the threshold and it comes down like a brick, a very
controllable brick. The controls feel solid all the way through the
flare and touchdown.
I put on 1.1 hours and got in 9 or 10 landings.
It's a good feeling.......
Greg
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Carl Vought" <carbarvo(at)knology.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Model A (or B) Engine Builder |
I have dealt with Ken Perkins a couple of times and have found him to do
good work on time and to properly represent what he does. To find out
what he's prepared to do vis-a-vis a complete engine, I'm sure you have
only to contact him. His email address is kenvernaperkins(at)juno.com. His
phone number is 913/764-6949. Also, there's a Model-A society that
publishes a magazine called "Secrets of Speed" If you're interested in
that let me know. They know about some pretty wild stuff, like aluminum
Model T blocks....Carl Vought
----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Ash
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 7:59 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A (or B) Engine Builder
I'm afraid I can't help you with Ken Perkins; I personally have never
heard of him or his work, but I don't travel in those circles.
Of all the stuff Bud did, I don't think he was a machinist. Translate
that to mean I suspect he farmed a lot of the machine work out, so
talking to the Model A connections Fred gave you may be more productive
than you think. I'll bet if someone knows enough to machine Model A
parts, they could either assemble an engine for you, or possibly direct
you to someone who could.
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Sent: Jun 9, 2006 8:28 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Model A (or B) Engine Builder
Hi Jim,
Fred was the family friend that I refer to in my post. He was kind
enough to include some names of the businesses that were working with
Bud on his A's. I suppose I can try to build-up my own Ford A but I
wish and prefer to hire someone else that has done it rather than me
reinvent the wheel. There was no offer to get in contact with his
widow. Does Ken Perkins make up full complete engines for people?
=========================
=========================
http://wiki.matronics.com
=========================
=========================
===========
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | shielded cans for spark plugs |
Harvey asks-
>I am looking for the name of these things and where they can be bought
If I understand you correctly, this should be what you're looking for and
Great Plains calls them "shielded spark plug adapters":
http://www.greatplainsas.com/scspkplug.html
They're not cheap to buy, but once you have them you can use automotive
spark plugs at a couple of bucks apiece and they'll pay for themselves in
the difference in cost over shielded aircraft plugs. If you're not in a
hurry, Great Plains usually has a sale around Christmas and they sometimes
list these plug adapters with a 10 or 15% discount.
And sorry about the post on insurance through Falcon... I should have
clarified that 41CC does run an A65 and had all its test hours flown off
already (25, in this case) when I insured it, and that apparently makes all
the difference in the world.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Harvey: Great Planes Aircraft, the VW engine people sells what you may
need. They call them spark plug adaptors. They adapt the "standard Slick
M2266 harness to standard vw plugs". They probably won"t fit over the
large Model A plugs, but I recall that one of the Model A suppliers sold
a reducer that allowed newer modern spark plugs to be used in the A
head. In the 2004 catalog, four adapters with Bosch plugs were $94.95
gpasc.com Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: shielded cans for spark plugs |
Good morning Oscar,
May I add a few dingies relative to Falcon and insurance in general.
Edwin flew off the 25 required hours without insurance. I then rejoined EAA
in order to buy from Falcon. A requirement. (Unconstitutional). They seemed
soooooo nice on the phone and all until they got my money, about 450, then here
come the buts. Must have the names, FAA ticket numbers, total time, last
tail wheel check out date and other little things for their approval before
policy is in effect. These named persons were on the policy and the only ones
covered. Better check it out BEFORE you send your dough.
If I had to do it again I would ignore the insurance snag and just fly and
fly and fly like I used to do years ago. Those blood suckers are the ruination
of so many activities. They have the public in fear and sit on their _____s
in big offices and just wait for those payments without any good old American
labor expended. Talk about our loss of freedom. I could but won't go on for
hours talking about these leaches. I'm sure no one in the insurance industry
is reading this because building a Pietenpol requires brains and hard work,
something foreign to the insurance people.
Your friend in Louisiana
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Hi Greg...
Great to hear about your flight!! I'm sure you will really enjoy flying it! There's
nothing quite like it. I got my insurance from Falcon. They have been
great to work with. Coverage hasn't been a problem at all (I do have an A-65
though). When I checked into it I didn't have any tailwheel time and they told
me I would need 10 hours first. My premium has been $400 for liabilty and
$400 for non-movement damage coverage ( fire, flood, theft, etc.) per year. They
base the non-movement damage on your receipts from building. So keep them
all!! I had a hangar collapse at my last airport with minimal damage and I turned
it into Falcon insurance and they were really great to work with.
Don E.
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=39813#39813
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
Liability insurance premiums through Falcon seems to vary greatly. Anywhere
from $400 up to $800.
Anyone have a guess as to why the difference?
Greg
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:34 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Liability Insurance
>
> Hi Greg...
> Great to hear about your flight!! I'm sure you will really enjoy flying
> it! There's nothing quite like it. I got my insurance from Falcon. They
> have been great to work with. Coverage hasn't been a problem at all (I do
> have an A-65 though). When I checked into it I didn't have any tailwheel
> time and they told me I would need 10 hours first. My premium has been
> $400 for liabilty and $400 for non-movement damage coverage ( fire, flood,
> theft, etc.) per year. They base the non-movement damage on your receipts
> from building. So keep them all!! I had a hangar collapse at my last
> airport with minimal damage and I turned it into Falcon insurance and they
> were really great to work with.
> Don E.
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=39813#39813
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
Cc: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Greg,
I don't know all of the reasons, but one reason might be that we as
consumers don't know that premiums they're quoting other consumers.
For instance, given what's been written here over the last couple of
days, it seems reasonable to ask for a $400 premium and then let the
agent explain why it should cost more.
Thanks,
Jeff
>
>Liability insurance premiums through Falcon seems to vary greatly.
>Anywhere from $400 up to $800.
>Anyone have a guess as to why the difference?
>
>Greg
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
>To:
>Sent: Saturday, June 10, 2006 11:34 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Liability Insurance
>
>>
>>Hi Greg...
>>Great to hear about your flight!! I'm sure you will really enjoy
>>flying it! There's nothing quite like it. I got my insurance from
>>Falcon. They have been great to work with. Coverage hasn't been a
>>problem at all (I do have an A-65 though). When I checked into it
>>I didn't have any tailwheel time and they told me I would need 10
>>hours first. My premium has been $400 for liabilty and $400 for
>>non-movement damage coverage ( fire, flood, theft, etc.) per year.
>>They base the non-movement damage on your receipts from building.
>>So keep them all!! I had a hangar collapse at my last airport with
>>minimal damage and I turned it into Falcon insurance and they were
>>really great to work with.
>>Don E.
>>NX899DE
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Liability Insurance |
In a message dated 6/10/2006 4:23:29 PM Central Standard Time,
gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com writes:
Liability insurance premiums through Falcon seems to vary greatly. Anywhere
from $400 up to $800.
Anyone have a guess as to why the difference?
Greg
Hey Greg,
Congrats on your flight !! Let the fun begin !!
I have Avemco, and my Annual Premium is $594. I waited till after I had the
40 hr test period over, and then some, before I even called about insurance.
100,000 bodily injury per person
1,000,000 property damage
1,000,000 each accident
Chuck G.
NX770CG
see y'all at Brodhead !!
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Expanding the Envelope |
A couple of weeks ago, I carried a 243 lb. passenger on a 1 1/2 hr
flight. He was getting pretty squirmy after about an hour. I have headsets now,
which work pretty well. It's great to be able to communicate with my passenger
now !! We flew around El Dorado Lake, and did a candy drop to some kids at
the baseball field.
Today, I got into, and out of, a 1000 foot strip, with trees at both
ends. Lynn Knoll's son Kevin, was having a Birthday Barbecue, and he mowed the
grass on his strip, but no airplanes have landed there for about 50 years. Lynn
& Kevin are building a beautiful Corvair Power Pietenpol, and will be at
Brodhead this year. On approach from the West, I saw the last of 8 skydivers
landing there. On a low flyover, I smelled the Barbecue, saw about 25 or 30
people down there, and figured well...this must be the place !! Did a couple of
'Smoke Circles in the Sky', then a couple of Low Smokin' Passes...cuttin' the
grass !! I did a full stall landing, and during roll out, hit a hump, which
launched 'er back in the air, but it proved to be no problem...soft touchdown and
Plenty of runway left. Spun 'er around on the ground about 3 or 4 times,
Smoke On, till I couldn't see anything around but Smoke !! Had all the great BBQ
ribs, trimmins, and checked out their project.
For the takeoff, after the mag drop & pre-flight tests, and loosened my
belt (full belly) I snuggled the tail as close as I could up against the
fence at the North end for a Southerly departure, held full power & stick forward
for a couple seconds with the brakes, Smoke On, and let 'er go. The tail was
up immediately, and I tried to hold it just a couple of inches above the turf.
Let the speed build, gradually back off the forward pressure on the
stick...c'mon 40 mph...couldn't wait for 40, and eased 'er off at about 38 mph.
Put
the nose back down to stay in ground effect to allow the airspeed to build up a
little more. I was off the ground before I got to that hump. Trees were
coming up pretty fast, and up and over we went at about 45 mph, and easily
climbed up over the trees & power lines. YEEE HAAWWW !! Came back around for
another Low, Smokin', Grass Cuttin' Pass. Climbing out I rocked the wings, and
waggled the tail !! That makes the smoke do some curly Q's. Everybody had a
great time !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
I had the same experience with Falcon as Corky has related... all the
appropriate info needed for each listed pilot, then they quoted the rate and
only insured the plane with the listed insured pilots. I just had myself
and Charlie insured; we both have plenty of tailwheel time. My first year's
insurance expired long ago and I've not renewed it since the airplane is not
flyable at the moment, but long hours thinking about it have led me to the
same conclusion Corky arrived at... no insurance. I'm going barefoot from
now on.
The only hesitancy I have is based on discussions I've seen on lists like
these where people say it's selfish, evil, and criminal (well, not really)
for the operator of an experimental aircraft to not carry at least liability
insurance, to protect the public and others from the operator's acts. After
all, it isn't the fault of someone in a house on the ground if a plane
crashes into their house, and the pilot/owner should at least have liability
insurance.
Just like I don't think I'll ever go back to try to get my instrument ticket
again, I don't think I'll ever get insurance. Just a little low, slow, no
radio, no electrics flying. So shoot me.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
I agree with you Oscar, I may go the same way when the time comes.
Rick
On 6/11/06, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
> taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>
> I had the same experience with Falcon as Corky has related... all the
> appropriate info needed for each listed pilot, then they quoted the rate
> and
> only insured the plane with the listed insured pilots. I just had myself
> and Charlie insured; we both have plenty of tailwheel time. My first
> year's
> insurance expired long ago and I've not renewed it since the airplane is
> not
> flyable at the moment, but long hours thinking about it have led me to the
> same conclusion Corky arrived at... no insurance. I'm going barefoot from
> now on.
>
> The only hesitancy I have is based on discussions I've seen on lists like
> these where people say it's selfish, evil, and criminal (well, not really)
> for the operator of an experimental aircraft to not carry at least
> liability
> insurance, to protect the public and others from the operator's
> acts. After
> all, it isn't the fault of someone in a house on the ground if a plane
> crashes into their house, and the pilot/owner should at least have
> liability
> insurance.
