Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-fh
August 13, 2006 - September 18, 2006
Pietenpol-Archive.digest.vol-fh
August 13, 2006 - September 18, 2006
Glider Manual" wood gear was designed for the shorter fuselage. When you go to
the longer fuselage the gear would need to be lengthened somewhat to maintain
the same 3-point attitude. Frank and I have nearly the same deck angle. Others
have less though, and seem to really like it too.
Don Emch
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54588#54588
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: fuse survey
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 13, 2006
NX899DE has long fuselage (1966 model)
Wing is slanted 4" aft of plans.
A-65 engine mount is 1" longer than plans (just a little extra without losing 'the
look')
Axle is 1" forward of steel gear plans.
I have 14.5 gallons in the nose so depending how much fuel I have really changes
tail weight. Doesn't seem to be a problem though.
All of these were just compromises I came up with in talking to people who had
been there before. I'm really happy with these measurements although I think
they could differ some and I'd still like it. Just remember that one change leads
to many more so try to keep the changes small and few.
Don Emch
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54589#54589
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Steve Ruse" <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Aaooogha horns
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Anybody have one of these? How does it sound? Too many bad pilots around
here, and I need a way to give them a piece of my mind.
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ItemBrowse/c-10101/s-10101/p-100000178495
/mediaCode-ZX/appId-100000178495/Pr-p_CATENTRY_ID:100000178495
(not really)
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 13, 2006
From: Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: Speaking of Spoking
Spoked wheel lacing advice:
The purpose of chamfering spoke holes is to provide proper seating and support
for the curved elbow of the spoke end. It would be a mistake to insert the spoke
into the chamfered side of the flange. That would result in a sharp-cornered
stress riser where you don't want it --- right at the elbow curve. Seating
the head in the chamfer is good cosmetics, but bad engineering. Good wheelwrights
know this and won't do it wrong unless you insist. Ask Buchannans to mail
you one spoke of the type you intend to use. Then machine your hubs accordingly.
Don't chamfer the flanges on both sides, as that weakens the spoke/flange
junction.
For all you guys who did it wrong --- not to panic. Of all the things that can
go wrong with an undercarriage, spoke failure at the elbow should be about priority
"Z" on your worry list.
I've been eying the temporary rim and tire from a retired Ford Escort, the engine
donor for my Ford/Scout inverted powerplant project. Cut the center out, leaving
a bare rim. Machine a one piece aluminum hub and lace it to the Escort
rim. Seal the nipples with some super goo, mount the tubeless temporary tire,
and add air. Presto --- a beautiful, poorboy set of lightweight, classic airwheels.
Sound too good to be true? Hmmmm.....
Happy landings,
Mike Fisher
Talkeetna, Alaska
Dan--- you can request various size (they use gauge sizes as I recall)
diameter spokes from Buchannan's and you have the
choice between steel, chromed steel, stainless, etc. I drilled my
holes for the spokes and then used a countersink bit to
accept the head of the spoke which has a taper and that helped seat the
spokes nicely in the hub.
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: had my BFR today
Date: Aug 13, 2006
Walt wrote-
>Just "renewed" today on a Cub. I remember when I first flew the Cub (about
>10 years ago) how strange it felt, and how hard to get the flare right, and
>how hard to see.
Well, my first supervised solo was in a J-3 off of grass, at Tim's Airpark
north of Austin, TX in 1971 or thereabouts. It rented for $8/hr., wet,
solo. Since I had been told there would be no forward visibility after the
flare, I never thought about it and have always taken my cues from the side
peripherals. It feels very natural to me. It also felt very natural to
land the Cub in zero wind but in a crosswind, it was a bit squirrely. The
one thing that felt funny was having the stick so high up in my chest, but
maybe that was just me. The Cub taught me to slip, how to dance the pedal
dance, and how to land an airplane without power, which has been a very
valuable tool all of my aviation life. My instructors for my first 20 or so
hours never let me use power after we chopped it abeam the numbers on
downwind (except to clear the engine) and anytime my instructor was aboard
and we'd be turning base, I'd hear him ask me, "high or low? Fast or slow?"
which caused me to check my airspeed and position relative to the numbers so
I could adjust before it was too late.
I have yet to translate that experience to the Piet world but hope to do
that before Labor Day. Taxi testing of 41CC next weekend, if the Lord wills
it.
PS- I just viewed the first segment of "Building NX770CG", and it's good
stuff. An excellent addition to any Pietenpoler's collection. Hope to fly
with Experimental Seven Zero Charlie Golf one of these fine days, and to
call "SMOKE ON!" to good old Chuck.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: had my BFR today
Oscar,
One pattern yesterday found the instructors hand over the Cub's airspeed,
for the whole ride including the rollout.
80% of her BFR check is "engine outs".
Her feeling is that "if I can get you and the plane on the ground, and you
can walk away, I did my job".
Even had to do some special maneuvers to avoid Geese on the runway during
slipping in from an engine out..
One of my logbook entries by her was "Goose ops".
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: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:08 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: had my BFR today
>
> <<>>
>> downwind (except to clear the engine) and anytime my instructor was
>> aboard
> and we'd be turning base, I'd hear him ask me, "high or low? Fast or
> slow?" which caused me to check my airspeed and position relative to the
> numbers so I could adjust before it was too late.
> <<>>
>>
> Oscar Zuniga
> San Antonio, TX
> mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
> website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 14, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: fuse survey
but you (Gene Rambo) only asked for fuse type and gear type !
>Andrea had asked for a axle/wing placement survey, and the first response
>gave those figures without mentioning which fuselage or gear types, which
>makes all of the difference in the world. Likewise, wink wink, the
>fuselage and gear type does not do much without the axle/wing placement
>info . . .
>
>Gene
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>Michael D Cuy
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2006 11:24 AM
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuse survey
>
><Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
>
>CUY NX48MC
>
>1933 Improved Fuselage (shorter than the 1966 by about 9.5 inches)
>
>Gear type wood/straight =========================nbsp; Features
>Subscriptions
><http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>http://www.mat
>========================= =========================p; available
>via title=http://forums.matronics.com/
>title=http://wiki.matronics.com/
>==================================================nbsp; generous
>bsp; title=http://www.matronics.com/contribution
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aaooogha horns
Date: Aug 14, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
I used to have one on my Gremlin(gives you an idea how long ago).My wife
hated it and I loved it.They are loud and very erratable.The were once
used on the old modal T fords.If you are using a modal A engine on your
plane then it will fit right in.They can be adjusted for slightly
different sounds but the end result is the same
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!.Gre
at!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Ruse
Sent: August 14, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
Anybody have one of these? How does it sound? Too many bad pilots
around
here, and I need a way to give them a piece of my mind.
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ItemBrowse/c-10101/s-10101/p-10000017
8495
/mediaCode-ZX/appId-100000178495/Pr-p_CATENTRY_ID:100000178495
(not really)
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Aaooogha horns
Date: Aug 14, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
I've got one on my Pietenpol. You really can't hear it over the engine
in flight. Fun on the ramp, though.
Jack Phillips
-----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: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:37 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
I used to have one on my Gremlin(gives you an idea how long ago).My wife
hated it and I loved it.They are loud and very erratable.The were once
used on the old modal T fords.If you are using a modal A engine on your
plane then it will fit right in.They can be adjusted for slightly
different sounds but the end result is the same
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!.Gre
at!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Steve
Ruse
Sent: August 14, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
Anybody have one of these? How does it sound? Too many bad pilots
around
here, and I need a way to give them a piece of my mind.
http://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/ItemBrowse/c-10101/s-10101/p-10000017
8495
/mediaCode-ZX/appId-100000178495/Pr-p_CATENTRY_ID:100000178495
(not really)
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
--
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Pietenpol Websites
Date: Aug 14, 2006
From: "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com>
Thanks to those that responded to my request for their sites. I added
some others that I also had. If your website is not listed and you
would like to include it, please email me directly at
jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com. Also, besides these sites there are a bunch
of good pictures at www.mykitplane.com <http://www.mykitplane.com/> .
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
Pietenpol Websites
http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp Pietenpol family site
www.textors.com <http://www.textors.com/> Jack Textor
http://www.cpc-world.com From: "Alan Lyscars" <alyscars(at)maine.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Aaooogha horns
Date: Aug 14, 2006
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
>
> I've got one on my Pietenpol. You really can't hear it over the engine
> in flight. Fun on the ramp, though.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
Jack,
I wonder if it could be heard better from the ground (<100 ft) if it was
pointed backwards?
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "pietflyr" <pietflyr(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Aaooogha horns
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Mine points straight down and is mounted on the firewall. I'm sure it would be
louder if it were outside the cowling
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com]On Behalf Of Alan
Lyscars
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:52 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
----- Original Message -----
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Aaooogha horns
>
> I've got one on my Pietenpol. You really can't hear it over the engine
> in flight. Fun on the ramp, though.
>
> Jack Phillips
>
Jack,
I wonder if it could be heard better from the ground (<100 ft) if it was
pointed backwards?
AL
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Subject: California to Oshkosh & Back
I know you guys are going to enjoy these pictures. They are from some guys
that made that trip this year...but I don't know who it was. Really some
fantastic sceenery. One of these days I'm going to do a lap around those mountains
!!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
OSHKOSH 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "GlennThomas(at)flyingwood.com" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Chuck,
Thanks for passing that along. It was downright awesome!
Glenn W. Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
I know you guys are going to enjoy these pictures. They are from some
guys that made that trip this year...but I don't know who it was.
Really some fantastic sceenery. One of these days I'm going to do a lap
around those mountains !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
OSHKOSH 2006
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "GlennThomas(at)flyingwood.com" <glennthomas(at)flyingwood.com>
Subject: Re: Pietenpol Websites
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Thanks Jack,
This was a great idea!
Glenn W. Thomas
Storrs, CT
http://www.flyingwood.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack T. Textor
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 14, 2006 11:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Pietenpol Websites
Thanks to those that responded to my request for their sites. I added
some others that I also had. If your website is not listed and you
would like to include it, please email me directly at
jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com. Also, besides these sites there are a bunch
of good pictures at www.mykitplane.com .
Jack Textor
Des Moines, IA
Pietenpol Websites
http://www.pressenter.com/~apietenp Pietenpol family site
www.textors.com Jack Textor
http://www.cpc-world.com Peter Johnson
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/CorkyPiet.html Oscar Zuniga, P.E.
http://www.hometown.aol.com/hvandervoo/indexfront.html Hans van der
Voort
http://nx770cg.com/ Chuck Gantzer
http://www.eaa1344.com/Projects/Stinemetze/stinemetze.htm Tom
Stinemetze
http://andrea.modelberg.it/index_e.html Andrea Vavassori
http://www.imagedv.com/aircamper DJ Vegh
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/John_piet.html John Dilatush
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk UK Piet Club
http://users.aol.com/bpabpabpa/cuyvideo.html Mike Cuy's Video
http://www.pietenpol.org Brodhead Pietenpol Association
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&groupid=130718&ck
Jack Phillips
http://www.pjshenton.go-plus.net/default.htm The UK Pietenpol Club
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/US%20Campers/gregand%20dales.htm Greg &
Dales Piet
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/joepiet/album?.dir=5f03 Joes Piet pics
http://www.clifdawson.ca/index.html Cliff Dawson's page
http://www.flyingwood.com G.W. Thomas
http://www.westcoastpiet.com West Coast Piet
http://www.hometown.aol.com/hvandervoo/indexfront.html Hans van der
Voort
http://www.mykitplane.com My KitPlane.com
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Wizzard187(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Subject: Re: smoke tank
Pieters; For you smokers; I am thinking about putting in a smoke tank
and wonder how long the smoke will last per quart or gallon. Also would a
pressure tank be best or a small windshield pump. Amy suggesting would be
appreciated. Thanks in very nice Iowa.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: fuse survey
Date: Aug 14, 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Wood Gear and "Deck Angle"
Date: Aug 14, 2006
Thanks Don. I'll be running 19" rims too.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 12:59 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Wood Gear and "Deck Angle"
>
> Chris,
> I have a fairly high deck angle of about 15 degrees. I have steel gear
> with spoke wheels that are about 26" tall (19" rims). I really like the
> high angle. The runway is totally blind in the flare but when I land
> 3-point it is all done flying for sure. I've learned the trick to getting
> no-bounce landings is to definately have the tail at the ground when the
> mains are even though it seems to be a very high angle. I do know that
> Frank Pavliga lengthened his wood gear somewhat to get a more 'correct
> angle'. This is because the "Flying and Glider Manual" wood gear was
> designed for the shorter fuselage. When you go to the longer fuselage the
> gear would need to be lengthened somewhat to maintain the same 3-point
> attitude. Frank and I have nearly the same deck angle. Others have less
> though, and seem to really like it too.
> Don Emch
> NX899DE
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=54588#54588
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Marvel Schebler parts source?
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Does anyone know a good source for carb parts? ACS has a complete overhaul
kit for my MA3 carburator for $207. I'm glad to see they're available but
was hopeing I might find one for less dinero. Also...my carb's mixture lever
was broken off when I got it. Does anyone have a junk carb that they want to
sell the arm off of. Thanks in advance. Ed Grentzer in muggy Fl. Starting
to see a light in the tunnel and hoping it's not the train.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: California to Oshkosh & Back
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Wow,just awsome,thankyou for all that.Did you see any UFO's at Devels
Tower?
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: August 14, 2006 6:00 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
I know you guys are going to enjoy these pictures. They are from some
guys that made that trip this year...but I don't know who it was.
Really some fantastic sceenery. One of these days I'm going to do a lap
around those mountains !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
OSHKOSH 2006 <http://silvairehair2.home.comcast.net/072806/>
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
=========================
==========
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Lee Schiek" <leeschiek(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Marvel Schebler parts source?
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Seems like there's always a bunch of Marvel carbs/parts on E-Bay. Enter
MARVEL on E-Bay Motors.......If you select All of E-Bay, ya get a bazillion
comic book offers!
>From: "Ed G." <flyboy_120(at)hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: Marvel Schebler parts source?
>Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:46:12 -0400
>
>
>Does anyone know a good source for carb parts? ACS has a complete overhaul
>kit for my MA3 carburator for $207. I'm glad to see they're available but
>was hopeing I might find one for less dinero. Also...my carb's mixture
>lever was broken off when I got it. Does anyone have a junk carb that they
>want to sell the arm off of. Thanks in advance. Ed Grentzer in muggy Fl.
>Starting to see a light in the tunnel and hoping it's not the train.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Interesting find
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: "Dan Loegering" <danl(at)odayequipment.com>
Last night I attended our local EAA chapter meeting and instead of our regular
meeting place, it was held at a "pioneer village" museum that has a hangar as
one of the exhibits. Now, I knew that they had some older, unique aircraft on
the grounds, but it had been a number of years since I visited this museum.
Tucked away in the far corner under the wing of a C-47 I saw a familiar shape
- sure enough it was a Piet! The placard said it was built in 1932 by a 16 year
old... and darn if I didn't have my camera along. I'm heading back out there
this weekend to take some pictures and try to gather some more details about
this aircraft.
The reason the EAA chapter was at the museum is they were looking for help with
their collection - the years inside and the layers of dust are starting to take
their toll. Looks like we will be giving their collection a once over in the
spring to clear away the dust and cobwebs - you can guess which exhibit I will
be spending my time on!
And of course, last night I found the last box of hardware that I had packed up
when I moved - I knew it was somewhere - now I can get back to building after
a three month break!
Dan Loegering
Fargo, ND
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Fuselage length, wing placement and wheel axle placement
(long)
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Andrea,
My two cents worth.
Long fuselage, split landing gear.
I did move the Axle position forward as suggested by Don Pietenpol, when
using brakes.
(See attached file: W & B NX15KV.pdf)
Hans
"Andrea
Vavassori"
"pietenpol discussion list"
Sent by:
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Fuselage length,
wing placement and wheel axle
08/11/2006 05:59 placement (long)
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hello to everybody!
First of all, a big THANK YOU to the list for the response to the first
bunch of questions! I collected and stored all the photos and documents
you guys provided, and I especially thank Chris Tracy who provided the
link to his website and to Chris Bobka's document about wheel axles
placement. Again, thanks!
Well, I decided to fire up the CAD and try to assemble a virtual Piet
with all the modifications/clarifications available so far. Not to
redesign the Piet itself but just to be a quick and clean method to
check dimensions and placements. And here is, obviously, where
confusion begins. :-(
Before getting into the hang of it, I want to explain a couple of
points which form the base for the whole discussion:
1) Our Piet is not going to enjoy any of the three de-facto "standard"
powerplants (Ford Model A, Corvair or Continental A65-8) simply because
none is available to us in Europe (even A65-8 are rarer than hen's
teeth these days, in spite of their past wide availability here).
Therefore, the powerplant will have to be something quite different,
probabily derived from a modern gas/diesel auto engine or something
like that. When time comes, appropriate calculations will be made for
engine placement, in order to obtain the correct Center of Gravity
range. I'm familiar with this procedure as I've already done it in the
past for two other airplanes, and they then checked correctly on the
scales.
2) Because of the aforementioned point, I decided to reference all my
work to the original 1933 Improved Plans i.e. considering the Piet as
having the wing position determined by the cabane struts at right
angles with the upper longeron. That is, with the important change of
the 172 3/8" long fuselage (because we believe we need the increased
tail arm as we assume a longer nose).
As already said, that's where confusion begins, because after looking
at all the photos I could see, reading Chris Bobka's comments, and even
checking the Weight and Balance sheet provided by Don Pietenpol, I saw
that the wing position can be quite different from the original one,
and not always the same. This is not very good from an engineering
standpoint, because every kind of W&B calculation assumes a CG range
with respect to the airplane Center of Lift, and not the other way
around. Not to mention the fact that, as wing placement change, so does
the tail arm length, which should be something to be taken very
seriously and not changed all too easily.
Chris Bobka's document is fine in that it works out a well-weighed
logical conclusion from a huge amount of data, but it does NOT mention
the WING anywhere. However, let's start working on BOTH fuselages
(standard and long) using some known data:
1) Standard fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 17"
2) Long fuselage: Bobka's axle distance from firewall: 21"
3) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, std fuselage: 6.8"
4) Distance between firewall and wing leading edge, long fuselage: 8.8"
5) Most rearward CG position (Don Pietenpol): 33% or 20" from LE
Okay, working out the math makes for TWO DIFFERENT distances between
wheel axle and most rearward C of G position for the two fuselages:
7.8" for the LONG fuselage, and 9.8" for the STANDARD fuselage.
Logic says that the distance should be the same for both fuselages, so
obviously one of them is not correct.
My own understanding says 7.8" is way too little. When the Piet is
sitting without pilots and with empty wing tank, the CG ought to be
very close to its most FORWARD position, which is probabily AHEAD of
the wheel axle in level flight, meaning the fuselage will barely stand
on the tailwheel (if it has not already tipped over). 9.8" does not
look really good either, but it's the closest (by 1/2" if I'm not
mistaken) to the measurements on the Improved 1933 Plans.
Again, I state that the wing is going to be exactly where shown on the
plans, and the correct placement of the powerplant will bring the CG
range within the correct limits. And none of the measurements for
placing Ford/Corvair/Continental engines will apply, as the powerplant
will NOT be either one of these.
So, where should I place my wheel axles?
All the Pieters out there, where is YOUR wheel axle and YOUR wing
leading edge with respect to the firewall, and HOW does your Piet
behave during landing and on the ground?
Thanks in advance for the answers.
SeeYa!
Andrea Vavassori
Volksplane VP-1 I-BYRA
EAA #348037
FCAP I-146
Homepage: http://andrea.modelberg.it
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Corvair Grega on ebay in MI
He calls it a Pietenpol but it is not. It is a Grega GN-1 Air
Camper.....and I posted the guy a question/comment
letting him know (he might not actually know the difference)
Since the list has been quiet I thought I'd stir the pot. I don't
begrudge anyone for building a GN-1 in fact they are
nice flying if built light.....but don't call them Pietenpols because they
are not. GN-1, Grega Aircamper yes.
Mike C.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/PIETENPOL-AIRCAMPER-L-S-A-GOOD-CONDITION-N174LS_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQcategoryZ63677QQihZ008QQitemZ180017363419QQrdZ1QQsspagenameZWDVW
________________________________________________________________________________
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Subject: Source for brass grease cups
Hi Guys,
I have found a source for the really cool brass grease cups that are used
(for decoration) on the Ken Perkin's style hubs for the spoked wheels. To my
surprise, there was Bob's Antique Auto Parts right across town in Loves Park
IL. _www.bobsantiqueautoparts.com_ (http://www.bobsantiqueautoparts.com) .
They are a very large store and warehouse that specializes in Model T parts.
The part number for the brass grease cups is T-2545-B.
These are real nice and a perfect fit for the hubs. You will have to
drill/tap for the tapered pipe thread size 1/8" -27 threads per inch. You do
not
have to actually put grease in the cups if you use the oilight bronze bearings.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Jim Carriere <jimcarriere(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: latex test square (long)
This is to say thank you to everyone who responded and took the
topic from there.
My greatest concern is that a month (never mind several months) of
outdoor tie-down can rack up a few hundred hours of sun and UV
exposure, and how well will the paint remain flexible (houses flex a
lot less than aircraft fabric). I think one of the early responses,
from Dick Navratil, summed it up, that the worst case is re-covering
in a few years at relatively little financial loss. That paints a
pretty nice picture (pun intended).
The other experiences about the test square and repairs (remove
paint with a hot iron... who wouldda thought?) are great and make
the long-term sound promising.
So, I've decided to go ahead and use latex on my plane later this
year.
Thanks again, keep the building and flying safe and fun
Jim in NW FL
Kitfox 7 in progress
PS- almost forgot, to Dick in particular, I like your Rotec radial
powered project. I've had an R2800 for quite some time, and am now
finally weeks away from removing it from the crate to hang on my
project. I'll finally have some pictures to send to Rotec for their website.
__________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Mark Blackwell <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: latex test square (long)
Well Jim just one more thing to think about. IF you decide to go a
route that would put the cover at risk the worst case isn't having to
recover in a year or two. The worst case is having that cover fail in
flight. I'm not saying which method of paint, cover, ect you should
use. If you use something different with the cover, Id adapt a much
more intensive program to check that cover to make sure its still
structurally sound.
Jim Carriere wrote:
>
> This is to say thank you to everyone who responded and took the
> topic from there.
>
> My greatest concern is that a month (never mind several months) of
> outdoor tie-down can rack up a few hundred hours of sun and UV
> exposure, and how well will the paint remain flexible (houses flex a
> lot less than aircraft fabric). I think one of the early responses,
> from Dick Navratil, summed it up, that the worst case is re-covering
> in a few years at relatively little financial loss. That paints a
> pretty nice picture (pun intended).
>
> The other experiences about the test square and repairs (remove
> paint with a hot iron... who wouldda thought?) are great and make
> the long-term sound promising.
>
> So, I've decided to go ahead and use latex on my plane later this
> year.
>
>
> Thanks again, keep the building and flying safe and fun
> Jim in NW FL
> Kitfox 7 in progress
>
> PS- almost forgot, to Dick in particular, I like your Rotec radial
> powered project. I've had an R2800 for quite some time, and am now
> finally weeks away from removing it from the crate to hang on my
> project. I'll finally have some pictures to send to Rotec for their website.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: California to Oshkosh & Back
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Harvey asks-
>Did you see any UFO's at Devil's Tower?
I don't know, but I would sure be tempted to take a closer look at the top
of the tower. That one photo shows a fairly level and clear spot there. It
looks a heck of a lot like the top of "Table Rock" north of Medford, Oregon
where I spent many hours... and put down a Super Cub a time or three. I'll
bet a Piet could put down on top of that tower were it not for the rules
against it... ;o)
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
Was it St. X or Bach who pondered about the rocks on top of those
places? There's only a limited number of ways they could get there,
including falling from outer space, right?
>
>Harvey asks-
>
>>Did you see any UFO's at Devil's Tower?
>
>I don't know, but I would sure be tempted to take a closer look at
>the top of the tower. That one photo shows a fairly level and clear
>spot there. It looks a heck of a lot like the top of "Table Rock"
>north of Medford, Oregon where I spent many hours... and put down a
>Super Cub a time or three. I'll bet a Piet could put down on top of
>that tower were it not for the rules against it... ;o)
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: airplane covers
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Has anybody seen or made a cover for your Piet, the kind that wraps over the
wing center section and takes in the entire cockpit area with straps under
the belly? Corky provided cockpit covers for the two individual cockpits on
41CC but when you park the airplane at a fly-in or other place away from
your home base, the cover that takes in the whole cockpit area would be
nice. It would also swallow up the fuel filler on 41CC (just ahead of the
forward windscreen), which would prevent rain from getting into it in a
shower. I thought of this when I saw the pictures from the t'storms at
Oshkosh and I've seen the covers made of an aluminized reflective outer
material with a soft tricot inner lining.
Just wondering if anybody has tried it. Seems like it would be easy enough
to make a pattern and sew one up.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: airplane covers
Another problem this would solve is dust and pollen accumulating on
the windscreens. This was a real problem for us this past summer.
>
Has anybody seen or made a cover for your Piet, the kind that wraps
over the wing center section and takes in the entire cockpit area
with straps under the belly? ...
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: slowbilder(at)COMCAST.NET
Subject: Tire Pressures
Date: Aug 15, 2006
A question for those of you flying piets on 6.00-6 tires. What tire pressure do
you carry?
Bob Humbert
N491RH
A question for those of you flying piets on 6.00-6 tires. What tire
pressure do you carry?
Bob Humbert
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Subject: Re: airplane covers
Oscar,
You are beginning to get so excited about flying your Piet and going places
and showing it off that it will probably be accused of being owned either by
Elvis or Liberace.
Nathan Moss
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Subject: Re: Tire Pressures
In a message dated 8/15/2006 6:27:03 PM Central Standard Time,
slowbilder(at)COMCAST.NET writes:
A question for those of you flying piets on 6.00-6 tires. What tire pressure
do you carry?
Bob Humbert
N491RH
Bob,
I have 8.00 - 6 Turf Type Tires from Wicks. I run 15 lbs. in them.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 15, 2006
From: Dave and Connie <dmatt(at)frontiernet.net>
Subject: Re: airplane covers
Oscar,
I bet that Coverlight would work well. Look at http://www.yostwerks.com
for how Tom Yost builds folding kayaks. Click on PVC Skinning on the right
side of the window. I found the fabric for about $18/yard and the glue for
$10/quart in Rochester, NY. My use was to make some dry bags for a camping
trip. The original use for the fabric is tarps for trucks.
Dave
N36078 '41 BC12-65
Plus a few Cedar strip canoes and a CLC Ches 17' kayak
At 05:48 PM 8/15/2006, Oscar Zuniga wrote:
>
>Has anybody seen or made a cover for your Piet, the kind that wraps over
>the wing center section and takes in the entire cockpit area with straps
>under the belly? Corky provided cockpit covers for the two individual
>cockpits on 41CC but when you park the airplane at a fly-in or other place
>away from your home base, the cover that takes in the whole cockpit area
>would be nice. It would also swallow up the fuel filler on 41CC (just
>ahead of the forward windscreen), which would prevent rain from getting
>into it in a shower. I thought of this when I saw the pictures from the
>t'storms at Oshkosh and I've seen the covers made of an aluminized
>reflective outer material with a soft tricot inner lining.
>
>Just wondering if anybody has tried it. Seems like it would be easy
>enough to make a pattern and sew one up.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
>
>
>--
>
>
>-- incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 15, 2006
Subject: Re: airplane covers
In a message dated 8/15/2006 6:37:53 PM Central Standard Time,
Isablcorky(at)aol.com writes:
Oscar,
You are beginning to get so excited about flying your Piet and going places
and showing it off that it will probably be accused of being owned either by
Elvis or Liberace.
Nathan Moss
You crack me up !! :)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tire Pressures
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Aug 16, 2006
Bob,
6.00-6 Airtrac 4 ply tires with 25 - 30 Psi
Hans
slowbilder@COMCAS
T.NET
Sent by: To
owner-pietenpol-l Pietenpol-List(at)matronics.com (Piet
ist-server@matron Group)
ics.com cc
Subject
08/15/2006 06:23 Pietenpol-List: Tire Pressures
PM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
A question for those of you flying piets on 6.00-6 tires. What tire
pressure do you carry?
Bob Humbert
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Tire Pressures
Date: Aug 16, 2006
There was an interesting discussion about this, wherein the utterly
scientific Mike Cuy (or somebudy) suggested you get down on your knees and
look at the contact patch between the tire tread and the pavement to make
sure you have just enough pressure in the tires so the entire tread engages
the pavement. Me, I'm a numbers guy and want to read some digits on a
scale.
The 6.00x6's on 41CC are supposed to be at 28-30 psi and that's where I have
them. PS to Corky: I added valve stem extensions from AutoZone to them and
made some holes in the wheel covers to allow the extensions to be accessible
without continually removing the wheel covers. Turned out pretty nice, if I
may say so myself.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 16, 2006
Subject: Re: Tire Pressures
I approve. But what about that fuse cover?