>
> Just like I don't think I'll ever go back to try to get my instrument
> ticket
> again, I don't think I'll ever get insurance. Just a little low, slow, no
> radio, no electrics flying. So shoot me.
>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HelsperSew(at)aol.com |
Oscar,
I too, am fed up with blood-sucking insurance companies. After dutifully
paying premiums for umpteen years it comes time for them to uphold their end
of the bargain, its like pulling teeth to get them to pay off. I am very
tired of working working working just to pay pay pay. I think I am going to go
along with you and just take my chances and be self-insured. I don't have
that much to take so come and get it. Bring the truck and I'll even help load
it up. Dan H
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
Just saw this little idea in one of the magazines... it goes on the face of
your altimeter, directly over the Kollsman window, to magnify the numbers
for guys like me who need help reading things up close. Can't say as I'd be
willing to pay what they're asking though, because it looks like you could
easily get one of the little stick-on magnifiers to do the same thing:
http://www.onewinkllc.com/
And I'm sure he means "vernier", not "veneer"...
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: greg's flight |
| From: | john e fay <jefay(at)juno.com> |
Greg,
Your third tank, which is working (and TIG welded)--what material is it?
John Fay
in Peoria
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | Expanding the Envelope |
Chuck-- hats off to you for going into Kevin's strip. That is tight ! I
like your mention of 40....that is my magical number too
for enough airspeed to climb and not to be too close to stall. Sounds
like a great time.
Alex on the list is building a nice Corvair Piet and is friends with Lynn
and Kevin. Good people.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | wing attach bolts |
Speaking of wing attachments, the gentleman in the hangar next to ours (me
and Randy Stout) crashed one of his sailplanes Friday here at San Geronimo.
Apparently, one of the wing attach pins was not pushed down completely
through the lower attach holes and while he was on tow and just breaking
ground, the wing loaded and the lower attach let go, folding the wing. It
departed the aircraft and the next thing you know, the Maule towplane was
simply dragging a heap of junk.
Pilot broke a leg and injured his back, I believe he is out of the hospital
now though. Sailplane is totalled. He almost hit a car and people who were
watching from the side of the runway after the craft lost control.
Is there really anything more critical to a fixed-wing aircraft than the
wing attachments?
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Bob Seibert email |
| From: | "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com> |
All,
Tried to reach Bob Seibert at dsseibert(at)earthlink.net and the email was
returned. Does anyone have the current contact info for Bob?
Thanks
Jack Textor
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: wing attach bolts |
Hi Oscar,
Yes, there is a more critical part in a fixed wing airplane. Is also kind of
little.
We all call it the Prefight List...
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Oscar Zuniga wrote:
Speaking of wing attachments, the gentleman in the hangar next to ours (me
and Randy Stout) crashed one of his sailplanes Friday here at San Geronimo.
Apparently, one of the wing attach pins was not pushed down completely
through the lower attach holes and while he was on tow and just breaking
ground, the wing loaded and the lower attach let go, folding the wing. It
departed the aircraft and the next thing you know, the Maule towplane was
simply dragging a heap of junk.
Pilot broke a leg and injured his back, I believe he is out of the hospital
now though. Sailplane is totalled. He almost hit a car and people who were
watching from the side of the runway after the craft lost control.
Is there really anything more critical to a fixed-wing aircraft than the
wing attachments?
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Andimaxd(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Bob Seibert email |
Hey Group,
Bob was headed to CA., to be near his kids. Jim Markle might have good
contact info.
Max
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
Heres a follow up to a post a couple of weeks ago on a unique engine
installation. I forwarded the previous post to the Rotec factory. I'm
not sure if that was a fake, I havent heard back from them yet. I know
this one is real.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: greg's flight |
Hi John,
It is just the second, and hopefully last, fuel tank. It is .032, 5052
aluminum, half-hard.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "john e fay" <jefay(at)juno.com>
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 7:33 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: greg's flight
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Your third tank, which is working (and TIG welded)--what material is it?
>
> John Fay
> in Peoria
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Re: radial engine |
Think I would invest in a pair of chain-mail chaps to ride that one.
On 6/12/06, Dick Navratil wrote:
>
> Heres a follow up to a post a couple of weeks ago on a unique engine
> installation. I forwarded the previous post to the Rotec factory. I'm not
> sure if that was a fake, I havent heard back from them yet. I know this one
> is real.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
| Subject: | Torque tube painting |
How did you guys coat the ends of your torque tube? Did you just paint the
whole thing then sand down the ends so it will fit into the bearings? Did
you finish the inside of the bearings or just leave it bare metal? Same
question goes for the bell crank and it's bearings.
Thanks
Rick H
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HelsperSew(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Email for Forrest Lovely? |
Hi,
Does anyone know the Email address for Forrest Lovely? Thanks.
Dan Helsper
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Torque tube painting |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
I left both bare metal and coated them with grease. Add grease at each
annual condition inspection.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:57 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Torque tube painting
How did you guys coat the ends of your torque tube? Did you just paint
the whole thing then sand down the ends so it will fit into the
bearings? Did you finish the inside of the bearings or just leave it
bare metal? Same question goes for the bell crank and it's bearings.
Thanks
Rick H
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Infromation about listing items |
Members of the list:
Is there a place for Pieter's where we can post messages for items we wish to
sell? I have used the list serve for a few items but they never seems to make
it through Internet space.
I have some things I wish to liquidate and just wondering if there is a site
set up for items to sell.....
Ken H
Fargo, ND
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan) |
Dick: 5 will get you 10 that the reason you haven't heard from Rotec is
because they are busy talking to their doctors (to get their blood
pressure back down) and lawyers, bracing themselves for the lawsuit to
come when or if he wrecks that thing. I can see the new Rotec adds
now...."these engines are not for sale in USA" Leon S. Do not
archive
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net> |
I wouldn't worry too much. I'm going to hazard a guess that someone with an
impractical $50k+ showbike is going to be very, very, careful.
If I were a marketing guy at Rotec, I would be posting that picture at every
biker hangout, rally, superbike racetrack and show I could find. I'd be
hustling that picture like a Las Vegas escort service.
The custom motorcycle market in the US alone is WAY bigger than the world's
Pietenpol or antique airplane population. If we're not careful, Rotec may
sell all its engines to West Coast Choppers and leave us behind, stuck with
square engines.
>
> Dick: 5 will get you 10 that the reason you haven't heard from Rotec is
> because they are busy talking to their doctors (to get their blood
> pressure back down) and lawyers, bracing themselves for the lawsuit to
> come when or if he wrecks that thing. I can see the new Rotec adds
> now...."these engines are not for sale in USA" Leon S. Do not
> archive
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | info from Bill Rewey |
My thanks to all who mentioned the tips and sketches available from Bill
Rewey. I sent him $12 and got them back promptly... and what a great bunch
of stuff to sit down in the easy chair with in the evening. I see now that
Corky used some of those ideas on 41CC, either because they are popular
ideas or because he got them through Bill, but regardless- there are some
very good tips and details in there.
Don't you love "mature" designs like the Piet? So much useful information
and so many fine examples out there to glean ideas from. Oh, and I also
notice that the front cockpit of NX17WR, Bill's "Navy scheme" Piet, is about
as Spartan as you can make them. Really models the theme of "simplicate and
add lightness".
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Lynn Knoll" <dknoll(at)cox.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Torque Tube Bearings |
Leave them bare. Drill a 1/8" hole in the top of the female housing for
a few drops of oil.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
This is what you want Oscar;
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=45035&cat=1,43456,43351
Hell of a better price too!
Clif
Old guy eh? Is this you they're talking about? :-)
Did you hear about the old guy that goes into the druggist to get Viagra
and asked for it to be cut in four(each tablet).The druggist asked why
and the guy sez I only need enough so I don't pee in my shoes
>
> Just saw this little idea in one of the magazines... it goes on the face
> of your altimeter, directly over the Kollsman window, to magnify the
> numbers for guys like me who need help reading things up close. Can't say
> as I'd be willing to pay what they're asking though, because it looks like
> you could easily get one of the little stick-on magnifiers to do the same
> thing:
>
> http://www.onewinkllc.com/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
| From: | Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com> |
Cliff.
The magnet holder would definitely give you much better Compass read-outs
:-)
Try a PDA magnifier, available at most office supply stores.
or AS&S sells the "MAGNIFICO PLUS GPS MAGNIFIER 11-04378 (same thing)
Hans
Clif Dawson
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight
aid
06/14/2006 04:24
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
This is what you want Oscar;
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=1&p=45035&cat=1,43456,43351
Hell of a better price too!
Clif
Old guy eh? Is this you they're talking about? :-)
Did you hear about the old guy that goes into the druggist to get Viagra
and asked for it to be cut in four(each tablet).The druggist asked why
and the guy sez I only need enough so I don't pee in my shoes
>
> Just saw this little idea in one of the magazines... it goes on the face
> of your altimeter, directly over the Kollsman window, to magnify the
> numbers for guys like me who need help reading things up close. Can't
say
> as I'd be willing to pay what they're asking though, because it looks
like
> you could easily get one of the little stick-on magnifiers to do the same
> thing:
>
> http://www.onewinkllc.com/
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
This has probably already been noted, but William Wynne has updated his
website with several items. One, at http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html ,
explains how he is trying to streamline his operation and provide better
phone service and includes a photo and tribute to John Monday at the bottom
of the update. Another is a report on a completed and flying Corvair
Pietenpol, at http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar0506.html .
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison Family" <robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net> |
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Isablcorky(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
With practice, you should be able to set it down on a normal power off
landing and have 4 or 5 hundred feet remaining. Using a powered approach you
should set it in and have 800 feet remaining.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
If the approaches are truly unobstructed (no obstructions over about 10'
tall), you should be able to operate from a strip of that size safely.
My Piet is heavy (745 lbs empty) and it regularly can get off the ground
in under 500' with no wind. Then it chugs along, climbing at between 0
and 400 fpm, depending on load and temperature (density altitude). At
high loads and high density altitudes, its climb ranges from
non-existent to pitiful.
I will never forget the trip to Brodhead last year where I landed for
fuel at a 4,000' paved runway in West Virginia and almost bought the
farm on takeoff. Temperature was 91 F, density altitude was about 4000'
and with full fuel and all the stuff I was carrying, I was at gross
weight (1150 lbs). The runway was 4,000 feet long, with a 200 foot tall
hill at the south end. Of course, the wind was from the south. I got
off the ground in about 400 feet and climbed to about 20' (the upper
edge of ground effect). It simply would not climb any higher and the
hill was approaching fast. I was able to find a gap in the trees on the
left side of the runway near the south end, and wove through the trees
(whose tops were higher than I was) until I flew over a cliff above a
large lake. I circled three laps around that lake before I got high
enough to get over that hill and continue on my course. I did find much
later that my ignition timing was wrong and I was only getting about 55
hp out of my A65 Continental. Since I tuned the engine up climb on a
hot day has improved from non-existent to merely awful.
Landing on a 900' strip should prove to be no problem. I regularly get
mine down and stopped in under 500'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robison
Family
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the max weight for a Piet supposed to
be 1129lbs?