Nathan
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Tire Pressures
Date: Aug 16, 2006
If I am operating from paved runways, I inflate the 6.00x6 tires on my
Pietenpol to about 25 - 26 psi in order to improve control and handling.
For rough grass strips, I reduce the pressure to about 18 - 20 psi.
Presently I am using a very smooth grass airstrip and 22 psi works fine.
Soft tires noticeably lengthen the takeoff run and firmly-inflated tires
have the opposite effect.
The maximum gross weight of my Pietenpol is 1150 lbs., but rarely do I go
much over 1100 lbs. all up weight.
Graham Hansen ( Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair in Italy
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Aug 17, 2006
Andrea,
Consider this for your Pietenpol:
There is a Corvair engine for sale in your "neck of the woods"
See on E-bay Item number: 290019602668 (and others) Lago di Garda
Seems like all the right serial numbers.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2006
From: Don Sweeney <donswen(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
I'm not sure who to address this to but the pictures on "Oshkosh 2006" were great.As
a photographer I commend you. The pictures and the commentary were enjoyable.
I would like to know what format you used for this presentation and the
process used to present these marvelous pictures on the website.
Great show |
Don Sweeney
----- Original Message -----
From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
Wow,just awsome,thankyou for all that.Did you see any UFO's at Devels Tower?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: August 14, 2006 6:00 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
I know you guys are going to enjoy these pictures. They are from some guys that
made that trip this year...but I don't know who it was. Really some fantastic
sceenery. One of these days I'm going to do a lap around those mountains
!!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
OSHKOSH 2006
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 17, 2006
From: Don Sweeney <donswen(at)optonline.net>
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
I'm not sure whom to address this to but the pictures on "Oshkosh 2006" were just
great. As "The Local Snapshot Artist", I commend you.The pictures and commentary
were enjoyable.What format was used for this presentation and the process
used to present these marvelous pictures on the website?
Great show !
Don sweeney
----- Original Message -----
From: harvey.rule(at)bell.ca
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
Wow,just awsome,thankyou for all that.Did you see any UFO's at Devels Tower?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: August 14, 2006 6:00 PM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
I know you guys are going to enjoy these pictures. They are from some guys that
made that trip this year...but I don't know who it was. Really some fantastic
sceenery. One of these days I'm going to do a lap around those mountains
!!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
OSHKOSH 2006
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-Listhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Tail Wheel Fittings
Date: Aug 16, 2006
On the stock tail wheel fittings, the tab that projects below the fuselage,
do they get a slight twist so the hinge bolts are perpendicular to the swing
axis? this would make the tab parallel to the long axis of the plane. See
Attached Picture
Without twisting, the a arm does not swing freely and the tabs flex as it
swings. The plans for the A-arm suggest his but there are no notes on the
plans indicating to twist the fitting.
So do I put a twist in it? or is there something wrong with my setup.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 17, 2006
Does anyone have a good source for 800 4 tires and tubes. I need a set for the
GN-1and could use non aviation tires and tubes if I could find any. All I can
find is Goodyears for about $700.00, ouch!
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Tai Wheel Fittings
Date: Aug 17, 2006
For some reason I can't seem to post this question.
I tried sending this last night and it didn't seem to go through. So I
removed the attachment and see if it works this time, It didn't.
Sorry if you get multiple post but I need an answer to this question.
On the stock tail wheel fittings, the tab that projects below the fuselage,
do they get a slight twist so the hinge bolts are perpendicular to the swing
axis? this would make the tab parallel to the long axis of the plane.
Without twisting the tabs, the a arm does not swing freely and the tabs flex
as it swings. The plans for the A-arm suggest his but there are no notes on
the
plans indicating to twist the fitting.
So do I put a twist in it? or is there something wrong with my setup.
This is my last and final try, as I'm off to Lake Tahoe to hang out at the
beach with the kids
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Tail Wheel Fittings
Date: Aug 16, 2006
On the stock tail wheel fittings, the tab that projects below the fuselage,
do they get a slight twist so the hinge bolts are perpendicular to the swing
axis? this would make the tab parallel to the long axis of the plane. See
Attached Picture
Without twisting, the a arm does not swing freely and the tabs flex as it
swings. The plans for the A-arm suggest his but there are no notes on the
plans indicating to twist the fitting.
So do I put a twist in it? or is there something wrong with my setup.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2006
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: One piece wing weight
Which would be a reasonable weight for a one piece wing? according to F&GM the
weight for the complete wing is 95 pounds. My wing weighs between 97 and 100 pounds
without gas tank and fabric. Is that too much? Was Bernard very optimistic?.
I try to be specially careful building light since I am using hemlock
instead of spruce and will use a Ford A engine. Thanks in advance.
Santiago
---------------------------------
Pregunt. Respond. Descubr.
Todo lo que queras saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
est en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
In a message dated 8/17/2006 4:33:19 PM Central Standard Time,
donswen(at)optonline.net writes:
I'm not sure who to address this to but the pictures on "Oshkosh 2006" were
great.As a photographer I commend you. The pictures and the commentary were
enjoyable. I would like to know what format you used for this presentation and
the process used to present these marvelous pictures on the website.
Great show |
Don Sweeney
Don,
I posted the website, but I don't know who the artist, and flyers were.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Fittings
In a message dated 8/17/2006 10:11:17 PM Central Standard Time,
catdesigns(at)comcast.net writes:
Without twisting, the a arm does not swing freely and the tabs flex as it
swings. The plans for the A-arm suggest his but there are no notes on the
plans indicating to twist the fitting.
So do I put a twist in it? or is there something wrong with my setup.
Chris,
I braized the bolt in and use a cotter pin, like the plans call out. I
didn't twist mine, and it seems to work fine. The A arm only sees about a 1
0=BA arc
of movement. Very slight twist, or no twist, I think it's fine either way.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Subject: Re: One piece wing weight
In a message dated 8/18/2006 12:16:25 AM Central Standard Time,
moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar writes:
Which would be a reasonable weight for a one piece wing? according to F&GM
the weight for the complete wing is 95 pounds. My wing weighs between 97 and 100
pounds without gas tank and fabric. Is that too much? Was Bernard very
optimistic?. I try to be specially careful building light since I am using hemlock
instead of spruce and will use a Ford A engine. Thanks in advance.
Santiago
Santiago,
My one piece wing has 3/4" Douglas Fir Spars, Cedar ribs, two coats of spar
varnish, 3/32" drag / anti-drag cables, Fiberglass 9.8 gal wing tank, 2.7 oz
fabric on the wing and 1.8 oz fabric on the ailerons. The wing was 100%
complete, including paint, when we trailered it to the airport in a light drizzle.
It was still a little bit wet, and it weighed 110 lbs. on a bathroom scale -
just before we mated it to the fuselage. That day was a milestone !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Fittings
Chris,
Think the secret here is to flatten the tabs on the ends of the swing tube
so that the outboard edge surface is continious, and the back of the tubes
are flattened. I did this and ran the swingarm inside of the brackets, and
there is no binding.
You might have to fine tune bend the end of the finished tube ends so that
the hinge surfaces are as parallel as possible.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 2:14 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tail Wheel Fittings
> On the stock tail wheel fittings, the tab that projects below the
> fuselage,
> do they get a slight twist so the hinge bolts are perpendicular to the
> swing
> axis? this would make the tab parallel to the long axis of the plane. See
> Attached Picture
>
> Without twisting, the a arm does not swing freely and the tabs flex as it
> swings. The plans for the A-arm suggest his but there are no notes on the
> plans indicating to twist the fitting.
>
> So do I put a twist in it? or is there something wrong with my setup.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2006
From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
go to the store call Fleet/farm. they have a great selection of tires and wheels.
Skip-Cinda Gadd wrote: Does anyone have a good source
for 800 4 tires and tubes. I need a set for the GN-1and could use non aviation
tires and tubes if I could find any. All I can find is Goodyears for about
$700.00, ouch!
Skip
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 18, 2006
From: Ryan Mueller <rmueller23(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Radiator placement question, etc
A rainy good afternoon from N. IL to you all,
I am interested in building a Piet, and will get started as soon as meager fundage
allows...in the meantime I am rolling options around in my head as to some
of the things I would choose for my aircraft. Powerplant, for one; it would either
be A powered, or Corvair powered. The Corvair seems like a fairly economical
way to have more power, and possibly a more practical airplane, if one is
looking at cross country flight, etc. However, I love old airplanes, and that
is part of the draw of a Piet for me, and they just sound so much more sweeter
going "pocketa pocketa" through the air, and I just like the thought of having
an A mill up front swinging a big chunk o' wood. It's just....right. And if
I was worried about cross country flight, I could go build an RV or some such
thing and be done with it. So, anywho....it brings me to my first question.
Looking at the cowling on the A powered Piets, there is the sharp slope down from
the front of the cowl to the firewall....has anyone given thought to mounting
the radiator in the front cowl area and fairing it in, ala the Bird Model A
biplanes from the late 20's/early 30's. I would think that there would be room
for it, but I have never seen mention of such a thing in my reading. I would
venture to guess that there is some obvious reason I am not seeing that keeps
that from being a practical idea. As long as Piet's have been around, and as
many years as people have been building/experimenting with them, I would think
you would see it around if it was practical. Anyways, I wanted to float that
out there, and see what responses it may generate.
Another question, this time regarding front cockpit access doors. My mother has
had both hips replaced, so the thought came to mind that when the time comes
that my dream will take flight and I would want to give everyone rides in it,
it would be rather difficult for her to maneouvre into the front cockpit. This
is based on what I have read/how it appears, as I personally have never been
inside a Piet. I've been to Brodhead a couple times, and examined up close, but
I've not clambered into one yet. Occasionally I run across a picture of a Piet
that has a little fold down access door in the side of the fuselage. However,
based on my observations, those would be in the minority. Apart from the desire
to keep the design original, are there any other reasons to avoid adding
a cockpit door? I have never viewed the fuselage structure off a Piet with a door,
so I have not seen exactly how it would be done, but I would assume you would
need to sort of re-engineer the truss in that
area, since the longeron is "interrupted" by the opening for the door. Is that
something to be concerned about (thus the reason it doesn't appear to me to be
done that often)?
I would want to keep the design as original as possible, but that would be one
consideration to ease of entry that I wouldn't mind making.
Let's see...what other questions had been on my mind. With the engine (assuming
usage of a Model A engine), would it be better/is it possible to get more modern
"normal" shell type bearings for the engine, instead of babbited bearings?
Would that improve reliability/durability? Does there appear to be much of a
cause for concern about overstressing the engine if one was to run an aluminum
6:1 head? Would the decrease in weight and possible increase in performance be
worth it?
I think that's about all for now. Have a good day everyone,
Ryan
rmueller23(at)yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Radiator placement question, etc
Date: Aug 18, 2006
BHP did design a radiator installation like you describe, it is on the
scout and has been put on several Air Campers. I don't know how well it
worked, but should be OK. There are plans out there to put a door on
the left of the front cockpit, but I would not suggest that it would,
even then, be easy for someone with hip replacement to enter.
The A questions are too numerous, but have been addressed . . .look in
the archives.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Ryan Mueller<mailto:rmueller23(at)yahoo.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 6:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Radiator placement question, etc
A rainy good afternoon from N. IL to you all,
I am interested in building a Piet, and will get started as soon as
meager fundage allows...in the meantime I am rolling options around in
my head as to some of the things I would choose for my aircraft.
Powerplant, for one; it would either be A powered, or Corvair powered.
The Corvair seems like a fairly economical way to have more power, and
possibly a more practical airplane, if one is looking at cross country
flight, etc. However, I love old airplanes, and that is part of the draw
of a Piet for me, and they just sound so much more sweeter going
"pocketa pocketa" through the air, and I just like the thought of having
an A mill up front swinging a big chunk o' wood. It's just....right. And
if I was worried about cross country flight, I could go build an RV or
some such thing and be done with it. So, anywho....it brings me to my
first question.
Looking at the cowling on the A powered Piets, there is the sharp
slope down from the front of the cowl to the firewall....has anyone
given thought to mounting the radiator in the front cowl area and
fairing it in, ala the Bird Model A biplanes from the late 20's/early
30's. I would think that there would be room for it, but I have never
seen mention of such a thing in my reading. I would venture to guess
that there is some obvious reason I am not seeing that keeps that from
being a practical idea. As long as Piet's have been around, and as many
years as people have been building/experimenting with them, I would
think you would see it around if it was practical. Anyways, I wanted to
float that out there, and see what responses it may generate.
Another question, this time regarding front cockpit access doors. My
mother has had both hips replaced, so the thought came to mind that when
the time comes that my dream will take flight and I would want to give
everyone rides in it, it would be rather difficult for her to maneouvre
into the front cockpit. This is based on what I have read/how it
appears, as I personally have never been inside a Piet. I've been to
Brodhead a couple times, and examined up close, but I've not clambered
into one yet. Occasionally I run across a picture of a Piet that has a
little fold down access door in the side of the fuselage. However, based
on my observations, those would be in the minority. Apart from the
desire to keep the design original, are there any other reasons to avoid
adding a cockpit door? I have never viewed the fuselage structure off a
Piet with a door, so I have not seen exactly how it would be done, but I
would assume you would need to sort of re-engineer the truss in that
area, since the longeron is "interrupted" by the opening for the door.
Is that something to be concerned about (thus the reason it doesn't
appear to me to be done that often)?
I would want to keep the design as original as possible, but that
would be one consideration to ease of entry that I wouldn't mind making.
Let's see...what other questions had been on my mind. With the engine
(assuming usage of a Model A engine), would it be better/is it possible
to get more modern "normal" shell type bearings for the engine, instead
of babbited bearings? Would that improve reliability/durability? Does
there appear to be much of a cause for concern about overstressing the
engine if one was to run an aluminum 6:1 head? Would the decrease in
weight and possible increase in performance be worth it?
I think that's about all for now. Have a good day everyone,
Ryan
rmueller23(at)yahoo.com
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: getting started again!!!!!
Date: Aug 18, 2006
OK, after a two year delay (the little guy is two now) I am starting to
get back into my Piet. My major hurdle always was, and is, the gear. I
am building the "Jenny" style wood gear and fitting it to the '33
"improved" plans fuselage. We have rehashed this gear over and over on
the list, but I am just trying to get my head back into exactly what the
problems are that are troubling me. Let me start with the first one
that has hit me right away.
Please forgive me if this has been over-discussed, I do not recall
seeing it . . . Let's start with the proposition that the spar spacing
is 28 3/4 inches on center. The Hoopman and F&G plans clearly show the
gear fittings, and therefore the strut fittings, being on a 28 3/4
center, the same as the wing spar. Just makes sense, right? The struts
are parallel.
On the '33 plans, though, while the side trusses of the fuselage meet at
two points 28 3/4 apart, the location of the ash cross pieces, and
therefore the gear/strut fittings, are 27 1/2 inch apart. The drawing
clearly shows the strut fittings 27 1/2 inches on center.
SO, is this a drawing error? Are the struts actually closer together at
the bottom on '33 fuselages?? Does it really matter????
HELP!!!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Fittings
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Chris,
I did just as Walt says and then I added a rubber washer between the arm and the
fuselage fitting. I used an AN bolt with a castle nut and cotter key. That
setup allows me to tighten or loosen the attachment. Like Chuck says it probably
sees less then 10 deg movement. I just left mine straight.
Don E.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55649#55649
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Skip,
Although they aren't real easy to find I'm pretty sure I recently saw a dealer
in Trade-a-Plane that had them at a much better price. Can't remember who though.
I'd keep an eye on ebay too. I've seen serviceable ones go on there at
a decent price. Heck at that price you might be able to find some 800-6 tires
and wheels, maybe even 850-6!
Don E.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55653#55653
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2006
From: santiago morete <moretesantiago(at)yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: One piece wing weight
Thank you Chuck. Seems that my final wing weight will be above yours. I had built
a galvanized gas tank (thanks to Larry Williams's sketches) but I discarded
it because of the weight and will build an aluminum one. I plan to cover the
entire airframe with 1.8 oz fabric ( borrowed the idea from Mike Cuy) with
minimum dope and paint. Thanks again.
Saludos
Santiago
---------------------------------
Pregunt. Respond. Descubr.
Todo lo que queras saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
est en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Tail Wheel Fittings
Date: Aug 18, 2006
Thanks All,
I flattened out the tubing a little more and slightly bent in the flats to
better line up with the fitting tabs. I did not twist the tabs as I had
originally planned. It works much better now. I'm glad I didn't go with my
first thought.
Thanks
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 6:55 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Tail Wheel Fittings
>
> Chris,
> I did just as Walt says and then I added a rubber washer between the arm
> and the fuselage fitting. I used an AN bolt with a castle nut and cotter
> key. That setup allows me to tighten or loosen the attachment. Like
> Chuck says it probably sees less then 10 deg movement. I just left mine
> straight.
> Don E.
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=55649#55649
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Aug 19, 2006
Subject: Re: Radiator placement question, etc
Ryan: One of the old magazines told of the rad. mounted below the engine
on a Scout and stated that BHP wasn't pleased with it. Didn't say why.
My guess is that it is a more complicated to build this set up then the
top mounted rad. and weighed a lot more because of additional plumbing,
the need for a header tank, plus all of the extra work to ft it into the
cowling. Stick with the top radiator, and don't add anything extra. Keep
it light, especially with the heavy underpowered Model A. Find a nice
light Aluminum radiator. For now I am planing to use a VW Golf radiator
- - 4 lbs. Don't go more than 6 to 1 with babbit. I plan to re do my
babbitt with insert bearings. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: California to Oshkosh & Back
Date: Aug 19, 2006
Don,
The pilot that shot those photos flys a luscombe and posted them on the
Matronics "luscombe-silvaire site." I don't recall his name but he is
well known there.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: California to Oshkosh & Back
In a message dated 8/17/2006 4:33:19 PM Central Standard Time,
donswen(at)optonline.net writes:
I'm not sure who to address this to but the pictures on "Oshkosh
2006" were great.As a photographer I commend you. The pictures and the
commentary were enjoyable. I would like to know what format you used for
this presentation and the process used to present these marvelous
pictures on the website.
Great show |
Don Sweeney
Don,
I posted the website, but I don't know who the artist, and flyers
were.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2006
Subject: [ Fred Beseler ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
From: Email List Photo Shares <pictures(at)matronics.com>
A new Email List Photo Share is available:
Poster: Fred Beseler
Lists: Pietenpol-List
Subject: Brodhead 2006
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/TBYH@aol.com.08.19.2006/index.html
----------------------------------------------------------
o Main Photo Share Index
http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
o Submitting a Photo Share
If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
following information along with your email message and files:
1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
2) Your Full Name:
3) Your Email Address:
4) One line Subject description:
5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
Email the information above and your files and photos to:
pictures(at)matronics.com
----------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [ Fred Beseler ] : New Email List Photo Share Available!
Fred,
Great shots, thanks for sharing.!!
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Email List Photo Shares" <pictures(at)matronics.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: [ Fred Beseler ] : New Email List Photo Share
Available!
>
>
>
> A new Email List Photo Share is available:
>
> Poster: Fred Beseler
>
> Lists: Pietenpol-List
>
> Subject: Brodhead 2006
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare/TBYH@aol.com.08.19.2006/index.html
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
> o Main Photo Share Index
>
> http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
>
> o Submitting a Photo Share
>
> If you wish to submit a Photo Share of your own, please include the
> following information along with your email message and files:
>
> 1) Email List or Lists that they are related to:
> 2) Your Full Name:
> 3) Your Email Address:
> 4) One line Subject description:
> 5) Multi-line, multi-paragraph description of topic:
> 6) One-line Description of each photo or file:
>
> Email the information above and your files and photos to:
>
> pictures(at)matronics.com
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 19, 2006
From: John Egan <johnegan99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
I've been struggling to find a good method to bend flat steel to form the "Upper
Wing Fittings" (the pieces that wrap around the spars for the cabane strut to
attach). Does anyone have a good method to bend these nicely short of using
a finger brake? I can of coarse easily make the first bend in the vise, but
the second bend about 7/8" from the first bend is the difficult one.
Do you guys also interlock the other piece of flat steel (for the cabane strut
to attach) between the bottom of the spar and the fitting described above, or
weld the tabs on to the fittings as the plan shows?
Thank you, and thanks for the recent sites of all the Pietenpol photos.
John
Greenville, Wi.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 19, 2006
Subject: (no subject)
I just purchased someone elses pietenpol project. It was on E-bay if you
noticed. For the last few months I have read your emails with interest.
The ribs have been made, the fuselage is mostly done and covered,it is the
short fuselage, cabine struts are done, tail feathers are complete and
covered. It has the motor mount for a corvair and a 1964 corvair 110 HP motor
with
prop hub mounted.It looks like it will be a good project for me for awhile.
Jack Phillips ,if you want to fly down to Wilmington NC, Pilots Ridge
airport(03NC) and share your knowledge you are more than welcome.
Ted Stone
Stepping down from an A-23 Beech Musketeer and worrying about being able to
past the physical every year with the FAA nightmare you have to go thru as a
diabetic.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: New Piet project
Date: Aug 19, 2006
Hi Ted,
Welcome to the list. Have fun with your new project.
I wouldn't call it stepping down to a Piet, more like stepping back to an earlier
time.
Skip
-----
Ted Stone
Stepping down from an A-23 Beech Musketeer
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Thanks Don,
I have been looking in Trade-a-Plane and will start checking ebay. I agree
the best thing would be to put 6 inch wheels on the thing, but that would
be a project and I bought the thing so I could fly not build. I will not
fly it with unsafe tires so am still looking.
My tires may be servicable, but one has a crack so deep you can see air ;<)
Skip
> [
> Skip,
> Although they aren't real easy to find I'm pretty sure I recently saw a
dealer in Trade-a-Plane that had them at a much better price. Can't
remember who though. I'd keep an eye on ebay too. I've seen serviceable
ones go on there at a decent price. Heck at that price you might be able
to find some 800-6 tires and wheels, maybe even 850-6!
> Don E.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Thanks KM,
I wish we had Fleet and Farm here in WV. I checked their web sites and they don't
have any products, only locations and hours.
Skip
>Go to the store call Fleet/farm...
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Hi Skip
I was in a Northern Tool store today and checked their supply of tires
and tubes, no luck there. I'll be going to Fleet Farm in the next day
or two. I'll check it out there.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Skip-Cinda Gadd
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 11:13 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: 800 4 tires
Thanks KM,
I wish we had Fleet and Farm here in WV. I checked their web sites and
they don't have any products, only locations and hours.
Skip
>Go to the store call Fleet/farm...
-----
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: (no subject)
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Ted
You do have it wrong. You have stepped up to a Pietenpol.
How many times have people streamed out of an FBO to look at your
Musketeer? Do they ask to have their picture taken with you next to
your Musketeer? Corporate pilots come over out of the Lears and Falcons
to look. I have had these things happen almost every time I go to a new
field.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: (no subject)
I just purchased someone elses pietenpol project. It was on E-bay if
you noticed. For the last few months I have read your emails with
interest.
The ribs have been made, the fuselage is mostly done and covered,it is
the short fuselage, cabine struts are done, tail feathers are complete
and covered. It has the motor mount for a corvair and a 1964 corvair 110
HP motor with prop hub mounted.It looks like it will be a good project
for me for awhile.
Jack Phillips ,if you want to fly down to Wilmington NC, Pilots Ridge
airport(03NC) and share your knowledge you are more than welcome.
Ted Stone
Stepping down from an A-23 Beech Musketeer and worrying about being
able to past the physical every year with the FAA nightmare you have to
go thru as a diabetic.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
Date: Aug 19, 2006
John,
Try taking a look at Jim's Bench-top Brake pictures on my website.
http://westcoastpiet.com/bench-top_bender.htm
I made one of these and it works great. You may want to make it
several inches longer then your bench vise. My vice is 6" and I think I
will have to make a brake that is about 9" to make the fittings your
talking about. This way, the second 90 degree bend can be made without
hitting the vice.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
www.WestCoastPiet.com
----- Original Message -----
From: John Egan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 2:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
I've been struggling to find a good method to bend flat steel to form
the "Upper Wing Fittings" (the pieces that wrap around the spars for the
cabane strut to attach). Does anyone have a good method to bend these
nicely short of using a finger brake? I can of coarse easily make the
first bend in the vise, but the second bend about 7/8" from the first
bend is the difficult one.
Do you guys also interlock the other piece of flat steel (for the
cabane strut to attach) between the bottom of the spar and the fitting
described above, or weld the tabs on to the fittings as the plan shows?
Thank you, and thanks for the recent sites of all the Pietenpol
photos.
John
Greenville, Wi.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
C'mon guys, not a single response to my question about the lower strut
fittings???? Maybe I should have thrown in a question about how to make
wire wheels, THAT is always good for about three weeks worth of
comments.
Surely someone can help me out here!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Hi Gene,
The fuselage truss members, ash cross members and lower strut fittings
should all meet at a common location.
Consider the drawings mere "suggestions".......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
C'mon guys, not a single response to my question about the lower strut
fittings???? Maybe I should have thrown in a question about how to make
wire wheels, THAT is always good for about three weeks worth of
comments.
Surely someone can help me out here!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Gene,
I went back and reread your question. Think that you got no responses,
cause to give a good answer, one would have to have access to both sets
of plans. I, for one don't, so I couldn't really help.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
C'mon guys, not a single response to my question about the lower strut
fittings???? Maybe I should have thrown in a question about how to make
wire wheels, THAT is always good for about three weeks worth of
comments.
Surely someone can help me out here!
Gene
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
The side trusses do meet at a common location, 28 3/4 on both fuselages.
The difference is in the placement of the ash pieces on the '33
fuselage (which the F&G fuselage does not have) which dictates the
placement of the gear/strut fitting.
My question boils down to . . . is it important that the wing struts be
parallel?? Are they on most of your airplanes???
I would think that anyone who has built a '33 fuselage (I can't speak to
the later plans) would have noticed that the lower fittings are closer
together than the wing spars (i.e. the upper fittings) and dealt with
it, either by correcting it or leaving it as is. Which is it??
Thanks for any help . .
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: gcardinal<mailto:gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:04 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Hi Gene,
The fuselage truss members, ash cross members and lower strut fittings
should all meet at a common location.
Consider the drawings mere "suggestions".......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo<mailto:GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
C'mon guys, not a single response to my question about the lower
strut fittings???? Maybe I should have thrown in a question about how
to make wire wheels, THAT is always good for about three weeks worth of
comments.
Surely someone can help me out here!
Gene
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Walt, whether you have the other plans, are your struts parallel?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans<mailto:waltdak(at)verizon.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene,
I went back and reread your question. Think that you got no
responses, cause to give a good answer, one would have to have access
to both sets of plans. I, for one don't, so I couldn't really help.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo<mailto:GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List:
C'mon guys, not a single response to my question about the lower
strut fittings???? Maybe I should have thrown in a question about how
to make wire wheels, THAT is always good for about three weeks worth of
comments.
Surely someone can help me out here!
Gene
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Radiator placement question, etc
Date: Aug 20, 2006
I have always been rather partial to this set up.
http://www.pietenpolclub.co.uk/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=19
michael silvius
scarborough, maine
________________________________________________________________________________
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Gene,
I just ran into the very same problem. I was in a quandry with it for the
longest time. I finally decided to just go with what was there and have my
struts be a little out of parallel. I don't think anybody can detect it when
it is finished.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Thanks, Dan, that is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Now,
is this the consensus or have other people noticed it and dealt with it
differently?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com<mailto:HelsperSew(at)aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene,
I just ran into the very same problem. I was in a quandry with it for
the longest time. I finally decided to just go with what was there and
have my struts be a little out of parallel. I don't think anybody can
detect it when it is finished.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Gene,
Think it's more than a beauty thing. If they aren't parallel ( and I
don't know if mine are or not. Got to get the the airport and actually
measure. Can't go by the CL of the crossmembers, cause the strut holes
aren't in the center of the bracket.)
Gets to, if you have to move the wing back, with non-parallel struts,
you would create a wash-in/out at the wingtips.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Thanks, Dan, that is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
Now, is this the consensus or have other people noticed it and dealt
with it differently?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene,
I just ran into the very same problem. I was in a quandry with it
for the longest time. I finally decided to just go with what was there
and have my struts be a little out of parallel. I don't think anybody
can detect it when it is finished.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Gene, from a safety stand point I would have to guess that, given the
age of the design, there as just as many Pietenpols flying with the
struts build as design as there are ones where people change it. Both
seem to have work, as no one seems to be falling from the sky. So if
you don't like it change it, but I don't think you need to.
Walt is right about non-parallel struts changing the geometry when
moving the wing back (to get the GC correct). But this may be a moot
point if everything else is just slightly out of perfect, like on my
plane. Also, the vertical struts are two different heights which might
throw you out of alignment as well. I think the important part is to
have the lower fittings line up with a cluster so it can distribute the
loads to the fuselage.