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Sent: June 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
If the approaches are truly unobstructed (no obstructions over about 10'
tall), you should be able to operate from a strip of that size safely.
My Piet is heavy (745 lbs empty) and it regularly can get off the ground
in under 500' with no wind. Then it chugs along, climbing at between 0
and 400 fpm, depending on load and temperature (density altitude). At
high loads and high density altitudes, its climb ranges from
non-existent to pitiful.
I will never forget the trip to Brodhead last year where I landed for
fuel at a 4,000' paved runway in West Virginia and almost bought the
farm on takeoff. Temperature was 91 F, density altitude was about 4000'
and with full fuel and all the stuff I was carrying, I was at gross
weight (1150 lbs). The runway was 4,000 feet long, with a 200 foot tall
hill at the south end. Of course, the wind was from the south. I got
off the ground in about 400 feet and climbed to about 20' (the upper
edge of ground effect). It simply would not climb any higher and the
hill was approaching fast. I was able to find a gap in the trees on the
left side of the runway near the south end, and wove through the trees
(whose tops were higher than I was) until I flew over a cliff above a
large lake. I circled three laps around that lake before I got high
enough to get over that hill and continue on my course. I did find much
later that my ignition timing was wrong and I was only getting about 55
hp out of my A65 Continental. Since I tuned the engine up climb on a
hot day has improved from non-existent to merely awful.
Landing on a 900' strip should prove to be no problem. I regularly get
mine down and stopped in under 500'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robison
Family
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
Max weight is whatever the builder determines it to be. In my case, I
have run a stress analysis on the main structure and determined that
1150 is a good number. On my data plate it says 1195, just so I'm not
likely to get "busted" on a ramp check.
Jack
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the max weight for a Piet supposed to
be 1129lbs?
_____
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Sent: June 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
If the approaches are truly unobstructed (no obstructions over about 10'
tall), you should be able to operate from a strip of that size safely.
My Piet is heavy (745 lbs empty) and it regularly can get off the ground
in under 500' with no wind. Then it chugs along, climbing at between 0
and 400 fpm, depending on load and temperature (density altitude). At
high loads and high density altitudes, its climb ranges from
non-existent to pitiful.
I will never forget the trip to Brodhead last year where I landed for
fuel at a 4,000' paved runway in West Virginia and almost bought the
farm on takeoff. Temperature was 91 F, density altitude was about 4000'
and with full fuel and all the stuff I was carrying, I was at gross
weight (1150 lbs). The runway was 4,000 feet long, with a 200 foot tall
hill at the south end. Of course, the wind was from the south. I got
off the ground in about 400 feet and climbed to about 20' (the upper
edge of ground effect). It simply would not climb any higher and the
hill was approaching fast. I was able to find a gap in the trees on the
left side of the runway near the south end, and wove through the trees
(whose tops were higher than I was) until I flew over a cliff above a
large lake. I circled three laps around that lake before I got high
enough to get over that hill and continue on my course. I did find much
later that my ignition timing was wrong and I was only getting about 55
hp out of my A65 Continental. Since I tuned the engine up climb on a
hot day has improved from non-existent to merely awful.
Landing on a 900' strip should prove to be no problem. I regularly get
mine down and stopped in under 500'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robison
Family
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privilege
d, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it i
n error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any
other use of the email by you is prohibited.
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands - N
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Up here in Canada,I can register mine as an ultralight(basic) and as
long as I'm under the max weight for an ultralight (1235,I think now)
then they don't care what my plane max weight is.I don't even have that
info on my plate.My empty weight is 777lbs but then I carry a battery
and a starter as well as an 80hp Franklin motor.So I'm going to be
heavier.The plans say I'm supposed to be 1129 max but then again I have
Grega mods so who knows,I may be a max weight of 1200lbs.;-o
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Sent: June 14, 2006 11:39 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
Max weight is whatever the builder determines it to be. In my case, I
have run a stress analysis on the main structure and determined that
1150 is a good number. On my data plate it says 1195, just so I'm not
likely to get "busted" on a ramp check.
Jack
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:32 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the max weight for a Piet supposed to
be 1129lbs?
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Phillips, Jack
Sent: June 14, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
If the approaches are truly unobstructed (no obstructions over about 10'
tall), you should be able to operate from a strip of that size safely.
My Piet is heavy (745 lbs empty) and it regularly can get off the ground
in under 500' with no wind. Then it chugs along, climbing at between 0
and 400 fpm, depending on load and temperature (density altitude). At
high loads and high density altitudes, its climb ranges from
non-existent to pitiful.
I will never forget the trip to Brodhead last year where I landed for
fuel at a 4,000' paved runway in West Virginia and almost bought the
farm on takeoff. Temperature was 91 F, density altitude was about 4000'
and with full fuel and all the stuff I was carrying, I was at gross
weight (1150 lbs). The runway was 4,000 feet long, with a 200 foot tall
hill at the south end. Of course, the wind was from the south. I got
off the ground in about 400 feet and climbed to about 20' (the upper
edge of ground effect). It simply would not climb any higher and the
hill was approaching fast. I was able to find a gap in the trees on the
left side of the runway near the south end, and wove through the trees
(whose tops were higher than I was) until I flew over a cliff above a
large lake. I circled three laps around that lake before I got high
enough to get over that hill and continue on my course. I did find much
later that my ignition timing was wrong and I was only getting about 55
hp out of my A65 Continental. Since I tuned the engine up climb on a
hot day has improved from non-existent to merely awful.
Landing on a 900' strip should prove to be no problem. I regularly get
mine down and stopped in under 500'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robison
Family
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Eric Williams" <ewilliams805(at)msn.com> |
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
Scott,
Not to split hairs or anything but I grew up in Central Illinois and the
elevations are more on the order of 600' above sea level. Not a real huge
difference but I'm an engineer and we're kind of like that (ha ha). Also,
you can eek out a little more length by orienting your strip diagonally on
the parcel. It would give you 953' that way - probably not enough of an
advantage to bisect the property like that.
If you don't mind saying, where in central Illinois? I grew up in Lincoln,
about 30 miles north of Springfield.
Eric
>From: "Robison Family" <robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: "Pietenpol-List Digest Server"
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
>Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 09:40:37 -0500
>
>I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys thinnk
>that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is unobstructed?
>I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet. Thoughts suggestions?
>We are about 100' above sea level.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Scott Robison
>Central Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | max gross/was Private airstrip for Piet |
Corky placarded and registered NX41CC with a max gross of 1,185 lbs. and I
have run numerous "what-ifs" to see how I could load it out of gross while
still in the CG envelope. As others have mentioned, you can load it and
take off, but will it climb?
I have yet to re-weigh the airplane after repairs but expect the empty
weight to be quite close to the way Corky originally completed it. Balance
will change a bit since I relocated the ELT to behind the pilot's seat and
Corky also changed from a metal to a wood prop right before I bought the
airplane from him.
My uncle has 33 acres in the Texas hill country, including two connecting
grass meadows with a fence between them. I've measured the two meadows and
if the fence is removed, it's possible that I could get the Piet in and out
of there. Alt. of 1,640MSL so on a typical summer day with 90F air temp and
68F dew point (common), standard pressure, it will be about 4200' density
altitude and the engine will only develop about 85% power at best. Very
scenic, runs along the Frio River in the hills, subject to the usual
williwaws and gusts when the afternoon starts heating things up but with a
good breeze up the meadow to land and takeoff into. Maybe someday I'll
shoot a few approaches and see how it looks. A guy can dream?!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
I regularly fly out of a 2,100' grass strip at 1,100' above sea level.
I've been into a 1,000' strip, and it wasn't a problem by myself.
At that takeoff distance though (and sometimes even with a 2,100'
runway), I'll never carry a passenger. Climb is just too slow...makes
for an uncomfortable flight. My Piet is 600lbs empty, I weigh
~165lbs, and my wife is about 130lbs. In my plane with 100lbs of
fuel, we're right at 1,000lbs. At that weight, 2,100' is about what I
need to get over a 50' obstruction. Very sluggish in climb...all
manuevers are made very, very gently.
On a 60*F day, by myself, with a little headwind, I can get over a 50'
obstruction in 600' or so.
This is with an A-75 and cruise prop.
Consider a no-electrics C-90 for your Piet...that is a very good
power:weight ratio for the engine. Should make a good performer, and
solo you would likely be fine on any Illinois day on a 900' strip with
no obstructions. As for fuel consumption of the larger engine, you
can always throttle it back to 55% power and burn as much as an A-65.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Robison Family :
> I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
> thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
> unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
> Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Robison
> Central Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I was talking to another Piet owner out of Carp during our Flyin last
weekend and he mentioned that the elevator is constricted to 10degrees
up elevator.I have no constriction on mine at all.It will come up to 45
degrees when pulled all the way.Should I have constriction on this or is
it just personal preference?
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Ruse
Sent: June 14, 2006 1:10 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I regularly fly out of a 2,100' grass strip at 1,100' above sea level.
I've been into a 1,000' strip, and it wasn't a problem by myself.
At that takeoff distance though (and sometimes even with a 2,100'
runway), I'll never carry a passenger. Climb is just too slow...makes
for an uncomfortable flight. My Piet is 600lbs empty, I weigh
~165lbs, and my wife is about 130lbs. In my plane with 100lbs of
fuel, we're right at 1,000lbs. At that weight, 2,100' is about what I
need to get over a 50' obstruction. Very sluggish in climb...all
manuevers are made very, very gently.
On a 60*F day, by myself, with a little headwind, I can get over a 50'
obstruction in 600' or so.
This is with an A-75 and cruise prop.
Consider a no-electrics C-90 for your Piet...that is a very good
power:weight ratio for the engine. Should make a good performer, and
solo you would likely be fine on any Illinois day on a 900' strip with
no obstructions. As for fuel consumption of the larger engine, you
can always throttle it back to 55% power and burn as much as an A-65.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Robison Family :
> I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
> thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
> unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
> Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Scott Robison
> Central Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
In a message dated 6/14/2006 9:45:17 AM Central Standard Time,
robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net writes:
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys thinnk
that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is unobstructed? I'd
like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet. Thoughts suggestions? We are
about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
That's pretty short, but is certainly within performance limits. However,
before you operate there, you Must have the experience to know how to handle the
plane under these conditions.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
In a message dated 6/14/2006 11:56:46 AM Central Standard Time,
GCARDINAL(at)mn.rr.com writes:
Who needs a GPS as long as water towers have names?
I agree, but I was lost one time (GPS turned off, saving the only batteries)
and spotted a water tower that was about 5 miles away. When I got there, it
didn't have a name on it !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
In a message dated 6/14/2006 10:38:01 AM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn=99t the max weight for a Piet suppose
d to be
1129lbs?
Bernard H. Pietenpol listed the gross weight at 1050 lbs.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
In a message dated 6/14/2006 12:17:30 PM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I was talking to another Piet owner out of Carp during our Flyin last
weekend and he mentioned that the elevator is constricted to 10degrees
up elevator.I have no constriction on mine at all.It will come up to 45
degrees when pulled all the way.Should I have constriction on this or is
it just personal preference?