I'm trying to get my tailwheel finished this week so I can start on my
Jenny gear too.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Thanks, Dan, that is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
Now, is this the consensus or have other people noticed it and dealt
with it differently?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene,
I just ran into the very same problem. I was in a quandry with it
for the longest time. I finally decided to just go with what was there
and have my struts be a little out of parallel. I don't think anybody
can detect it when it is finished.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Subject: Lift Strut Fittings
In a message dated 8/20/2006 10:12:42 AM Central Standard Time,
GeneRambo(at)msn.com writes:
The side trusses do meet at a common location, 28 3/4 on both fuselages. Th
e
difference is in the placement of the ash pieces on the '33 fuselage (which
the F&G fuselage does not have) which dictates the placement of the gear/str
ut
fitting.
My question boils down to . . . is it important that the wing struts be
parallel?? Are they on most of your airplanes???
I would think that anyone who has built a '33 fuselage (I can't speak to the
later plans) would have noticed that the lower fittings are closer together
than the wing spars (i.e. the upper fittings) and dealt with it, either by
correcting it or leaving it as is. Which is it??
Thanks for any help . .
Gene
Gene,
To tell ya the truth, I don't know if the lower strut fittings on my plane i
s
28 3/4" apart, but I'll measure them next time I'm at the airport. It
stands to reason that the lift struts pivot points should be within 1/8" of
being
parallel, reason being the unique feature of the Pietenpol's movable wing
position. Keep in mind the entire usable arc is probably about 3=BA. I thi
nk the
reason for the 27 1/2" dimension called out between the fittings on DRAWING
NO.3, is because there is an offset of the pivot point of the lift struts (f
rom
the centerline of the fitting), to accommodate the flying wire attach point.
The important thing is to maintain enough edge distance of the holes in the
fitting and the wood.
Just exactly what is the dimension that you are coming up with between the
pivot points of the lower lift strut fittings ?
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RBush96589(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Subject: rib stitching
can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: rib stitching
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Yes, they should be stitched.
----- Original Message -----
From: RBush96589(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 1:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rib stitching
can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: rib stitching
Randy,
Think the rule of thumb is no, but it's a great place to start and
practice. Funny, but everyone dreads the stitching, but when you're
done, you're looking for something else that,,,,,HHHMMMMM,,maybe needs
to be stitched!!
It , like covering,,,is a very rewarding task.
What percent of people on this earth can one day say that they
rib-stitched their own aircraft?? :^)
Ain't Life Grand.!!
walt evans
NX140DL
PS Yeah, I did mine.
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: RBush96589(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 2:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rib stitching
can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: tenpol-List:
Date: Aug 20, 2006
I'm not really worried, or even thinking about moving the wing. All
airplanes move the wing to correct for CG (biplanes or parasols anyway).
If I move the wing, the geometry is what it is.
What I am TRYING to get to is that in the '33 plans, the rear gear
fitting (and therefore strut fitting) does NOT line up with the cluster
of side trusses where they meet the longeron. The rear ash cross piece
is ahead of the cluster, making the gear fittings (and therefore strut
fitting) closer together than the upper end at the wing spars. I'm not
worried about safety, I have no doubt that it is plenty strong. I
wonder if this was an intentional change by BHP, or a mistake in the
drawings.
Like I have said, I would assume that everyone who has built a Piet has
reached this point and noticed the discrepancy. I want to know what
everyone has done about it. SHOULD the struts be parallel?? Does it
even matter???? It looks to me like if I move the rear fitting back to
the cluster (where the F&G and Hoopman plans show it) it makes the rear
gear leg have a really flat angle such that I am not sure it adds much
strength. Maybe BHP deliberately moved the fitting forward to reduce
the angle?? Those of us building the Jenny gear need to figure this
out. I know there are plenty of airplanes out there with Jenny gear,
what have those people done????
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Catdesigns<mailto:catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene, from a safety stand point I would have to guess that, given the
age of the design, there as just as many Pietenpols flying with the
struts build as design as there are ones where people change it. Both
seem to have work, as no one seems to be falling from the sky. So if
you don't like it change it, but I don't think you need to.
Walt is right about non-parallel struts changing the geometry when
moving the wing back (to get the GC correct). But this may be a moot
point if everything else is just slightly out of perfect, like on my
plane. Also, the vertical struts are two different heights which might
throw you out of alignment as well. I think the important part is to
have the lower fittings line up with a cluster so it can distribute the
loads to the fuselage.
I'm trying to get my tailwheel finished this week so I can start on my
Jenny gear too.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo<mailto:GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Thanks, Dan, that is exactly the kind of thing I was looking for.
Now, is this the consensus or have other people noticed it and dealt
with it differently?
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com<mailto:HelsperSew(at)aol.com>
To:
pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List:
Gene,
I just ran into the very same problem. I was in a quandry with it
for the longest time. I finally decided to just go with what was there
and have my struts be a little out of parallel. I don't think anybody
can detect it when it is finished.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
title=http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter W Johnson" <vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
Subject: rib stitching
Date: Aug 21, 2006
Randy,
I did. As recommended in the Poly Fiber manual.
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
HYPERLINK "http://www.cpc-world.com/"http://www.cpc-world.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
RBush96589(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, 21 August 2006 4:38 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rib stitching
can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
"http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List"http://www.matronics.c
om/
Navigator?Pietenpol-List
"http://forums.matronics.com"http://forums.matronics.com
"http://wiki.matronics.com"http://wiki.matronics.com
"http://www.matronics.com/contribution"http://www.matronics.com/contribut
ion
--
18/08/2006
--
18/08/2006
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: rib stitching
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Keep in mind, even if you do stitch the tail (which I do not think is
required) you can do single stitches with quarter-sized tapes at a
greater spacing. You'd be surprised how much weight you can save in a
critical area.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter W Johnson<mailto:vk3eka(at)bigpond.net.au>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 7:45 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: rib stitching
Randy,
I did. As recommended in the Poly Fiber manual.
Peter
Wonthaggi Australia
http://www.cpc-world.com>
-----Original Message-----
From:
owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On
Behalf Of RBush96589(at)aol.com
Sent: Monday, 21 August 2006 4:38 AM
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Subject: Pietenpol-List: rib stitching
can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
--
18/08/2006
--
18/08/2006
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
Date: Aug 20, 2006
John
I bent mine around on a vise. I made the first bend to about 45 degrees
and then the second about the same, continue bending as best possible.
I then used a scrap piece of solid steel, approx 6"x8"x1" thick and used
it as a guide and closed the vice on it. I drilled holed in the steel
bar and used it as a cutting guide for bolt holes.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Egan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
I've been struggling to find a good method to bend flat steel to form
the "Upper Wing Fittings" (the pieces that wrap around the spars for the
cabane strut to attach). Does anyone have a good method to bend these
nicely short of using a finger brake? I can of coarse easily make the
first bend in the vise, but the second bend about 7/8" from the first
bend is the difficult one.
Do you guys also interlock the other piece of flat steel (for the
cabane strut to attach) between the bottom of the spar and the fitting
described above, or weld the tabs on to the fittings as the plan shows?
Thank you, and thanks for the recent sites of all the Pietenpol
photos.
John
Greenville, Wi.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com>
Subject: Re: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Harbor Freight has something called a "vise brake" It has a V way on one
side and an anvil on the other. It is magnetic and you open the jaws of
your vise and put it in place then close the vise on the metal and it
bends it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
John
I bent mine around on a vise. I made the first bend to about 45
degrees and then the second about the same, continue bending as best
possible. I then used a scrap piece of solid steel, approx 6"x8"x1"
thick and used it as a guide and closed the vice on it. I drilled holed
in the steel bar and used it as a cutting guide for bolt holes.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: John Egan
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 4:43 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
I've been struggling to find a good method to bend flat steel to
form the "Upper Wing Fittings" (the pieces that wrap around the spars
for the cabane strut to attach). Does anyone have a good method to bend
these nicely short of using a finger brake? I can of coarse easily make
the first bend in the vise, but the second bend about 7/8" from the
first bend is the difficult one.
Do you guys also interlock the other piece of flat steel (for the
cabane strut to attach) between the bottom of the spar and the fitting
described above, or weld the tabs on to the fittings as the plan shows?
Thank you, and thanks for the recent sites of all the Pietenpol
photos.
John
Greenville, Wi.
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RBush96589(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 20, 2006
Subject: rib stitching
thanks every one for the response on the rib stitching. I got the
elevators,rudder,and vert. stab. done this afternoon,after you get the hang of
it it is
a satisfying thing to do. also,Mike Cuy if you read this I talked to you at
Brodhead about getting some sketches of your trim system,so if you get a
chance i would like to see them.
thanks
Randy Bush
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 20, 2006
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: rib stitching
You dont HAVE to... But is a very rewarding experience to learn to stich your
flying surfaces, and the stabilizer and elevators is the perfect place to start
and learn before you go on with the wings... Very rewarding.
Saludos
Gary Gower
Mexico.
RBush96589(at)aol.com wrote: can anyone tell me if i should rib stitch the stabilizer
and elevators
thanks
Randy Bush
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
Date: Aug 21, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
John,
I think this is covered in Tony Bingelis' "Sportplane Construction
Techniques"
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 John
Egan
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 5:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
I've been struggling to find a good method to bend flat steel to form
the "Upper Wing Fittings" (the pieces that wrap around the spars for the
cabane strut to attach). Does anyone have a good method to bend these
nicely short of using a finger brake? I can of coarse easily make the
first bend in the vise, but the second bend about 7/8" from the first
bend is the difficult one.
Do you guys also interlock the other piece of flat steel (for the cabane
strut to attach) between the bottom of the spar and the fitting
described above, or weld the tabs on to the fittings as the plan shows?
Thank you, and thanks for the recent sites of all the Pietenpol photos.
John
Greenville, Wi.
_________________________________________________
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: "Gene Rambo" <generambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Bending Flat Steel - fittings
Date: Aug 21, 2006
You can always just cut out the pieces separately and weld the top piece
on, which it actually does not need anyway, other airplanes only have
the flat side fittings without a strap over the top of the spar. It
probably does not add anything but weight anyway.
Gene.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: BIG Oklahoma Pietenpol fly-in this weekend!!!
Date: Aug 21, 2006
Well, ok, not a BIG fly in but Chuck will be here! That's pretty neat.
Actually, the Markle Clan will be having a house warming this Saturday
afternoon (Aug 26), so if you're in the area (or COULD be in the area!),
come on over! We have a nice little 1200' sod landing strip about a
mile from the house....all mowed and ready for Chuck and anyone else on
the list that might be able to come by for a visit. The ribs will go
into the smoker on Thursday or Friday so come on over!
I plan on getting the Model A and prop bolted up so those sweet
pokata-pokata-pokata sounds will be heard...I can hardly wait! The cows
and horses and neighbors (ok, neighboring farmers!) are in for a real
treat!
Jim in Pryor Oklahoma.....
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Hey!!!....it's doable!!!
60 miles from Palm Beach to Bimini....or 69 miles to Freeport, Grand
Bahama Island. From there you could "Hop" your way down the island Chain
to Providence (Nassau) Island and even further on down South...all the
way down to Grand Turk Islands.
Would you trust your engine for 60-70 miles? Only 1 hour or so...
depending on the wind. Hmmmm...Only problem is...if it quits...you're in
the ditch.
Scarey, huh???...but think of the possibilities!
I can already smell that Jerk chicken on the grill...and Bob Marley on
the juke box!
Dave...(Hey 'Mon...you flew over in THAT)???...Down in Florida.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Ping Pong balls available.
NATHAN
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Island hopping, Fisherman Style
This is the guy you wanna talk with about Island Hopping----Ray Axillou:
Fisherman, World Trade Expert, Belize resident, and
regular customer at Home Depot and Lowes to buy aircraft crap grade
materials to fly overwater.
They call his plane "The Wings of Home Depot".
I say if you have the coconuts to fly 60-70 miles over shark infested
waters in a Piet then go for it.....but the nice farmlands of
the midwest have my heart wrapped up. Would be very cool to make a trip
to those islands once......with sedation....and then
talk about it over beer for the next 20 years tho !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: BPA newsletter
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Did anyone else get the good news about the BPA newsletter? Doc Mosher
is taking over as editor. For any who don't know Doc, he is an
extremely knowlegable and very nice guy. It should be a big
improvement.
It's nice to keep up with the Pietenpol news including those who don't
have computers also. Also nice to hear whats happening around Brodhead
airport.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Island hopping, Fisherman Style
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Well Mike. Belize is a little farther "Hop" than I had in mind...unless...I
take "the great circle route". Now THATS an idea! I could fly down around
the gulf coast, down Texas and Mexico to the Yucatan...to... Hmmmmm....as
Charles Lindburgh put it..."All the way to that knothole"!
Actually, after a long day in the shop working on the Piet, looking at all
that wood...and wood floats... and that big front seat area that would hold
a life raft and survival gear...just in case, kinda got my "gears" turning.
Oh.....and speaking of beer, I guess being hot and tired those last couple
of beers of the evening made a "believer" out of me. Thanks for snapping me
back to reality.
But...The last part of your post sounded like you were "softening up" a
little...Yep!...it would be something to talk about! I would probably get
hasseled by Customs when it came time to reinter the country. They would
think probably think I was trying to smuggle a priceless antique into the
country without declaring it.
But still...think of the possibilities. Hmmmm....
Dave...(Delerious from the heat)... Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:01 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Island hopping, Fisherman Style
>
>
>
> This is the guy you wanna talk with about Island Hopping----Ray Axillou:
> Fisherman, World Trade Expert, Belize resident, and
> regular customer at Home Depot and Lowes to buy aircraft crap grade
> materials to fly overwater.
>
> They call his plane "The Wings of Home Depot".
>
> I say if you have the coconuts to fly 60-70 miles over shark infested
> waters in a Piet then go for it.....but the nice farmlands of
> the midwest have my heart wrapped up. Would be very cool to make a trip
> to those islands once......with sedation....and then
> talk about it over beer for the next 20 years tho !
>
> Mike C.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: Mark Blackwell <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
It would bring into question one other thing though. Is an experimental
US airworthiness certificate valid outside the US? The answer may
depend on where outside the US. I know you most likely need a rider on
your insurance policy to make that happen. I almost did that trip once
and now regret not getting the chance.
D.Reid wrote:
> Hey!!!....it's doable!!!
> 60 miles from Palm Beach to Bimini....or 69 miles to Freeport, Grand
> Bahama Island. From there you could "Hop" your way down the
> island Chain to Providence (Nassau) Island and even further on down
> South...all the way down to Grand Turk Islands.
>
> Would you trust your engine for 60-70 miles? Only 1 hour or
> so... depending on the wind. Hmmmm...Only problem is...if it
> quits...you're in the ditch.
>
> Scarey, huh???...but think of the possibilities!
>
> I can already smell that Jerk chicken on the grill...and Bob Marley on
> the juke box!
>
> Dave...(Hey 'Mon...you flew over in THAT)???...Down in Florida.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Yep. The Bahama's will accept experimental aircraft.