Ten Degrees is not nearly enough up flipper (elevator). There is no way you
would ever be able to do a full stall landing, or use it as aerodynamic
braking.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | RE: Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | "Scott L. Robison" <RobisonS(at)mattoonillinois.org> |
Eric,
Sorry for the bad info. Yes, you are correct on the altitude. It's
actually 720 to be exact. I had my head in the clouds and my wife in one
ear when I was typing. Anyway, I'm from Charleston, Illinois and there
are 5 Piets in this area under construction. Exciting stuff. See you at
Broadhead.
Scott
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
I agree with Chuck about 10 degrees being insufficient. NX18235 has no
stops on the elevator. The DAR didn't have a problem with it.
I'm finding that the elevator remains fully effective all the way
through the flare and touchdown.
The elevator / stabilizer gap is quite small which helps with elevator
controllability.
Dick Navratil can speak a little about sealing the elevator gap.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
In a message dated 6/14/2006 12:17:30 PM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I was talking to another Piet owner out of Carp during our Flyin
last
weekend and he mentioned that the elevator is constricted to
10degrees
up elevator.I have no constriction on mine at all.It will come up to
45
degrees when pulled all the way.Should I have constriction on this
or is
it just personal preference?
Ten Degrees is not nearly enough up flipper (elevator). There is no
way you would ever be able to do a full stall landing, or use it as
aerodynamic braking.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
I agree with Chuck and Greg about the elevator travle. No stops are
advisable there. Sealing the gaps definetly changes the performance
drastically. Gets the tail up faster and increases airspeed approx 2
mph.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I agree with Chuck about 10 degrees being insufficient. NX18235 has no
stops on the elevator. The DAR didn't have a problem with it.
I'm finding that the elevator remains fully effective all the way
through the flare and touchdown.
The elevator / stabilizer gap is quite small which helps with elevator
controllability.
Dick Navratil can speak a little about sealing the elevator gap.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
In a message dated 6/14/2006 12:17:30 PM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I was talking to another Piet owner out of Carp during our Flyin
last
weekend and he mentioned that the elevator is constricted to
10degrees
up elevator.I have no constriction on mine at all.It will come up
to 45
degrees when pulled all the way.Should I have constriction on this
or is
it just personal preference?
Ten Degrees is not nearly enough up flipper (elevator). There is no
way you would ever be able to do a full stall landing, or use it as
aerodynamic braking.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
I assumed one would take it off the base
and stick it to the face. Right? :-)
Clif
>
> The magnet holder would definitely give you much better Compass read-outs
> :-)
>
> Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Yes sir I have sealed off the gaps in both the elevator and the
rudder.Thanks for all the advice,appreciate it.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Navratil
Sent: June 15, 2006 1:28 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I agree with Chuck and Greg about the elevator travle. No stops are
advisable there. Sealing the gaps definetly changes the performance
drastically. Gets the tail up faster and increases airspeed approx 2
mph.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal <mailto:gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I agree with Chuck about 10 degrees being insufficient. NX18235
has no stops on the elevator. The DAR didn't have a problem with it.
I'm finding that the elevator remains fully effective all the
way through the flare and touchdown.
The elevator / stabilizer gap is quite small which helps with
elevator controllability.
Dick Navratil can speak a little about sealing the elevator gap.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
In a message dated 6/14/2006 12:17:30 PM Central
Standard Time, harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
I was talking to another Piet owner out of Carp
during our Flyin last
weekend and he mentioned that the elevator is
constricted to 10degrees
up elevator.I have no constriction on mine at
all.It will come up to 45
degrees when pulled all the way.Should I have
constriction on this or is
it just personal preference?
Ten Degrees is not nearly enough up flipper (elevator).
There is no way you would ever be able to do a full stall landing, or
use it as aerodynamic braking.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
Wouldn't it be better just to wear bifocal glass's.I have trifocal and I
may have a problem with them under my goggles.Have to see about that but
I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles or
bigger goggles.Either way I'll work something out.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif
Dawson
Sent: June 15, 2006 2:38 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
I assumed one would take it off the base
and stick it to the face. Right? :-)
Clif
>
> The magnet holder would definitely give you much better Compass
read-outs
> :-)
>
> Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Private airstrip for Piet. |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
My plans say 1129lbs;maybe because of the Grega mods ,it's heavier.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: June 14, 2006 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
In a message dated 6/14/2006 10:38:01 AM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the max weight for a Piet
supposed to be 1129lbs?
Bernard H. Pietenpol listed the gross weight at 1050 lbs.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | gap sealing tailfeathers |
I have flown four Piets, none of which had tailfeather gap seals and I
found them to be very responsive in control response.
Hearing Dick N. say that sealing back there makes a big difference makes
me second-guess this though.
In any event, the elevator and rudder on a Piet, un-sealed have more
response than any tin can you might have flown before, hands down.
Gap sealing the ailerons, however, is a different story: those need seals
or very tight hinge lines.
Congratulations to Greg Cardinal for soloing his and Dale's beautiful Air
Camper and for Dale getting to experience flying in
the front seat of all his and Greg's handiwork. Good on ya, as they say
in Australia.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
Scott, what happened to the Corvair?
Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robison Family <robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net>
>Sent: Jun 14, 2006 9:40 AM
>To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
>
>I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys thinnk that
this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is unobstructed? I'd like
to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet. Thoughts suggestions? We are about
100' above sea level.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Scott Robison
>Central Illinois
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Build a Piet in two evenings |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
I don't understand why some of us seem to take so long to build our
planes. I just built a complete Pietenpol over the course of the last
two evenings.
I used maple instead of the traditional spruce for construction.
Oh, and instead of 30 ft wingspan, I made it 10 1/2 inches.
Actually, I made a solid wood model Air Camper as a gift for a young
lad. I have a second one in the works (for myself), but mine will have
slightly less "beefy" struts, and I'll probably add the flying wires
too. I've attached a few pictures, for the equivalent of a few thousand
words.
And for the record, I've been "working" on my real Air Camper for a year
and a half, and I have my ribs built...
Bill C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "jimboyer(at)hughes.net" <jimboyer(at)hughes.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
So Dick, how did you seal the gaps in the elevators? Did you also seal the gap
in the vertical fin/rudder?
Thanks, Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Build a Piet in two evenings |
Hey, I want one, but with a Corvair.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Build a Piet in two evenings
I don't understand why some of us seem to take so long to build our
planes. I just built a complete Pietenpol over the course of the last
two evenings.
I used maple instead of the traditional spruce for construction.
Oh, and instead of 30 ft wingspan, I made it 10 1/2 inches.
Actually, I made a solid wood model Air Camper as a gift for a young
lad. I have a second one in the works (for myself), but mine will have
slightly less "beefy" struts, and I'll probably add the flying wires
too. I've attached a few pictures, for the equivalent of a few thousand
words.
And for the record, I've been "working" on my real Air Camper for a
year and a half, and I have my ribs built...
Bill C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
Jack
That reminds me of the time another Piet builder and myself flew our L-2
Taylorcraft home from an Airshow at Dobbins AFB in Atlanta where it was
on display. It was about 98 degrees and the runway was about 10,000 feet
long. We had no trouble leaving the airport and the Atlanta area, but
back to Carrollton, we were following Interstate 20 to the west full
power and all the windows closed just to maintain altitude. The
Carrollton airport is just past a ridge and its elevation is a little
higher than Atlanta. We found ourselves trying to make a decision to fly
UNDER or try to make it over the Villa Rica exit bridge on I-20 which is
right on top of that ridge. It was that close. I'm not going to confess
what we did (in writing), but its a good story anyway.
Barry Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: Phillips, Jack
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 11:17 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
If the approaches are truly unobstructed (no obstructions over about
10' tall), you should be able to operate from a strip of that size
safely. My Piet is heavy (745 lbs empty) and it regularly can get off
the ground in under 500' with no wind. Then it chugs along, climbing at
between 0 and 400 fpm, depending on load and temperature (density
altitude). At high loads and high density altitudes, its climb ranges
from non-existent to pitiful.
I will never forget the trip to Brodhead last year where I landed for
fuel at a 4,000' paved runway in West Virginia and almost bought the
farm on takeoff. Temperature was 91 F, density altitude was about 4000'
and with full fuel and all the stuff I was carrying, I was at gross
weight (1150 lbs). The runway was 4,000 feet long, with a 200 foot tall
hill at the south end. Of course, the wind was from the south. I got
off the ground in about 400 feet and climbed to about 20' (the upper
edge of ground effect). It simply would not climb any higher and the
hill was approaching fast. I was able to find a gap in the trees on the
left side of the runway near the south end, and wove through the trees
(whose tops were higher than I was) until I flew over a cliff above a
large lake. I circled three laps around that lake before I got high
enough to get over that hill and continue on my course. I did find much
later that my ignition timing was wrong and I was only getting about 55
hp out of my A65 Continental. Since I tuned the engine up climb on a
hot day has improved from non-existent to merely awful.
Landing on a 900' strip should prove to be no problem. I regularly
get mine down and stopped in under 500'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
"Icarus Plummet"
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robison
Family
Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:41 AM
To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
I've just purchased land that measures 924' X 236'. Do you guys
thinnk that this will be long enough for a runway if the approach is
unobstructed? I'd like to use a C75 or C85 for power on my Piet.
Thoughts suggestions? We are about 100' above sea level.
Thanks,
Scott Robison
Central Illinois
Cardinal Health -- Working together. For life. (sm)
_________________________________________________
This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Build a Piet in two evenings |
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
Barry,
I just used this drawing:
http://www.mykitplane.com/Planes/PeoplesFiles/pasture%20pilots%20pride4.
jpg
that Jim Markle posted to the file section of Mykitplane.com (thanks,
Jim). It's the short fuse, with a model A engine.
I made two sets of parts when I did the cutting (just in case I screwed
up something), so the parts are there to make a second one. But, once I
saw how nice the little thing turned out I thought I should have one
that's more close to what I'm building. And in my case it's the long
fuselage, and probably Corvair. So I'm going to make one of those too.
I'll post some more pics when I'm done.
Bill
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Barry
Davis
Sent: June 15, 2006 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Build a Piet in two evenings
Hey, I want one, but with a Corvair.
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church <mailto:eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Build a Piet in two evenings
I don't understand why some of us seem to take so long to build
our planes. I just built a complete Pietenpol over the course of the
last two evenings.
I used maple instead of the traditional spruce for construction.
Oh, and instead of 30 ft wingspan, I made it 10 1/2 inches.
Actually, I made a solid wood model Air Camper as a gift for a
young lad. I have a second one in the works (for myself), but mine will
have slightly less "beefy" struts, and I'll probably add the flying
wires too. I've attached a few pictures, for the equivalent of a few
thousand words.
And for the record, I've been "working" on my real Air Camper
for a year and a half, and I have my ribs built...
Bill C
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com> |
Hi guys,
Speaking of elevator travel... Last Sept. on the night before I flew mine for the
first time I invited Frank Pavliga(Sky Gypsy) and Forrest Barber (the ex T-Craft
test pilot and pilot of many flying machines) out to inspect the airplane
one more time with me. As Forrest walked around the plane he stopped and lifted
the elevators. He said "You have too much up elevator, you could get yourself
into too deep of a stall with that". Frank agreed. I already had a stop
on it at around 30 deg. up. I asked how do I know how much and he held it up
again and said "about that much". So I measured it (forget the deg., but I
can measure again) and reworked the stop that night. Wouldn't ya know the full
stall landing comes just before the stop is reached. Same at altitude when
doing a stall. I suppose a careless pilot could get into trouble with too much
'up', but it's not like you go flying around moving the stick through the full
motion fore and aft. If you ever read "Stick and Rudder", Langswieche really
speaks of the elevator position controlling the stall. The Ercoupe is stall/spin
proof because the elevator up travel is limited, although I flew one that
would stall because of poor rigging, not good without rudder pedals. I'll
try to get to the airport and measure my "up", although it may be a little different
for each plane.
Don E.
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=41302#41302
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator travel |
> Rudder", Langswieche really speaks of the elevator position controlling
> the stall. The Ercoupe is stall/spin proof because the elevator up travel
> is limited, although I flew one that would stall because of poor rigging,
> not good without rudder pedals. I'll try to get to the airport and
> measure my "up", although it may be a little different for each plane.
> Don E.
> NX899DE
Don the Ercoupe as you say is limited in the up travel of the elevator and
is in theory "characteristically incapable of a full stall" therefore can
not spin. But remember accelerated stalls. Even the old Ercoupe shouldn't
be taken for granted.
If you do manage to get one in a stall, if its rigged properly it should be
cordinated so both wings in theory should stall at the same time. In theroy
neither side should fall off. How many out there after this length of time
are in perfect rig though.
>
Just as a curious fact. How many of you knew that at one time an Ercoupe
could be order from the Sears an Roebuck catalog for $995 each
Mark
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Elevator travel |
Don,
Isn't it great to have experienced people around that want to help??
There are so many basic concepts of flying that they discovered years ago,
that we as newer builders just don't know. That's why its great to have
people like these around who are willing to help
There is NO substitute for experience. I still am amazed at my mentor who
knows the right thing , and will never condemn something just because he
didn't tell you to do it.
Sounds like you have an open mind. That's what it takes to build and fly a
safe airplane.
Ain't Life Grand!!
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 5:29 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Elevator travel
>
> Hi guys,
> Speaking of elevator travel... Last Sept. on the night before I flew mine
> for the first time I invited Frank Pavliga(Sky Gypsy) and Forrest Barber
> (the ex T-Craft test pilot and pilot of many flying machines) out to
> inspect the airplane one more time with me. As Forrest walked around the
> plane he stopped and lifted the elevators. He said "You have too much up
> elevator, you could get yourself into too deep of a stall with that".
> Frank agreed. I already had a stop on it at around 30 deg. up. I asked
> how do I know how much and he held it up again and said "about that much".
> So I measured it (forget the deg., but I can measure again) and reworked
> the stop that night. Wouldn't ya know the full stall landing comes just
> before the stop is reached. Same at altitude when doing a stall. I
> suppose a careless pilot could get into trouble with too much 'up', but
> it's not like you go flying around moving the stick through the full
> motion fore and aft. If you ever read "Stick and!
> Rudder", Langswieche really speaks of the elevator position controlling
> the stall. The Ercoupe is stall/spin proof because the elevator up travel
> is limited, although I flew one that would stall because of poor rigging,
> not good without rudder pedals. I'll try to get to the airport and
> measure my "up", although it may be a little different for each plane.
> Don E.
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=41302#41302
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Private airstrip for Piet. |
I initially used strips of duct tape just to see if there was really
going to be a difference. I only sealed the elevator. Recently I cut
strips of closed cell foam and installed.
My problem had been that if I applied too much power on the take off
roll the plane would want to fly before I had enough airspeed. I have
21" motorcycle wheels which makes for a severe angle of attack on the
ground. It took a lot of stick pressure to get the tail up. Thats
where I notice the biggest difference. I still advance the throttle
slowly till I get rollling but the tail comes up much easier.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: jimboyer(at)hughes.net
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Private airstrip for Piet.
So Dick, how did you seal the gaps in the elevators? Did you also seal
the gap in the vertical fin/rudder?
Thanks, Jim
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Hi Guys,
I have just started covering. I have the vertical and horizontal
stabilizer
complete except for the edge tapes. I have the rudder with the fabric on
but
now have a problem with the control horn. I have looked thorough the
manual
and watched the video, (Stits Poly Fibre process) but there is not too
much
info on how to get round the fittings. Any ideas on how to negotiate the
areas around these fittings?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
HYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com
--
12/06/2006
--
12/06/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "DJ Vegh" <dj(at)veghdesign.com> |
this may be of some help
http://veghdesign.com/aircamper/log/image-pages/02-19-05.htm
DJ Vegh
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter W Johnson
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 9:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Covering
Hi Guys,
I have just started covering. I have the vertical and horizontal
stabilizer complete except for the edge tapes. I have the rudder with
the fabric on but now have a problem with the control horn. I have
looked thorough the manual and watched the video, (Stits Poly Fibre
process) but there is not too much info on how to get round the
fittings. Any ideas on how to negotiate the areas around these fittings?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com
--
12/06/2006
--
12/06/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
In a message dated 6/15/2006 11:59:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
Hi Guys,
I have just started covering. I have the vertical and horizontal stabilizer
complete except for the edge tapes. I have the rudder with the fabric on but
now have a problem with the control horn. I have looked thorough the manual
and
watched the video, (Stits Poly Fibre process) but there is not too much info
on how to get round the fittings. Any ideas on how to negotiate the areas
around these fittings?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
In the areas around a fitting, take a sharp hobby knife and make slits in th
e
shape of an 'X', and allow the fitting to protrude through the fabric. Then
carefully cut off the flaps of the 'X', to allow a very tight fitting area
around the fitting, even allowing the fabric to creap up around the perimete
r of
the fitting. Then use poly tac to add a small piece 1 1/2" or 2" of fabric
around the fitting with the same type of 'X' slits, but be sure to place the
threads of the doubler fabric at a 45=BA angle to the base fabric threads.
You can
use your iron to blend in the edges of the doubler patch. These pieces of
doubler fabric should be added anywhere there is a fitting protruding throug
h
the fabric, or where there is any type of structure that is touching the fab
ric
underneath. This keeps the fabric from wearing through when in service. It
's
easy enough to get the doubler patch to lay right down to the point where
after paint, you can hardly even see it after the paint is applied. As for
the
edges, I center up the edge tape and go around the entire perimeter, just
gluing the center of the edge tape. Then iron it down around the radius to
shrink
the edge tape as much as possible, then cut slits at the corners or anywhere
it goes around a radius, and glue down the slits overlapping the edge tape s
o
that is 'Out of the Wind'. Use your iron to make it lay down perfectly flat
after the dabbing the poly tac underneath.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
| From: | "Sayre, William G" <william.g.sayre(at)boeing.com> |
harvey.rule wrote:
"I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
or bigger goggles"
Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation
and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
Anyone else find a solution?
PS - I even paid a fair amount for a leather helmet with integrated
headphones from flightsuits.com but the electronics have a problem in my
application.
PPS - I hope I didn't just open myself up to all those head-shape jokes
:-o
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I found by putting the goggles on first and then the helmet,it took care
of that problem.I could then put my earphones on over top of the leather
helmet.If I am using the hard helmet then I do the same thing and the
earphones are incorporated right into the helmet so it's no big deal.If
I put the goggles on after I have the hard helmet on then it won't close
around my eyes and air gets in the sides.So I always put the goggles on
first and the strap goes above my ears so I can still hear on the
radio.With the hard helmet I can't use the push to talk because for some
reason it won't work.I then have to use the talk button on the radio
which can be somewhat of a problem because I have to take one hand off
the throttle or the stick.I usually like to keep my hands on both these
things at all times.
-----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: June 16, 2006 9:11 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
harvey.rule wrote:
"I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
or bigger goggles"
Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation
and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
Anyone else find a solution?
PS - I even paid a fair amount for a leather helmet with integrated
headphones from flightsuits.com but the electronics have a problem in my
application.
PPS - I hope I didn't just open myself up to all those head-shape jokes
:-o
Bill
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
Bill,
Even the ski goggles are no guarantee. In fact, for me, the old timey
one work better. One solution that works for my partner in the Piet
is the new style 'phones that fit in your ears. He is very satisfied
with his. If you're interested, I'll check to see which brand he went
with.
FWIW, I have a big fat head. Probably not surprising to some on the
list...! ;)
Jeff
>
>
>harvey.rule wrote:
>"I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
>or bigger goggles"
>
>Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
>a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation
>and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
>has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
>goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
>down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
>to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
>
>Anyone else find a solution?
>
>PS - I even paid a fair amount for a leather helmet with integrated
>headphones from flightsuits.com but the electronics have a problem in my
>application.
>
>PPS - I hope I didn't just open myself up to all those head-shape jokes
>:-o
>
>Bill
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
I always found that because ski goggles have air inlets at the top that
they tend to fog up especially when coming in for a landing.Bad time to
have things disappear on you!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: June 16, 2006 11:38 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: aging eyesight aid
Bill,
Even the ski goggles are no guarantee. In fact, for me, the old timey
one work better. One solution that works for my partner in the Piet
is the new style 'phones that fit in your ears. He is very satisfied
with his. If you're interested, I'll check to see which brand he went
with.
FWIW, I have a big fat head. Probably not surprising to some on the
list...! ;)
Jeff
>
>
>harvey.rule wrote:
>"I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
>or bigger goggles"
>
>Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
>a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of
aviation
>and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
>has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
>goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
>down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
>to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
>
>Anyone else find a solution?
>
>PS - I even paid a fair amount for a leather helmet with integrated
>headphones from flightsuits.com but the electronics have a problem in
my
>application.
>
>PPS - I hope I didn't just open myself up to all those head-shape jokes
>:-o
>
>Bill
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
Bill,
What I did, and works well, is to install a pair of Stickon reading lenses (from
Spruce or Sporty's) on the googles. I have another pair installed in my
old Ray Ban pilot sunglasses.
Just order the lenses in the prescription numbers you use (or as closed as
possible),
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/menus/ps/sunglasses.html
If removed carefully can be used later in other glasses.
Hope this helps.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
"Sayre, William G" wrote:
harvey.rule wrote:
"I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
or bigger goggles"
Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation
and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
Anyone else find a solution?
PS - I even paid a fair amount for a leather helmet with integrated
headphones from flightsuits.com but the electronics have a problem in my
application.
PPS - I hope I didn't just open myself up to all those head-shape jokes
:-o
Bill
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
Have somebody make you bifocal goggles Harv.
Clif
>
> Wouldn't it be better just to wear bifocal glass's.I have trifocal and I
> may have a problem with them under my goggles.Have to see about that but
> I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles or
> bigger goggles.Either way I'll work something out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca> |
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
That would cost a huge amount of money but I did read an email off the
list yesterday that I acted on and that was to buy the focal lences from
ACS for about 20$ that just stick on inside.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Clif
Dawson
Sent: June 17, 2006 1:06 AM
Have somebody make you bifocal goggles Harv.
Clif
>
> Wouldn't it be better just to wear bifocal glass's.I have trifocal and
I
> may have a problem with them under my goggles.Have to see about that
but
> I'm sure I can find either a small enough pair to go under my goggles
or
> bigger goggles.Either way I'll work something out.
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
In a message dated 6/17/2006 6:26:59 AM Central Standard Time,
harvey.rule(at)bell.ca writes:
buy the focal lences from
ACS for about 20$ that just stick on inside.