The "RV" boys do it all the time down here.
Maybe a "hop" down to Key West...you know, just for practice, to start with.
Those islands are only a mile or two apart.
That would be a good goal to aspire to..."Marguritaville in May"!
Guess I better get back to work...I need to run up to Home Depot for my wing
spars.
Dave...(Nibblin' on Spongecake) Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:23 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
>
> It would bring into question one other thing though. Is an experimental
> US airworthiness certificate valid outside the US? The answer may depend
> on where outside the US. I know you most likely need a rider on your
> insurance policy to make that happen. I almost did that trip once and now
> regret not getting the chance.
>
> D.Reid wrote:
>> Hey!!!....it's doable!!!
>> 60 miles from Palm Beach to Bimini....or 69 miles to Freeport, Grand
>> Bahama Island. From there you could "Hop" your way down the island Chain
>> to Providence (Nassau) Island and even further on down South...all the
>> way down to Grand Turk Islands.
>> Would you trust your engine for 60-70 miles? Only 1 hour or so...
>> depending on the wind. Hmmmm...Only problem is...if it quits...you're in
>> the ditch.
>> Scarey, huh???...but think of the possibilities!
>> I can already smell that Jerk chicken on the grill...and Bob Marley on
>> the juke box!
>> Dave...(Hey 'Mon...you flew over in THAT)???...Down in Florida.
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: BPA newsletter
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Dick,
Just got the news a few minutes ago, see below message from Doc for those
who did not.
Hans,
----- Forwarded by Hans Vander Voort/GP/US/ALFALAVAL on 08/22/2006 10:11 AM
-----
BPAN
To
08/21/2006 02:27 Hans Vander Voorst
PM
cc
Subject
Brodhead Pietenpol Association
Newsletter
Hans -
With the October issue of the Brodhead Pietenpol Association newsletter, I
will be the new editor. My wife Dee and I have arranged with the Brodhead
Independent-Register to make sure that the present subscribers will
continue to receive their paid up subscriptions. The BPANews will continue
to be printed and mailed from the Brodhead Independent-Register, who will
also handle the subscriber list. Subscription rate remains at $16 a year
(4 issues per year). Checks should be made out to "Brodhead Pietenpol
Association" or "BPA" and mailed to:
Brodhead Pietenopol Association
c/o Independent-Register
P. O. Box 255
Brodhead WI 53520-0255
The business and editorial office for BPA is now located in Oshkosh. All
questions, articles, letters, drawings, and classified ads should go to:
Brodhead Pietenpol Association
P. O. Box 3501
Oshkosh WI 54901
BPA(at)tds.net
FAX (920) 886-3575
So, send all money to Brodhead. For all else, get in touch with us in
Oshkosh.
A staff of regular contributing writers is being assembled to provide
quality articles and photos. At the same time, BPANews welcomes subscriber
submissions. There is a wealth of talent to be shared among the Piet
group.
We look forward to having BPANews be a vital touchstone in continuing the
long history of the friendly community that is Pietenpol people. We
appreciate what the good folks at Brodhead (EAA Chapter 421 and others)
have done to make their airport hallowed ground and will be cooperating
with them in every way.
Doc Mosher
--
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Island hopping
[snip]
>
> I say if you have the coconuts to fly 60-70 miles over shark infested
> waters in a Piet then go for it.....but the nice farmlands of
> the midwest have my heart wrapped up. Would be very cool to make a
> trip
> to those islands once......with sedation....and then
> talk about it over beer for the next 20 years tho !
>
> Mike C.
>
Those long, over-farmland, jaunts scare me; those farmers have guns and
don't take kindly to some bozo in a homemade faux antique ripping wheel
tracks through their expensive sorghum fields or drying up the dairy cows
with a low flying "ta-pocketa, ta-pocketa".
Sharks, on the other hand, enjoy feeling those vibrations of upcoming lunch
rippling the water.
BTW, US-registered home-builts have been legally flying outside the US since
there was such a registration.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Dave,
If you made your crossing in ground effect you could tow a fish line and
maybe snag a marlin (or shark).
Gene
In hot (better today) Tennessee
----- Original Message -----
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
> Yep. The Bahama's will accept experimental aircraft.
> The "RV" boys do it all the time down here.
>
> Maybe a "hop" down to Key West...you know, just for practice, to start
> with. Those islands are only a mile or two apart.
>
> That would be a good goal to aspire to..."Marguritaville in May"!
>
> Guess I better get back to work...I need to run up to Home Depot for my
> wing spars.
>
> Dave...(Nibblin' on Spongecake) Down in Florida
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:23 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
>
>>
>>
>> It would bring into question one other thing though. Is an experimental
>> US airworthiness certificate valid outside the US? The answer may depend
>> on where outside the US. I know you most likely need a rider on your
>> insurance policy to make that happen. I almost did that trip once and
>> now regret not getting the chance.
>>
>> D.Reid wrote:
>>> Hey!!!....it's doable!!!
>>> 60 miles from Palm Beach to Bimini....or 69 miles to Freeport, Grand
>>> Bahama Island. From there you could "Hop" your way down the island Chain
>>> to Providence (Nassau) Island and even further on down South...all the
>>> way down to Grand Turk Islands.
>>> Would you trust your engine for 60-70 miles? Only 1 hour or so...
>>> depending on the wind. Hmmmm...Only problem is...if it quits...you're in
>>> the ditch.
>>> Scarey, huh???...but think of the possibilities!
>>> I can already smell that Jerk chicken on the grill...and Bob Marley on
>>> the juke box!
>>> Dave...(Hey 'Mon...you flew over in THAT)???...Down in Florida.
>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>> *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Date: Aug 22, 2006
There ya go! Maybe put a new "Twist" to Hemmingway's Old Man and the
Sea"...as long as I dont wind up being the Old man IN the sea!
I know....I know...everyone must think I'm crazy...but look at it this way.
With today's technology, Radio, transponders, GPS and radar...it's not as
"Far fetched" an idea as it once was!
Why if something happened...the Peit would float for a long time. I would be
in the raft in nothing flat and I'll bet my feet wouldnt even get wet before
a Coast Guard Helo would be hoisting me aboard! But then...I'd probably be
spending the rest of my life paying off the rescue bill. I dont think they
save your life for free anymore.
Dave (contemplating) Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 12:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
>
> Dave,
> If you made your crossing in ground effect you could tow a fish line and
> maybe snag a marlin (or shark).
> Gene
> In hot (better today) Tennessee
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:53 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
>
>>
>> Yep. The Bahama's will accept experimental aircraft.
>> The "RV" boys do it all the time down here.
>>
>> Maybe a "hop" down to Key West...you know, just for practice, to start
>> with. Those islands are only a mile or two apart.
>>
>> That would be a good goal to aspire to..."Marguritaville in May"!
>>
>> Guess I better get back to work...I need to run up to Home Depot for my
>> wing spars.
>>
>> Dave...(Nibblin' on Spongecake) Down in Florida
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
>> To:
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:23 AM
>> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet
>> Style!!!
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It would bring into question one other thing though. Is an experimental
>>> US airworthiness certificate valid outside the US? The answer may
>>> depend on where outside the US. I know you most likely need a rider on
>>> your insurance policy to make that happen. I almost did that trip once
>>> and now regret not getting the chance.
>>>
>>> D.Reid wrote:
>>>> Hey!!!....it's doable!!!
>>>> 60 miles from Palm Beach to Bimini....or 69 miles to Freeport, Grand
>>>> Bahama Island. From there you could "Hop" your way down the island
>>>> Chain to Providence (Nassau) Island and even further on down
>>>> South...all the way down to Grand Turk Islands.
>>>> Would you trust your engine for 60-70 miles? Only 1 hour or so...
>>>> depending on the wind. Hmmmm...Only problem is...if it quits...you're
>>>> in the ditch.
>>>> Scarey, huh???...but think of the possibilities!
>>>> I can already smell that Jerk chicken on the grill...and Bob Marley on
>>>> the juke box!
>>>> Dave...(Hey 'Mon...you flew over in THAT)???...Down in Florida.
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the caption
about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to get
out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
took this photo with didn't even get wet.
Happy sailing !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Model A Travails
I had to replace the 5:1 cast iron head Howard
Henderson put on my plane with a 5.5:1 from Snyders.
It is actually a Model B head. This old gal might be
close to needing a valve job as I have some leakage
past the exhaust valves. This engine has about 130
hours on it since Grant MaClaren built it. The head I
removed had a crack in #3, and I was getting
"compression" introduced into the cooling system, and
then out the overflow tube and ending up on my
googles.
I wonder what other Model A flyers do about oil
pressure guages. The one on N444MH is electic, and
small, but with a large analog scale, like up to 60#.
Because the Model is not really a closed, pressurized
system, the original guages are only 10#. The guage on
my plane barely shows movement off the peg.
Anyway, flew her for an hour Saturday over
Springfield, MO and she ran great, although her
sputtering on takeoff (past the point of no return, I
might add) DOES give me pause. Once up and warm, she
ran great.
Do any of you Model A flyers concern yourself with all
those fumes travelling past in the slipstream?
Also, One last question, I seem to be unable to
"reply" to any messages on this or the Busnuts forum I
participate in on Yahoo? Clicking on the "reply"
button gets me nowhere. 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: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Ohhhhhhhh...Noooooooo. He should have been more careful of where he was
stepping when he walked to shore! I see he put his foot right through the
wing!
Some people just dont think!
Dave (Hoping this isn't an Omen)... Down in Florida. (hmmmm..."Down in
Florida" isnt sounding too good anymore either. But, I guess it's better
than being Down OFF Florida)!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
> Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the caption
> about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
> the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to get
> out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
> took this photo with didn't even get wet.
>
> Happy sailing !
>
> Mike C.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 22, 2006
From: "bike.mike" <bike.mike(at)charter.net>
Subject: Re: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
Contemplative Dave, et al:
As Mike Cuy's photo points out, there are, in all seriousness, a few other
things to think about in long over-water flight besides sharks and a radio.
Your biggest fear, by far, is drowning.
Ditching a light fixed-gear airplane like a Piet can often result in a
noseover in the water, putting pilot and passenger UNDER the fuselage,
upside down. This can especially happen in rough water when the gear is
grabbed by a wave while the plane is still at flying speed. The situation
is perfectly survivable, but you have to be in a mindset that prepares you
for getting out from underneath it while you still have breath.
The Navy requires every over-water aircrew member to pass through the
"Dilbert Dunker" that simulates a nose-over inversion under water. The
biggest problem with the Dunker is disorientation when its victims are
running on adrenaline. Some guys get out of the cockpit fine then swim down
to the bottom of the very deep pool, having to be pulled out by the safety
divers.
A Piet floats like a foam cup initially, but isn't designed to survive ocean
conditions. After your passenger has punched the wing fabric full of holes
flailing out of the front seat, you're going to get wet trying to get your
survival gear out of the cockpit.
Mike Hardaway
----- Original Message -----
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Island Hopping in the Bahamas...Piet Style!!!
>
> There ya go! Maybe put a new "Twist" to Hemmingway's Old Man and the
> Sea"...as long as I dont wind up being the Old man IN the sea!
>
> I know....I know...everyone must think I'm crazy...but look at it this
> way. With today's technology, Radio, transponders, GPS and radar...it's
> not as "Far fetched" an idea as it once was!
>
> Why if something happened...the Peit would float for a long time. I would
> be in the raft in nothing flat and I'll bet my feet wouldnt even get wet
> before a Coast Guard Helo would be hoisting me aboard! But then...I'd
> probably be spending the rest of my life paying off the rescue bill. I
> dont think they save your life for free anymore.
>
> Dave (contemplating) Down in Florida
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "DOUGLAS BLACKBURN" <twinboom(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Hey Mike,
I am still alive here in Yucaipa. You should include the link to the
story that fits the picture. I came across it a few years back when I
was trying to decide to build a ultra-light, or a full size Piet.
Doug/Elizabeth Blackburn
Yucaipa California
ISR Rocks www.inlandsloperebels.com<http://www.inlandsloperebels.com/>
W.W. conversion manual, #3202,#5782
www.flycorvair.com<http://www.flycorvair.com/>
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael D Cuy<mailto:Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 11:07 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the
caption
about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to
get
out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
took this photo with didn't even get wet.
Happy sailing !
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Parallel struts and Gene's question
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 22, 2006
Gene,
I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so much about
whether or not the struts are parallel but about where to attach the back of the
front seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of different Piets will tell you
if the builder left everything as located on the plans or if he moved the ash
piece back. If the ash piece is moved back to the center of the cluster the
plywood back of the front seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece.
If the ash piece is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to the
back side of it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good glue
joint. With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,
the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the ash cross
piece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is important because
the seat back is a stuctural member offering cross sectional strength as
well as floor stiffness.
We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the imagination,
but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman taking measurements and
drawing the parts and pieces, after Mr. Pietenpol made them, so that others
could understand them, it's really amazing they are as complete and as accurate
as they are! If you question anything on the plans and are thinking about
changing it, make sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just about
every time you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!
Don E.
NX899DE
Down with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56518#56518
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Be careful with old J3 lift struts. Original struts were open to the atmosphere.
Moisture condensed inside, ran down the tube, and collected in the bottom, causing
them to rot out from the inside out. There's been AD out on these for a
good number of years now. I don't remember all the details, but the AD requires
an expensive inspection and rolling them with hot oil on a relatively frequent
basis. A good lot of the Cub people have replaced theirs with sealed struts
(from Univair, normally), which eliminates the removal & inspection requirement
of the AD. I had the ones in my Cub replaced maybe 5 years ago.
Consequent to all this, there is a glut of old, possibly unsafe J3 lift struts
on the market. A lot of folks are trying to take some of the sting out of having
to spring $400 each times four for the new ones by selling the old ones. If
your intentions are to shorten them, you'll have to open them up anyway, and
if the upper part is clean and you can re-fabricate the lower part, then you can
put a nice set of struts together for a steal. But if you need them full-length,
buyer beware.
Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet requires,
and by how much?
Jim Ash
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
requires, and by how much?
Jim Ash
I cut off about two feet when I made mine.
Max Davis
Arlington TX
NX101XW (Reserved)
_Photo Display_
(http://mykitplane.com/Planes/photoDisplay.cfm?PhotoName=Davis%20Piet%20071304%20W%20and%20Bal%20004.jpg&PhotoID=2587)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Checked a J3 Cub on the field, lift struts are 123 inches long.
My GN-1 lift struts are 84 inches long.
Skip
>
> Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
requires, and by how much?
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: struts
J-3 struts are longer than req'd by our Pietenpols--not sure by how much,
but enough to cut off the bottom foot or so I believe--maybe more.
and use them.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Cool!