I've been using them for years now. I use them every day in my safety
glasses at work, safety glasses flying the Piet, and sun glasses. Wet the inside
of
the glasses with a couple drops of water, press in position, dab the excess
water with paper towel. When the glasses get scratched, just peel them off,
get a new pair of glasses, and put them back on the new ones. They work really
well for me.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
Bill,
All you have to do is put a seeing eye dog in the front cockpit and let him
bark out directions and altitude. One slap up side the head should get his attention
to get it right. Just don't put your trusty pit bull in the front or you
may loose your landing arm...
Sincerely,
Left hand Luke
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest Short Strips |
Scott,
We operate a Piet off a 1,200ft strip. In the last year I changed from
the 65 to a 90. One person was fine, but with 2 adults it was just a
little too close. Now I am up to a passenger at 160lbs. I weigh about
160 also. My empty weight is about 635. We now have about 550 hours on
the Piet and a still having a blast.
Craig Lawler
899CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Craig Lawler <clawler(at)ptd.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Pietenpol-List Digest Short Strips |
Scott,
We operate a Piet off a 1,200ft strip. In the last year I changed from
the 65 to a 90. One person was fine, but with 2 adults it was just a
little too close. Now I am up to a passenger at 160lbs. I weigh about
160 also. My empty weight is about 635. We now have about 550 hours on
the Piet and a still having a blast.
Craig Lawler
899CL
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
Fellow Pieters,
Just a curious question......is the A-65 Continental engine enough power for
the piet? It appears many are either upgrading to a 75hp, 85hp, or even a 90 hp
Continental. Not to also mention the Corvair. Is this because of personal choice,
power to weight ratio, or just not enough prop pitch to feel comfortable?
Kind of got me think-in....what is the best engine for this project?
Ken H.
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Robison Family" <robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net> |
Gene,
I've still have both Corvair cases. I've been looking around on the
internet and I've came to the conclusion that Continentals aren't that
much more expensive than a Corvair. I haven't purchased one just yet.
I'm in this project with my father-in-law who is leaning to the
Continental. It will help speed up the project. I will build a Corvair
at some point. doesn't look like I'll be seeing ya at Frasca. We're
trying to get moved into our new home.
Scott Robison
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Hi Ken,
We are flying NX18235 with an A-65 and a prop that is a little too
course which keeps the max rpm at about 2150. This is the equivalent of
flying with an A-50.
We have flown at weights as high as 1200 lbs. on 85 degree days. Field
elevations were at 900'
Climb rate is rather anemic in these conditions but it does fly.
Solo at 1000 lbs. results in a climb rate of 250 - 300 fpm. Not a
blistering rate of climb but adequate in the midwest flatlands.
Re-propping will be done soon.
To answer your question, an A-65 is perfectly adequate for most
conditions.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: KMHeide
To: Pietenpol
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:21 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Engine selection
Fellow Pieters,
Just a curious question......is the A-65 Continental engine enough
power for the piet? It appears many are either upgrading to a 75hp,
85hp, or even a 90 hp Continental. Not to also mention the Corvair. Is
this because of personal choice, power to weight ratio, or just not
enough prop pitch to feel comfortable? Kind of got me think-in....what
is the best engine for this project?
Ken H.
Fargo, ND
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
Yeah, I saw that after I sent off that email. Good
idea from some bright soul.
A few years ago at Arlington a fellow had these
ear inserts that fit into the ear and flush with the
outside of the ear.
Later on I came across them again on the internet.
Then found a company that would send you a kit
to mold the inside of your ear, you send them back
and they would make up earphones for you. Now
I can't find the link I saved!! But since then I
have heard that there are hearing aid shops that
do that. You just need the AC innards as opposed
to hearing aid equipment. Then figure out the
attachment hardware to attach the mic to your
leather helmet , which wouldn't be a big deal for
anyone able to build an entire 1930's AC from
old plans now, would it. :-)
Clif
>
> That would cost a huge amount of money but I did read an email off the
> list yesterday that I acted on and that was to buy the focal lences from
> ACS for about 20$ that just stick on inside.
>
>
>
> Have somebody make you bifocal goggles Harv.
>
> Clif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
I found it! This is somewhat expensive but what the
heck, it's a one time expense and you'll look like a
real old time aviator instead of a Disney character.
http://www.pantherelectronics.com/dual_headset.html
Clif
>
>
> Thinking of helmet and goggles makes me wonder if anyone else has found
> a solution to a dilemma I have found. In these modern times of aviation
> and radios, trying to get goggles to fit over the ear-cups of a headset
> has proven rather difficult. If the straps go over the cups, the
> goggles ride up and if the straps go over then the goggles won't sit
> down and seal. I'd like to stay with old looking goggles, but may have
> to resort to bigger ski-goggles.
>
> Anyone else find a solution?
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net> |
Scott,
I have an opportunity to purchase a "second" 140hp 1965 Corvair, from the same
guy that gave me the 110hp I have on my Grega now. I think it will be a good
investment either way. I am purchasing the new "internals" to re-build my
engine this winter.
I went to Mid America VW show a couple weeks ago in Effingham and watched some
VW engines go for 1K to 1.2K, I have a good 1600 cc that I think I will take
next year and see if I can get $1500. for it.
I am installing the hydralic brakes (front and rear) and the rudder pedals this
week end in my Grega.
Did I tell you I went to Mexico, MO a few weeks back. WW was there to pick up
his 701 and put on a "talk show" there at the Zenith hanger. They flew their
601 and a couple of KR's.
Maybe I will see you at Brodhead in July.
Gene, ps enjoy the moving! (I have informed my 3 daughters that I am getting too
old for that stuff!)
-----Original Message-----
>From: Robison Family <robisonfamily(at)consolidated.net>
>Sent: Jun 17, 2006 10:52 PM
>To: Pietenpol-List Digest Server
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair
>
>Gene,
>
>I've still have both Corvair cases. I've been looking around on the internet
and I've came to the conclusion that Continentals aren't that much more expensive
than a Corvair. I haven't purchased one just yet. I'm in this project with
my father-in-law who is leaning to the Continental. It will help speed up
the project. I will build a Corvair at some point. doesn't look like I'll be
seeing ya at Frasca. We're trying to get moved into our new home.
>
>Scott Robison
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com> |
Interesting, I have been planning on going with a Corvair also (have a core
engine disassembled in my garage). But since I don't have an uncle with a
machine shop to make the parts for me I have figured the cost for parts and
machine work alone around $5500 and thats if I haven't forgotten anything
(which I probably have). I have found used O-200s with 400 - 800 hours on
them for $7000 - $8000 supposedly ready to run (I need the 100hp because of
my 7000-10000 ft airport density altitude). Was thinking that resale value
on a Continental would be good also.
I know that their are a lot of risks with a used engine but with my limited
knowledge of engine building their are risks with the Corvair also. Maybe
you guys and some people I talk to at Broadhead and Airventure next month
will help me decide.
Rick H.
On 6/17/06, Robison Family wrote:
>
> Gene,
>
> I've still have both Corvair cases. I've been looking around on the
> internet and I've came to the conclusion that Continentals aren't that much
> more expensive than a Corvair. I haven't purchased one just yet. I'm in
> this project with my father-in-law who is leaning to the Continental. It
> will help speed up the project. I will build a Corvair at some point.
> doesn't look like I'll be seeing ya at Frasca. We're trying to get moved
> into our new home.
>
> Scott Robison
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which
is quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the
climb rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In
cruise with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain
altitude; there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%!
The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise
speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not
by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well
within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over
obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We
tend to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller
people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these
days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were
designed to carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier
these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we
can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the
available power (without adding too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum
engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and
provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I
have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8
version because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit
between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure
this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will
work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power.
If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as
light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: aging eyesight aid |
Send em an email. Or better yet turn up with
your Piet. How could she refuse?
>
> Does she come with the gear?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com> |
| Subject: | stick-on bifocals |
Not to beat this topic to death, but after someone posted that they got the
little stick-on bifocals for $20 at Aircraft Spruce, I did a little Google
search and found them quite a bit cheaper. In fact, there is a guy on eBay
that has them with a "buy it now" price of less than $10 and in packs of 4
pair, too. Same brand as what Sporty's and AS&S have them for. And they
can be trimmed to fit your lenses, if needed.
Worked on fabric patches on 41CC yesterday. Good ol' Poly-Fiber smells.
Got all the patches fitted, cemented on, tautened, and Poly-Brushed. A
little heat smoothing, then I'll hit them with silver. She looks a little
like a patchwork quilt on her belly, but soon will be good as new when the
color coat goes on. Still working on the brakes (off the airplane) as well
as I have removed the front cabanes for sandblasting, priming, and final
paint. I think that will just about do it for paint and patching on this
airplane!!!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu> |
| Subject: | aging eyesight aid |
From a friend who has them for Piet flying:
Clarity Aloft headsets
<http://www.clarityaloft.com/>http://www.clarityaloft.com/ I've been
happy with mine. Feel good even under a full-face motorcycle helmet.
I tried them with the traditional leather helmet too -- merely a
dress rehearsal since I haven't flown that way yet -- but they felt
fine.
I'll add that he sounds great both on the intercom and on other
radios - like he's in the same room and no 75hp fan blowing right
next to us.
>Thanks for replying and yes, I would be interested in the new style
>'phones that fit in your ears. I'm not familiar with them and will
>search the web to see what I can find. That style would open up all
>sorts of possibilities.
>
>Thanks again for the response!
>
>Bill
--
_____________________________________________________________
Jeffrey H. Boatright, PhD
Associate Professor, Emory Eye Center, Atlanta, GA, USA
Senior Editor, Molecular Vision, http://www.molvis.org/molvis
mailto:jboatri(at)emory.edu
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.
My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying
passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches
at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also
cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West
Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb
over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in
a downdraft.
Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)
and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty
weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density
altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this
from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We
flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed
approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive
- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but
still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).
BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.
If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted
the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build
another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which
would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed
the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found
a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph
improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the
airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my
spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down
slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to
work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only
a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about
7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,
the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I
have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget
that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around
smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them
(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer
engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine
for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.
Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I
have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to
ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were
to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
_________________________________________________
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: | "Mike King" <mikek120(at)mindspring.com> |
BlankSay guys, I bought my 1985 GN-1 some years ago and it was built to pla
ns.
That means there are no gap seals on the wings nor the tail. With all this
talk
about slightly improved performance, I would like some recommendations
from those who have put gap seals on their PIETs or GN-1s after their planes
were built.
I feel changing my 69x39 McCauley metal prop on my A-80 and installing gap
seals would enhance my plane's overall performance. The plane flies slight
ly
nose high and has a spring trim but does not do much good. I am afraid
changing to a lighter wooden 72x42 prop would make the plane fly even
more nose high. So I have been hesitate to change anything on the
plane but feel changing the prop and filling in the gaps between the wings
and the horizontal stab. would improve performance during the summer
months.
As always, the bank of knowledge afforded in this group is greatly
appreciated.
Thanks.
Mike King
GN-1
77MK
Dallas
Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/5b25ada24a7f9f2360c3efe68e69728914bc3920.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com> |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
In Graham's words:
"If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
designed to do. ... If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work
hard to keep it as light as possible in order to fly well with modest
power.".