Then we're in. I think my old struts are still in the mailing tube dumped out behind
the hangar belonging to the guy who put the new ones in for me. If they're
only 84", then I could hack them up the next time I'm in Florida to get them
under the 8' regular shipping limit and send them home.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Cinda Gadd <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Aug 23, 2006 10:01 AM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebay
>
>
>Checked a J3 Cub on the field, lift struts are 123 inches long.
>
>My GN-1 lift struts are 84 inches long.
>
>Skip
>
>
>>
>> Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
>requires, and by how much?
>>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Any way you measure it, it's cheaper and wiser to weld up your own struts.
Reasons: Struts are such a critical part of the plane, used struts have
rust inside them (always do, always will, just a matter of how much), many
AD's have been issued on Piper struts over the last 40 years requiring
fabric-type punch testing of the lower ends of struts and/or Xray analysis,
each homebuilt is ever so slightly different therefore you custom size your
struts to your airplane. They are not difficult to weld up or have welded.
4130 streamline tube is kinda expensive, round tube 4130 is cheap and
considering the low and slow nature of the Piete design, this an option.
You can always put steamline fairing around the round tube. Newly
constructed custom sized struts will last your lifetime and you won't have
to worry about one more thing on your homebuilt.
Gordon Bowen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebay
>
> Checked a J3 Cub on the field, lift struts are 123 inches long.
>
> My GN-1 lift struts are 84 inches long.
>
> Skip
>
>
>>
>> Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
> requires, and by how much?
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Doug from CA !
AHA------ that's right, that was you that sent me that photo. I have long
since lost the link but maybe it is still out there.
Good idea.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Jim Markle" <jim_markle(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: High strength (non rusting) lift struts
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Or 6061-T6 struts from Carlson (http://www.sky-tek.com/struts.html)
Jim Markle
Pryor, OK
214.505.6101
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:46 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebay
>
>
> Any way you measure it, it's cheaper and wiser to weld up your own struts.
> Reasons: Struts are such a critical part of the plane, used struts have
> rust inside them (always do, always will, just a matter of how much), many
> AD's have been issued on Piper struts over the last 40 years requiring
> fabric-type punch testing of the lower ends of struts and/or Xray
> analysis, each homebuilt is ever so slightly different therefore you
> custom size your struts to your airplane. They are not difficult to weld
> up or have welded. 4130 streamline tube is kinda expensive, round tube
> 4130 is cheap and considering the low and slow nature of the Piete design,
> this an option. You can always put steamline fairing around the round
> tube. Newly constructed custom sized struts will last your lifetime and
> you won't have to worry about one more thing on your homebuilt.
> Gordon Bowen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:01 AM
> Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebay
>
>
>>
>> Checked a J3 Cub on the field, lift struts are 123 inches long.
>>
>> My GN-1 lift struts are 84 inches long.
>>
>> Skip
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
>> requires, and by how much?
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 23, 2006
All of this is well and good, and I already know these things. My
question remains, will someone PLEASE just tell me if their struts are
parallel and whether they were conscious of that fact during
construction.
So far, unless someone can tell me otherwise, it looks like no one has
even considered the question or noticed whether the struts were parallel
or not while building their airplanes.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch<mailto:EmchAir(at)aol.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
>
Gene,
I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so
much about whether or not the struts are parallel but about where to
attach the back of the front seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of
different Piets will tell you if the builder left everything as located
on the plans or if he moved the ash piece back. If the ash piece is
moved back to the center of the cluster the plywood back of the front
seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece. If the ash piece
is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to the back side of
it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good glue joint.
With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,
the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the
ash cross piece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is
important because the seat back is a stuctural member offering cross
sectional strength as well as floor stiffness.
We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the
imagination, but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman
taking measurements and drawing the parts and pieces, after Mr.
Pietenpol made them, so that others could understand them, it's really
amazing they are as complete and as accurate as they are! If you
question anything on the plans and are thinking about changing it, make
sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just about every time
you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!
Don E.
NX899DE
Down with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56518#56518
atronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56518#56518>
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
I said I'd measure when I got up there. Best I can do. Don't go there
every day.
Conscious of the fact when building,,,no. Just built to plans
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
All of this is well and good, and I already know these things. My
question remains, will someone PLEASE just tell me if their struts are
parallel and whether they were conscious of that fact during
construction.
So far, unless someone can tell me otherwise, it looks like no one has
even considered the question or noticed whether the struts were parallel
or not while building their airplanes.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so
much about whether or not the struts are parallel but about where to
attach the back of the front seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of
different Piets will tell you if the builder left everything as located
on the plans or if he moved the ash piece back. If the ash piece is
moved back to the center of the cluster the plywood back of the front
seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece. If the ash piece
is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to the back side of
it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good glue joint.
With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,
the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the
ash cross piece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is
important because the seat back is a stuctural member offering cross
sectional strength as well as floor stiffness.
We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the
imagination, but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman
taking measurements and drawing the parts and pieces, after Mr.
Pietenpol made them, so that others could understand them, it's really
amazing they are as complete and as accurate as they are! If you
question anything on the plans and are thinking about changing it, make
sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just about every time
you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!
Don E.
NX899DE
Down with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!
Read this topic online here:
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Doug from CA !
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Here you go:
http://questiongravity.com/piet/index.htm
Bill C.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Michael
D Cuy
Sent: August 23, 2006 1:01 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Doug from CA !
-->
AHA------ that's right, that was you that sent me that photo. I have
long
since lost the link but maybe it is still out there.
Good idea.
Mike
________________________________________________________________________________
From: slowbilder(at)comcast.net
Subject: First Taxi Test
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Today I successfully completed the first taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH. It has
been a long haul to get to this point. I bought the plans from Bernie Pietenpol
in August of 1969, just after I got home from the EAA Convention at Rockford.
There is some wood in the plane that I cut that month. Various moves, job
responsibilities, divorce, travel, etc. have caused starts and stops in the
project over the years, but I am finally ready to call for inspection for an Airworthyness
Certificate. I picked the screen name slowbilder (misspelling intentional)
for this listserve as appropriately reflecting the 37 years it has
taken to get to this point.
The plane is built from the 1933 plans. The tailwheel installation is my own design.
I did not move the wing back, but extended the engine mount. The CG came
out within the envelope. With the stock landing gear it is of course very
light on the tailwheel. I am using a Continental C-75-12 for power. It has
the generator and starter. The battery is mounted on the front of the firewall.
The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the internet (Maybe
even before the internet existed.) and I rarely had contact with other Piet builders,
so I spent lots of nights working out the answers to questions that we
can get on-line now in a short time. It is rewarding to see that most of the
solutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I came up with. I appreciate
the answers to my questions I have received from you folks out there.
Ill keep you posted as I pass further milestones.
Bob Humbert
Battle Creek, Michigan
N491RH
Today I successfully completed the
first taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH.
It has been a long haul to get to this point. I bought the plans from Bernie Pietenpol in August of 1969,
just after I got home from the EAA Convention at Rockford
The plane is built from the 1933
plans. The tailwheel installation
is my own design. I did not move
the wing back, but extended the engine mount.
The CG came out within the envelope. With the stock landing gear it is of course very light on the
tailwheel. I am using a Continental
C-75-12 for power. It has the
generator and starter. The battery
is mounted on the front of the firewall.
The airframe was completed before
we had routine access to the internet (Maybe even before the internet existed.)
and I rarely had contact with other Piet builders, so I spent lots of nights
working out the answers to questions that we can get on-line now in a short
time. It is rewarding to see that
most of the solutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I came up
with. I appreciate the answers to my questions I have received
from you folks out there.
Ill keep you posted as I pass further
milestones.
Bob Humbert
Battle
Creek, Michigan
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Gene,
If the plans have a different distance at the bottom of the struts than at the
top, then they would not be parallel. I followed the plans very closely in this
area. My struts must not be parallel then. However, when I set up the wing,
to ensure my wing was where I wanted it to be, I built a fixture to hold the
wing above the fuselage and made the struts to length.
Don E.
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=56768#56768
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Subject: Re: First Taxi Test
Way to go Bob! I'm into year one of my Mustang II thinking I'm on the same
schedule as you were! Nice to know there is light at the end of the tunnel!!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 23, 2006
During the construction of NX18235 it was neither noticed, nor
considered, whether or not the lift struts were parallel. As of today I
still don't know if they are parallel.
It flies just fine........
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Rambo
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
All of this is well and good, and I already know these things. My
question remains, will someone PLEASE just tell me if their struts are
parallel and whether they were conscious of that fact during
construction.
So far, unless someone can tell me otherwise, it looks like no one has
even considered the question or noticed whether the struts were parallel
or not while building their airplanes.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so
much about whether or not the struts are parallel but about where to
attach the back of the front seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of
different Piets will tell you if the builder left everything as located
on the plans or if he moved the ash piece back. If the ash piece is
moved back to the center of the cluster the plywood back of the front
seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece. If the ash piece
is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to the back side of
it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good glue joint.
With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,
the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the
ash cross piece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is
important because the seat back is a stuctural member offering cross
sectional strength as well as floor stiffness.
We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the
imagination, but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman
taking measurements and drawing the parts and pieces, after Mr.
Pietenpol made them, so that others could understand them, it's really
amazing they are as complete and as accurate as they are! If you
question anything on the plans and are thinking about changing it, make
sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just about every time
you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!
Don E.
NX899DE
Down with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!
Read this topic online here:
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Subject: Continental Engine
Looking for a Continental Engine 65,75,85 or 90. Preferably a runout to be
rebuilt but will consider what's available. Have time to wait awhile but will
buy when opportunity presents itself. Will pickup with CASH.
Nathan Moss
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: First Taxi Test
Congratulations!
Good luck on the first flight.
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: John Egan <johnegan99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
This summer at the Brodhead Piet fly-in, I measured a variety of completed Piet
wing strut attachment distances. I have found that of all the strut distances
that I measured, every Piet had non parallel struts (I did not measure all
the Piets). As I recall, the lower dimension was typically shorter than the
top from about 1/2" to 1". I also noticed that I could not identify the out of
parallel by eye. My only drive to measure the attachment distances was to see
if the out of parallelness of my project (not complete yet) would be detected
by the eye and look poorly.
My apologies to the group for not being able to join the discussion sooner, as
I was having trouble sending e-mail these past three days or so. My son fixed
me up this evening.
I would also like to thank those who offered advice on bending flat steel. I
ended up buying a $26 bench top break from Harbor Freight which worked great
for my needs.
Thank you,
john
Gene Rambo wrote:
All of this is well and good, and I already know these things. My
question remains, will someone PLEASE just tell me if their struts are parallel
and whether they were conscious of that fact during construction.
So far, unless someone can tell me otherwise, it looks like no one has even considered
the question or noticed whether the struts were parallel or not while
building their airplanes.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Emch
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
I think BHP's idea for the landing gear/strut attach point isn't so much about
whether or not the struts are parallel but about where to attach the back of the
front seat. A quick look inside the cockpit of different Piets will tell you
if the builder left everything as located on the plans or if he moved the ash
piece back. If the ash piece is moved back to the center of the cluster the
plywood back of the front seat will come down and sit on top of the ash piece.
If the ash piece is left 'as is' in the plans the seat back will glue to the
back side of it. I went so far as to bevel that back edge to get a good glue
joint. With this setup the seat back is now attached to the top cross member,
the front edges of the fuselage side uprights and the back edge of the ash cross
piece. (got all that!?) All very good joints. I feel this is important because
the seat back is a stuctural member offering cross sectional strength as
well as floor stiffness.
We all know there are some areas of the plans that are left to the imagination,
but when you think about a 16/17 year old Orrin Hoopman taking measurements and
drawing the parts and pieces, after Mr. Pietenpol made them, so that others
could understand them, it's really amazing they are as complete and as accurate
as they are! If you question anything on the plans and are thinking about
changing it, make sure you really consider why he did it that way. Just about
every time you'll figure out and realize he was an exceptional 'eyeball engineer'!
Don E.
NX899DE
Down with a sick magneto, hope to be flying again by the weekend!
Read this topic online here:
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: John Egan <johnegan99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: First Taxi Test
Yes, congratulations! A brand new airplane. What color?
slowbilder(at)comcast.net wrote: Today I successfully completed the first taxi
test of Pietenpol N491RH. It has been a long haul to get to this point. I
bought the plans from Bernie Pietenpol in August of 1969, just after I got home
from the EAA Convention at Rockford. There is some wood in the plane that I
cut that month. Various moves, job responsibilities, divorce, travel, etc. have
caused starts and stops in the project over the years, but I am finally ready
to call for inspection for an Airworthyness Certificate. I picked the screen
name slowbilder (misspelling intentional) for this listserve as ap propriately
reflecting the 37 years it has taken to get to this point.
The plane is built from the 1933 plans. The tailwheel installation is my own
design. I did not move the wing back, but extended the engine mount. The CG
came out within the envelope. With the stock landing gear it is of course very
light on the tailwheel. I am using a Continental C-75-12 for power. It has
the generator and starter. The battery is mounted on the front of the firewall.
The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the internet (Maybe
even before the internet existed.) and I rarely had contact with other Piet
builders, so I spent lots of nights working out the answers to questions that
we can get on-line now in a short time. It is rewarding to see that most of the
solutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I came up with. I appreciate
the answers to my questions I have received from you folks out there.
Ill keep you posted as I pass further milestones.
Bob Humbert
Battle Creek, Michigan
N491RH
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dennis Engelkenjohn" <wingding(at)usmo.com>
Subject: Re: J3 lift struts on ebay
Date: Aug 23, 2006
They are longer and by over a foot. I bought 4 at Oshkosh a couple yrs back
for $25 ea. They are not open on the ends though, but sealed both ends.
Still I want to inspect them, hopefully through the fork hole in the bottom
and if they are bad then cut off the bottom where they had the problems and
if all right them cut off the top end.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Ash" <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: J3 lift struts on ebay
>
> Be careful with old J3 lift struts. Original struts were open to the
atmosphere. Moisture condensed inside, ran down the tube, and collected in
the bottom, causing them to rot out from the inside out. There's been AD out
on these for a good number of years now. I don't remember all the details,
but the AD requires an expensive inspection and rolling them with hot oil on
a relatively frequent basis. A good lot of the Cub people have replaced
theirs with sealed struts (from Univair, normally), which eliminates the
removal & inspection requirement of the AD. I had the ones in my Cub
replaced maybe 5 years ago.
>
> Consequent to all this, there is a glut of old, possibly unsafe J3 lift
struts on the market. A lot of folks are trying to take some of the sting
out of having to spring $400 each times four for the new ones by selling the
old ones. If your intentions are to shorten them, you'll have to open them
up anyway, and if the upper part is clean and you can re-fabricate the lower
part, then you can put a nice set of struts together for a steal. But if you
need them full-length, buyer beware.