On Saturday I spent the day at the Brussels, Ontario 17th Annual
Pietenpol gathering at Armstrong's field. I spoke a bit with Brian
Kenney, whose C-FAUK has been flying for 19 years behind a 65HP
Continental. He says he has no problem carrying 200(+)lb passengers. But
he emphasized the importance of keeping the weight of the plane down as
much as possible. I believe he said his empty weight was 587lb - so it
is possible to build lighter if we really make the effort.
As for the fly-in, it was a beautiful sunny day, with unfortunately a
strong breeze that kept the Air Campers camping (on the ground). But
there were 5 Piets (and 3 Tiger Moths) to look at and snap pictures of
and talk to owners and builders about. Our host, Jim Armstrong has been
flying his Piet out of his strip for 39 years. He even used to fly it to
school regularly for 24 years (where he was a teacher). He told me he
has about 1000 hrs on his 65HP Air Camper, which still has the original
covering (Irish Linen on the wings, Grade A cotton on the tail, and
Dacron on the fuselage). He and his son have just completed their second
Piet, which is almost identical to the first (85HP, all Dacron
covering). The second one took 30 years to complete - started as a
teenage father-son project, then got set aside for awhile, then got
resurrected and completed. Really nice finishing on this plane. Jim said
it was his first attempt at covering an entire plane, and he took great
care to ensure all the tapes were straight and neat, and he was pleased
with the results.
I took a bunch of photos, but won't get access to them to download for
about a week. As soon as I get them, I'll post a few to share.
Now I'm stoked to get building again, just like after Brodhead (which is
only five weeks away).
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
>
>
> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying.
> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or
> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of
> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a
> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on
> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400'
> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a
> downdraft.
>
>
> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh
> 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745
> lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was
> 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough
> sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end
> where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway
> is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either
> end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in
> about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm.
> He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight,
> stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>
>
> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we
> would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops.
> If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to
> the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20
> sq. ft to the wing area.
>
>
> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
> tail is providing more lift than before.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>
>
> Ken Heide,
>
>
> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>
>
> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>
>
> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The
> most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed
> increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by
> much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within
> ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles
> and cope with downdrafts.
>
>
> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>
>
> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these
> days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is
> keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power
> (without adding too much weight, of course).
>
>
> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine
> for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides
> the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12
> in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the
> rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and
> the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't
> wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>
>
> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work,
> but they may not be the best for your setup.
>
>
> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If
> I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light
> as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>
>
> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>
> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
Gene,
Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)
originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after
attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a
Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.
On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and
found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County
Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very
friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed
at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no
further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and
shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
Tammy
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm
just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida
line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip
but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It
will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Jack,
Thank you for your reply. All good info. I have a stop planned for MDQ. I
live East of Jackson in Camden (I 40 to North on 641 at exit 126.) I'm
flying the plane from Thomasville, Ga. and will be headed up across Alabama
to Tennessee. Should be leaving monday the 26th if the weather permits.
I'd be very interested in meeting with a builder near me so hopefully if
there is one he will contact me on this list. I do know of a Pietenpol in
Humboldt and will be checking it out.
Any more advice for the trip? Have you found googles necessary on long
trips? I do wish the cockpit was a bit larger so I could stash charts and
such.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:50 AM
>
>
> Gene,
>
> Where in West Tennessee are you going? I'm from Jackson, TN (MKL)
> originally and flew my Pietenpol there from Oshkosh last summer, after
> attending the real fly-in at Brodhead. I understand there is a
> Pietenpol under construction in Lexington, east of Jackson.
>
> On the way home from Jackson to Raleigh, I landed at Pulaski, TN, and
> found it a nice airport. I was forced down by weather to Madison County
> Executive airport (MDQ) near Huntsville, Alabama and found it very
> friendly as well, with full computer weather facilities. I also landed
> at Rome Georgia, (RMG) and would recommend it as a stop. Going no
> further north than Rome, you will avoid the taller mountains and
> shouldn't see any peaks higher than about 1800'
>
> Jack Phillips
> NX899JP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gene &
> Tammy
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:34 PM
>
>
>
> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm
> just in
> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida
> line to
> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
> idea
> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip
> but
> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It
> will
> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
> not
> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
> Thank You
> Gene
> Pietenpol N502R
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu> |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
I also fly with an A-65. my field elevation is 4500' Solo is fine. Density altitude
and weight make drastic differences in low powered aircraft. My empty
weight is 626lbs and I weight 215lbs. I have carried up to a 220# passenger
on long runways. Since I carved my own prop (acts more like a cruise, than climb
prop) I have limited my passenger weight to about 150lbs.
I've been keeping my eyes open for a o-200. I think without electricity it would
give very good performance with two people, and climb would be very smart indeed
solo.
I finally shook the dust off and flew my piet for 30 minutes for the first time
this season. I've been flying a stinson lately. There is nothing to beat wind
in your hair!
Steve Eldredge
Spanish Fork, UT
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:56 AM
As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything he said.
My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For carrying
passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY clear approaches
at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also
cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West
Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb
over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in
a downdraft.
Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh 195)
and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745 lb empty
weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was 91 F, and density
altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough sense to not try this
from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end where I base the plane. We
flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway is 6500' long with unobstructed
approaches for at least mile on either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive
- we were off the ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but
still acceptable at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate).
BTW at that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from longer airstrips.
If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we would have impacted
the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops. If I were to build
another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which
would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I sealed
the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct tape. I found
a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff, and about a 2 mph
improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it changed the trim of the
airplane. Before this change I could trim the plane to fly hands off using my
spring trim system. Now even with full nose up trim it still tends to nose down
slightly, indicating that the tail is providing more lift than before.
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
Raleigh, NC
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had to
work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With only
a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by about
7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the A65,
the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays, I
have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to forget
that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed around
smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep them
(and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer
engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work fine
for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to do.
Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important. I
have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close to
ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I were
to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | HelsperSew(at)aol.com |
| Subject: | Engine selection |
I would like to hear some feedback along this vein from the guys with the
souped-up Ford A engines that are supposedly getting 70 HP.
Dan Helsper
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Graham,
I truly appreciate your insight on this matter of engine selection. I was attempting
to utilize the Corvair but ran short with parts from WW. He was willing
to take my $$ but then never produce what I needed.
I have purchased a nice A-65 Continental for $1,000.00. The mechanic stored it
for several years and needs a once over. I am planning on (with assistance from
another builder) creating our own prop for this plane. This will make for
a much better match for my height, weight, and size compared with weight and balance
of he plane.
I am going to attach an electric starter and possible a charger to the engine
as my only modification. Air boat technology has created this modification years
ago.
I hope to be starting the fuse any day now and look forward to many fun filled
days of building. Since I am 265lbs. finding a mate who wants to fly front seat
with me is far and few between.....That's o.k. my toy and only for me.
Ken Heide
Fargo, ND
Graham Hansen <grhans@cable-lynx.net> wrote:
Ken Heide,
Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is quite
a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65 Continental.
Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb rate was sluggish
with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise with a load, one had
to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude; there was little power in reserve
to deal with downdrafts.
Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least. With
only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The most significant
improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed increased by
about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by much; even with the
A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within ground effect. Nowadays,
I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend to
forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to Taylorcrafts, Cubs
and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these airplanes have a wingspan
of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180 square feet versus the Pietenpol's
29 foot span and about 145 square feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven
compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8, making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol.
When one considers that all these airplanes essentially were designed
around smaller people, they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders
these days. If we all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes
would perform much better because that is close to what they were designed to
carry.
However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these days--and
the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is keep
them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power (without adding
too much weight, of course).
In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine for
the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides the same
clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12 in my Pietenpol
and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the rear accessory
case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and the firewall. (A
longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings,
etc.)
If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will work
fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never designed to
do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is extremely important.
I have yet to find the very best propeller for mine--either with the A65 or the
C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may find a custom propeller that is close
to ideal for your airplane, but a fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise
and one usually has to try out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified
propellers will work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If I
were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light as possible
in order to fly well with modest power.
Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Gene
I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look more
for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM
My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just in
the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line to
Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some idea
what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm not
in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
Thank You
Gene
Pietenpol N502R
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
>
>
> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying. For
> carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or VERY
> clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of sphincter-clinch on
> takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a downdraft. I'll never forget
> flying it across West Virginia last year on the way to Brodhead. I was at
> 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400' ridge, climbing at my best rate of
> climb and losing 500 fpm in a downdraft.
>
>
> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I weigh
> 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to my 745
> lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed. OAT was
> 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had enough
> sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the end
> where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the runway
> is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on either
> end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the ground in
> about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable at 150 fpm.
> He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at that weight,
> stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>
>
> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field, we
> would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the treetops.
> If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at adding 4 feet to
> the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the weight, but would add 20
> sq. ft to the wing area.
>
>
> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
> tail is providing more lift than before.
>
>
> Jack Phillips
>
> NX899JP
>
> Raleigh, NC
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>
>
> Ken Heide,
>
>
> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>
>
> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>
>
> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%! The
> most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise speed
> increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not by
> much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well within
> ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over obstacles
> and cope with downdrafts.
>
>
> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>
>
> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier these
> days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we can do is
> keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the available power
> (without adding too much weight, of course).
>
>
> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum engine
> for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and provides
> the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have a C85-12
> in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version because of the
> rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between the magnetos and
> the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this problem, but I don't
> wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>
>
> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will work,
> but they may not be the best for your setup.
>
>
> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power. If
> I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as light
> as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>
>
> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>
>
> _________________________________________________
>
> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>
> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net> |
| Subject: | radial eng chopper |
Just a follow up to last weeks chopper pics and comments. I heard back from Rotec.
There are now 4 choppers with the Rotec engine and you all arent far off,
Jim at the factory says he is getting 2-3 inquiries a day from chopper people.
Dick
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au> |
Thanks Guys.
-----Original Message-----
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: Friday, 16 June 2006 3:28 PM
In a message dated 6/15/2006 11:59:41 PM Central Standard Time,
vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au writes:
Hi Guys,
I have just started covering. I have the vertical and horizontal stabilizer
complete except for the edge tapes. I have the rudder with the fabric on but
now have a problem with the control horn. I have looked thorough the manual
and watched the video, (Stits Poly Fibre process) but there is not too much
info on how to get round the fittings. Any ideas on how to negotiate the
areas around these fittings?
Cheers
Peter
Wonthaggi, Australia
In the areas around a fitting, take a sharp hobby knife and make slits in
the shape of an 'X', and allow the fitting to protrude through the fabric.
Then carefully cut off the flaps of the 'X', to allow a very tight fitting
area around the fitting, even allowing the fabric to creap up around the
perimeter of the fitting. Then use poly tac to add a small piece 1 1/2" or
2" of fabric around the fitting with the same type of 'X' slits, but be sure
to place the threads of the doubler fabric at a 45 angle to the base fabric
threads. You can use your iron to blend in the edges of the doubler patch.
These pieces of doubler fabric should be added anywhere there is a fitting
protruding through the fabric, or where there is any type of structure that
is touching the fabric underneath. This keeps the fabric from wearing
through when in service. It's easy enough to get the doubler patch to lay
right down to the point where after paint, you can hardly even see it after
the paint is applied. As for the edges, I center up the edge tape and go
around the entire perimeter, just gluing the center of the edge tape. Then
iron it down around the radius to shrink the edge tape as much as possible,
then cut slits at the corners or anywhere it goes around a radius, and glue
down the slits overlapping the edge tape so that is 'Out of the Wind'. Use
your iron to make it lay down perfectly flat after the dabbing the poly tac
underneath.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
--
--
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
Dick,
Guess I'm going to have to adjust my thinking and my flying. My wife tells
me this should be right up my alley as I'm always looking for a challenge
and an adventure. I love low & slow flight and don't really have a need for
performance more than what a 65 will give a 645 lb plane. More like a J-3
than a super cub. I'll keep everyone informed of my adventures bringing her
home and my impressions of how she flys. Sounds like I will have a lot to
learn and I'm looking forward to it.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 8:55 PM
>
>
> Gene
> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look
> more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM
>
>
>
>
> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just
> in
> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line
> to
> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
> idea
> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
> not
> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
> Thank You
> Gene
> Pietenpol N502R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
>
>
>>
>>
>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
>> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying.
>> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or
>> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of
>> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a
>> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on
>> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400'
>> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a
>> downdraft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I
>> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to
>> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed.
>> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had
>> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the
>> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the
>> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on
>> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the
>> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable
>> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at
>> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
>> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field,
>> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the
>> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at
>> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the
>> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
>>
>>
>>
>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
>> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
>> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
>> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
>> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
>> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
>> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
>> tail is providing more lift than before.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> NX899JP
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken Heide,
>>
>>
>>
>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
>> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
>> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
>> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
>> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
>> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
>> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%!
>> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise
>> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not
>> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well
>> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over
>> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
>> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
>> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
>> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
>> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
>> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
>> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
>> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
>> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
>> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
>> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier
>> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we
>> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the
>> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).
>>
>>
>>
>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum
>> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and
>> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have
>> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version
>> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between
>> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this
>> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
>> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
>> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
>> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
>> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
>> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
>> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
>> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will
>> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power.
>> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as
>> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
>> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
>> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca> |
| Subject: | Re: Engine selection |
The paragraphs below come from our Canadian
regulations relating to minimum permissible power
and minimum permissible rate of climb.
Here's the link;
http://www.tc.gc.ca/CivilAviation/Regserv/Affairs/cars/Part5/Standards/549/sub-b.htm#549.109
Clif
(a) Piston engines: To ensure that there is a reasonable expectation of
meeting the climb test requirements set out in section 549.111, the minimum
permissible rated engine power shall be determined by the following
equation:
where
Pmin = rated power of the engine(s) in kw (BHP);
b = wing span in metres (ft);
M (W) = declared maximum T.O. mass in kg (weight in lb);
C = 0.01339 (for use with fps units = 0.018) for monoplanes (including
tandem wing and canard aeroplanes); or
C = 0.01711 (for use with fps units = 0.023) for biplanes or triplanes.
(b) Turbine engines: The minimum permissible rated power/thrust will be
evaluated on an individual basis.
(Change 549-1 (93-06-30))
549.111 Performance: Rate of Climb
(a) In standard sea-level atmospheric conditions at the maximum approved
weight, the aircraft shall demonstrate the capability of climbing, as
follows:
(1) Aeroplanes: 360 m (1180 ft) in 3 minutes.
(2) Powered gliders: 300 m (984 ft) in 4 minutes.
(b) Test in conditions other than standard sea-level may be accepted by the
Minister.
Information Note: (Ref. paragraph 11 of Appendix B of AMA 549/1A)
>
>
> Gene
> I hope you are joking about the 600-700 fpm. You may be shocked. Look
> more for 250 fpm or on a 90 degree day 100 fpm.
> Dick N.
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 11:33 AM
>
>
>
>
> My thanks to all that are discussing the Pietenpol and the A65. I'm just
> in
> the act of buying one and will be flying it from the Georgia/Florida line
> to
> Western Tennessee. Your discussion has been helpful and gives me some
> idea
> what I'm in for. I'm really looking forward to the plane and the trip but
> I'm more use to 1700' a minute rather than 600 or 700' a minute. It will
> take a little getting use to but I'm excited to fly the Pietenpol. I'm
> not
> in a hurry and I'm sure it will make me a better pilot.
> Any advise from you guys and gals would be very appreciated.
> Thank You
> Gene
> Pietenpol N502R
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 6:55 AM
>
>
>>
>>
>> As always, Graham posted an outstanding reply. I concur with everything
>> he said. My Pietenpol has an A65, and it is adequate for solo flying.
>> For carrying passengers on a hot day, unless you have a long runway or
>> VERY clear approaches at your field, it can cause a bit of
>> sphincter-clinch on takeoff. It also cannot cope with much of a
>> downdraft. I'll never forget flying it across West Virginia last year on
>> the way to Brodhead. I was at 4,000' and trying to climb over a 4400'
>> ridge, climbing at my best rate of climb and losing 500 fpm in a
>> downdraft.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yesterday I took my EAA Flight Advisor up in mine. He weighs 205 (I
>> weigh 195) and we had a full tank of fuel (90 lbs). Adding all that to
>> my 745 lb empty weight, and we were at 1235 lbs. - a heavy load indeed.
>> OAT was 91 F, and density altitude was about 2500'. Fortunately I had
>> enough sense to not try this from the 2,000' strip with 120' trees at the
>> end where I base the plane. We flew out of Sanford, NC (TTA) where the
>> runway is 6500' long with unobstructed approaches for at least mile on
>> either end of the runway. Takeoff was impressive - we were off the
>> ground in about 600'. Climbout was less impressive, but still acceptable
>> at 150 fpm. He loved the airplane (other than its climb rate). BTW at
>> that weight, stall speed was 42 mph indicated.
>>
>>
>>
>> If I had it to do over again, I would put a C-85 in it. Or fly from
>> longer airstrips. If I had tried yesterday's flight from my home field,
>> we would have impacted the trees at the end about 70 feet below the
>> treetops. If I were to build another one, I might seriously look at
>> adding 4 feet to the wingspan, which would add about 25 lbs to the
>> weight, but would add 20 sq. ft to the wing area.
>>
>>
>>
>> One other note on a topic that has been discussed recently - yesterday I
>> sealed the gaps between my elevators and horizontal stabilizer with duct
>> tape. I found a slight improvement in time to raise the tail on takeoff,
>> and about a 2 mph improvement in cruise speed. I also found that it
>> changed the trim of the airplane. Before this change I could trim the
>> plane to fly hands off using my spring trim system. Now even with full
>> nose up trim it still tends to nose down slightly, indicating that the
>> tail is providing more lift than before.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jack Phillips
>>
>> NX899JP
>>
>> Raleigh, NC
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2006 2:36 PM
>>
>>
>>
>> Ken Heide,
>>
>>
>>
>> Our elevation here in central Alberta, Canada is about 2500' msl which is
>> quite a bit higher than yours in Fargo, ND.
>>
>>
>>
>> For the first couple of years, my Pietenpol was powered by an A65
>> Continental. Its performance was adequate when flying solo, but the climb
>> rate was sluggish with an adult passenger aboard on a hot day. In cruise
>> with a load, one had to work the A65 pretty hard to maintain altitude;
>> there was little power in reserve to deal with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then I obtained a C85 and the difference was dramatic, to say the least.
>> With only a slight weight increase, power was increased by nearly 31%!
>> The most significant improvement was in the climb rate, and the cruise
>> speed increased by about 7-8 mph. The takeoff run was shortened, but not
>> by much; even with the A65, the a/c had always seemed to perform well
>> within ground effect. Nowadays, I have power in reserve to climb over
>> obstacles and cope with downdrafts.
>>
>>
>>
>> When the Pietenpol was designed, people were smaller and lighter. We tend
>> to forget that the Pietenpol is a small airplane when compared to
>> Taylorcrafts, Cubs and Aeroncas with the same power. Typically, these
>> airplanes have a wingspan of 35 - 36 feet with a wing area of 175 - 180
>> square feet versus the Pietenpol's 29 foot span and about 145 square
>> feet.Their aspect ratio is around seven compared to the Pietenpol's 5.8,
>> making them much better gliders than the Pietenpol. When one considers
>> that all these airplanes essentially were designed around smaller people,
>> they do rather well hauling a couple of 200(+) pounders these days. If we
>> all weighed perhaps 150 to 170 pounds, our little airplanes would perform
>> much better because that is close to what they were designed to carry.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, we have to face the fact that people are bigger and heavier
>> these days--and the airplanes we love are not any larger. About all we
>> can do is keep them (and us) as light as possible and increase the
>> available power (without adding too much weight, of course).
>>
>>
>>
>> In my experience, the Continental C85-8 engine is about the optimum
>> engine for the Pietenpol. It is only slightly heavier than the A65-8 and
>> provides the same clearance between the magnetos and the firewall. I have
>> a C85-12 in my Pietenpol and it is a bit heavier than the -8 version
>> because of the rear accessory case, which makes for a tight fit between
>> the magnetos and the firewall. (A longer engine mount would cure this
>> problem, but I don't wish to build new cowlings, etc.)
>>
>>
>>
>> If you keep a Pietenpol simple and light, a strong Continental A65 will
>> work fine for you--provided you don't expect it to do what it was never
>> designed to do. Having the optimum engine/ propeller combination is
>> extremely important. I have yet to find the very best propeller for
>> mine--either with the A65 or the C85 engines. If you are lucky, you may
>> find a custom propeller that is close to ideal for your airplane, but a
>> fixed pitch propeller is always a compromise and one usually has to try
>> out a lot of different ones. Off-the-shelf certified propellers will
>> work, but they may not be the best for your setup.
>>
>>
>>
>> As always, it is best to improve efficiency before simply adding power.
>> If I were to build another Pietenpol, I would work hard to keep it as
>> light as possible in order to fly well with modest power.
>>
>>
>>
>> Graham Hansen Pietenpol CF-AUN
>>
>>
>> _________________________________________________
>>
>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain
>> privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have
>> received it in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the
>> Dansk - Deutsch - Espanol - Francais - Italiano - Japanese - Nederlands -
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Attachment: http://www.matronics.com/enclosures/2bf28578240f08a25ab5cdf5671172b083991e14.gif
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov> |
| Subject: | role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
Okay you sugar muffins---you guys sure have been boring lately. Let's get
the lead out and get
fired up some, huh ? (okay, I'm boring too.....and fat, but that doesn't
stop me from shaking you up
once in a while)
Who the heck is getting their sorry asses to Brodhead ??? I don't care by
car, boat, or plane--who is
going to be there ?
Mike C. in Ohio
________________________________________________________________________________
| From: | "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com> |
| Subject: | role call ? Attention Gantzer, Markle...Javier ! |
Not me. I've decided to sell my Pietenpol (too slow, too noisy, too
drafty, no fun) and buy a REAL airplane - a Cessna 172. Then I will
feel safe, flying only from controlled fields and always under an
instrument flight plan so I don't have to worry about some foolish pilot
May 28, 2006 - June 20, 2006
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-fd