>
> Can somebody here tell us if the J-3 struts are longer than the Piet
requires, and by how much?
>
> Jim Ash
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
Date: Aug 23, 2006
I hope everyone understands I was just being faucisious in my statement.
This is truely a very unfortunte event. I'm just glad the pilot is alright
and can live to do it again!...but next time...keep an extrat 12"
altitude....for good measure.
Dave... (still looking to the East) (seriously) Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:49 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
>
> Ohhhhhhhh...Noooooooo. He should have been more careful of where he was
> stepping when he walked to shore! I see he put his foot right through the
> wing!
>
> Some people just dont think!
>
> Dave (Hoping this isn't an Omen)... Down in Florida. (hmmmm..."Down in
> Florida" isnt sounding too good anymore either. But, I guess it's better
> than being Down OFF Florida)!
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael D Cuy" <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
> To:
> Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:07 PM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
>
>
>> Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the
>> caption
>> about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
>> the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to
>> get
>> out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
>> took this photo with didn't even get wet.
>>
>> Happy sailing !
>>
>> Mike C.
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Just a question....
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Anyone having trouble posting to the list? My past few attempts have
been rejected for some unknown reason.
Dave
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "D.Reid" <dreidjax(at)alltel.net>
Subject: Re: First Taxi Test
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Congrats Bob,
Be careful with that light tail wheel! Just how light was it when
weighed?
Dave...Down in Florida
----- Original Message -----
From: slowbilder(at)comcast.net
To: Piet Group
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Taxi Test
Today I successfully completed the first taxi test of Pietenpol
N491RH. It has been a long haul to get to this point. I bought the
plans from Bernie Pietenpol in August of 1969, just after I got home
from the EAA Convention at Rockford. There is some wood in the plane
that I cut that month. Various moves, job responsibilities, divorce,
travel, etc. have caused starts and stops in the project over the years,
but I am finally ready to call for inspection for an Airworthyness
Certificate. I picked the screen name "slowbilder" (misspelling
intentional) for this listserve as ap propriately reflecting the 37
years it has taken to get to this point.
The plane is built from the 1933 plans. The tailwheel installation is
my own design. I did not move the wing back, but extended the engine
mount. The CG came out within the envelope. With the stock landing
gear it is of course very light on the tailwheel. I am using a
Continental C-75-12 for power. It has the generator and starter. The
battery is mounted on the front of the firewall.
The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the
internet (Maybe even before the internet existed.) and I rarely had
contact with other Piet builders, so I spent lots of nights working out
the answers to questions that we can get on-line now in a short time.
It is rewarding to see that most of the solutions I am seeing in this
forum are the same that I came up with. I appreciate the answers to my
questions I have received from you folks out there.
I'll keep you posted as I pass further milestones.
Bob Humbert
Battle Creek, Michigan
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 23, 2006
From: Larry Nelson <lnelson208(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: yahoo group problems
Someone else just asked if anyone was having problems
posting.
I cannot reply to any message on either of the two
Yahoo groups I subscribe to.
At the bottom of each page it says "error on page" but
I think that is maybe something not "Yahoo related".
Any advice?
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: "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: First Taxi Test
Date: Aug 23, 2006
Congratulations Bob,
I just taxied for the first time the GN-1 I bought and only had to reinstall the
wings and rigging and it was way cool. I can only imagine it will be a whole
other level when I taxi the Piet I'm building.
Any chance of a picture?
Skip
Today I successfully completed the first taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH.
Bob Humbert
Battle Creek, Michigan
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene,
I know you are waiting for your answer, but there is not much you can do if
you already have your fuselage made. You must locate the strut attach fittings
at the strongest point, and that is going to be where the ash pieces are. The
stress of the up- lift on the wings needs to be transmitted across the bottom
of the fuselage from side to side, through those ash pieces (and don't forget
the steel strap that is shown on the gear drawing in the F & G manual). As I
stated before, I was faced with this same thing. I will be making all four of
my struts individually adjustable for length, so it will not matter whether
my struts are parallel when I need to adjust the wing fore and aft. I hope
someone can finally answer you that has a completed airplane.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2006
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Subject: builders
I'll be in the Houston area next week, any builders or owners there that wouldn't
minding sharing an after hours look and build info. Please advise, looking
forward to seeing flying piets and ones under construction!
John
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2006
From: amsafetyc(at)aol.com
Subject: Hammond Indiana
Same message, Ill be outside Chicago in Hammond Indiana the following week, any
flying piets or projects underway in that area? Would love to stop by for some
pics, discussion and I'll bring the beverage!
John
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Aug 24, 2006
Subject: Re: Just a question....
I replied to a question about bending steel, and my reply never showed
up on my screen. It may have gotten on the list, but not on the senders
(me ) screen. This happened to a bunch of us a year or so ago. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Just a question....
Date: Aug 24, 2006
Hi Leon,
The same thing happens to me from both computers (same email address) I use
to access the list. My posts always wind up in suspect spam. This happens
no matter how many times I tell the spam blocker csfog is a legit address.
It happens when I reply or start a new line.
Skip
>
> I replied to a question about bending steel, and my reply never showed
> up on my screen. It may have gotten on the list, but not on the senders
> (me ) screen. This happened to a bunch of us a year or so ago. Leon S.
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: slowbilder(at)comcast.net
Subject: Taxi Test Photo
Date: Aug 24, 2006
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 24, 2006
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: First Taxi Test
>
>
> The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the internet
> (Maybe even before the internet existed.) and I rarely had contact with
> other Piet builders, so I spent lots of nights working out the answers to
> questions that we can get on-line now in a short time. It is rewarding to
> see that most of the solutions I am seeing in this forum are the same that I
> came up with. I appreciate the answers to my questions I have received from
> you folks out there.
>
Before access to the Internet? Ha! When you first bought your plans in 69 I
had just started going to college with a slide rule on my belt because they
hadn't even invented the calculator yet. It was still around 20 years before
the Internet would be invented so we could communicate like this. Still am
amazed at the people who built airplanes from plans without the Internet
(like you did Bob for a good deal of your project).
Anyhow congratulations and good luck on that first flight.
Rick H.
*
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: Continental Engine
Date: Aug 25, 2006
Nathan,
Go to barnstormers.com and look under engines and then continental.
A number of them for sale there.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Isablcorky(at)aol.com
To: Cub-list(at)matronics.com ; pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:27 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Continental Engine
Looking for a Continental Engine 65,75,85 or 90. Preferably a runout
to be rebuilt but will consider what's available. Have time to wait
awhile but will buy when opportunity presents itself. Will pickup with
CASH.
Nathan Moss
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: First Taxi Test
Date: Aug 25, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Congratulations;next step is short hops;that's the stage I'm in at this
time.Good luck!
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
slowbilder(at)comcast.net
Sent: August 23, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: First Taxi Test
Today I successfully completed the first taxi test of Pietenpol N491RH.
It has been a long haul to get to this point. I bought the plans from
Bernie Pietenpol in August of 1969, just after I got home from the EAA
Convention at Rockford. There is some wood in the plane that I cut that
month. Various moves, job responsibilities, divorce, travel, etc. have
caused starts and stops in the project over the years, but I am finally
ready to call for inspection for an Airworthyness Certificate. I picked
the screen name "slowbilder" (misspelling intentional) for this
listserve as ap propriately reflecting the 37 years it has taken to get
to this point.
The plane is built from the 1933 plans. The tailwheel installation is
my own design. I did not move the wing back, but extended the engine
mount. The CG came out within the envelope. With the stock landing
gear it is of course very light on the tailwheel. I am using a
Continental C-75-12 for power. It has the generator and starter. The
battery is mounted on the front of the firewall.
The airframe was completed before we had routine access to the internet
(Maybe even before the internet existed.) and I rarely had contact with
other Piet builders, so I spent lots of nights working out the answers
to questions that we can get on-line now in a short time. It is
rewarding to see that most of the solutions I am seeing in this forum
are the same that I came up with. I appreciate the answers to my
questions I have received from you folks out there.
I'll keep you posted as I pass further milestones.
Bob Humbert
Battle Creek, Michigan
N491RH
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2006
From: Michael Fisher <mfisher(at)gci.net>
Subject: Propellers, Jibarus, Corvairs
Pietenpol list group,
This is a copy of a note I just sent to some EAA friends.
Here is some stuff you probably already knew. I ran across it on William Wynn's
Corvair engine site. Sounds like the Xair will eventually work okay for you
and your partner. The rib deformation and a few other things concern me. Prop
disc loading is a big factor, especially in slow airplanes with direct drive
engines. A large, slow turning airscrew is efficient at low speeds. This is
hard to do with small displacement, fast turning, direct drive powerplants.
A Prop that the Jibaru turned 2800 RPM static might perform better than one that
turned 3000. In some cases, a slight decay of RPM as the airplane accelerates
from a stop is a good indication. It means that the prop is grabbing more
air as the flow over the outer blade sections improves. You might notice this
effect in your Cub or Flybaby if you watch for it. A 15 RPM drop is hard
to detect, and the absense of it is not neccesarily a bad thing. I believe we
could get more useable thrust if we put as much tho
ught into our airscrews as we do with our engines. The Wright brothers understood
this very well.
Good on ya,
Mike
From William Wynn's Corvair Site
On the subject of Jabiru engines, most people are stunned to learn that there has
ever been a broken crankshaft. One of the people I told this to accused me
of making up the story for business purposes. I don't tolerate allegations like
that well. Especially because the person who told me that a crank has broken
in a Jabiru engine from excessive prop loads (not recommended by Jabiru) was
Pete Krotie. Pete told me this when Grace Ellen and I walked over to his booth
at Oshkosh this year. Perhaps the guy who didn't believe it might consider what
Pete does for a job: He is, of course, the CEO of Jabiru USA. Before anybody
jumps off on a tangent, I think the Jabiru 3,300 is an excellent engine. And
although it's expensive, it's a very fine and high quality product represented
by good people. We have friends who own them who have flown hundreds of hours
and think they're good powerplants. My point is merely that the Corvair, VW
and the Jabiru are restricted to light weight props,
and no extensions because the common thread in all three designs is that they
do not have an extended, long bearing in the front of the engine common to Lycomings
and Continentals. Many Lycomings and Continentals can handle metal props
and fly aerobatic routines. Pete showed us that the maximum allowable prop hub
length for a Jabiru is virtually the same difference from the last bearing
on the crankshaft on the 3,300 as is our prop hub face from the last bearing on
a Corvair crankshaft. Pete additionally told us that Warp Drive props were acceptable,
but only in diameters up to 60". Considering the amount of time that
I have on 66" and 68" two-blade Warp Drives on Corvair engines, you could conlcude
that the Corvair's crankshaft is at least as strong as the Jabiru's.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2006
From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
To bad he didn't practice first. :-)
Wheel landing on water is a bush flying technique. When there isn't
enough sandbar to land on, ski up to it. Time it so that you're slowed
almost to the point of sinking when you reach it and roll up the bar to
a stop.
Reverse the procedure to take off.
The skiing trick is to use the brakes as a stopped wheel skis much
better than a rolling one. Just remember to release same on arrival at
the sandbar. :-)
The first time I saw this I was in one of my rowboats off the gov. warf
at the end of third st. I was probably 9 or 10 at the time. This yellow
and blue plane coasted down, skied across the bay past me and
climbed away. Nine years later I soloed in that same plane, CF-DQA.
Check THIS out!
http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmv
> I hope everyone understands I was just being faucisious in my statement.
> This is truely a very unfortunte event. I'm just glad the pilot is alright
> and can live to do it again!...but next time...keep an extrat 12"
> altitude....for good measure.
>
> Dave... (still looking to the East) (seriously) Down in Florida
>
>>> Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the
>>> caption
>>> about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
>>> the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to
>>> get
>>> out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
>>> took this photo with didn't even get wet.
>>>
>>> Happy sailing !
>>>
>>> Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 26, 2006
Gene Rambo,
I measured the distance between the front and rear struts at the
fuselage and the distance at the outboard fittings at the wing spars.
The attachment points at the fuselage are 1 3/4" closer together than at
the outboard spar fittings and the struts are not parallel to each
other, as a result.
For the 36 years I have been flying this airplane, I assumed the struts
were parallel. So did everyone else. The wing has been moved fore and
aft a couple of times and there never was a problem in doing so.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 26, 2006
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: photo of an Ultra Piet in water-- attached
That's really cool. Looks like having a faster and heavier aircraft with a
lot of momentum would minimize the risk of ending up on your back. An
Ultra-Piet doesn't fit that description.
Rick
On 8/26/06, Clif Dawson wrote:
>
>
> To bad he didn't practice first. :-)
>
> Wheel landing on water is a bush flying technique. When there isn't
> enough sandbar to land on, ski up to it. Time it so that you're slowed
> almost to the point of sinking when you reach it and roll up the bar to
> a stop.
>
> Reverse the procedure to take off.
>
> The skiing trick is to use the brakes as a stopped wheel skis much
> better than a rolling one. Just remember to release same on arrival at
> the sandbar. :-)
>
> The first time I saw this I was in one of my rowboats off the gov. warf
> at the end of third st. I was probably 9 or 10 at the time. This yellow
> and blue plane coasted down, skied across the bay past me and
> climbed away. Nine years later I soloed in that same plane, CF-DQA.
>
> Check THIS out!
>
> http://www.flightzone.co.za/media/harvards.wmv
>
>
> > I hope everyone understands I was just being faucisious in my statement.
> > This is truely a very unfortunte event. I'm just glad the pilot is
> alright
> > and can live to do it again!...but next time...keep an extrat 12"
> > altitude....for good measure.
> >
> > Dave... (still looking to the East) (seriously) Down in Florida
> >
> >>> Guys-- I hope you enjoy this photo. I saved it after reading the
> >>> caption
> >>> about the guy flying it low over a river/lake and just touched
> >>> the wheels by accident and it flipped over near shore. He was able to
> >>> get
> >>> out, stand up in near the shore and said the camera that he
> >>> took this photo with didn't even get wet.
> >>>
> >>> Happy sailing !
> >>>
> >>> Mike C.
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 27, 2006
Thank You very much. I was just wondering if the plans were intended to
be that way, since they are parallel on the F&G plans. I have never
suggested that it would cause any trouble moving the wing.
Thanks again,
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Hansen<mailto:grhans@cable-lynx.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, August 26, 2006 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Gene Rambo,
I measured the distance between the front and rear struts at the
fuselage and the distance at the outboard fittings at the wing spars.
The attachment points at the fuselage are 1 3/4" closer together than
at the outboard spar fittings and the struts are not parallel to each
other, as a result.
For the 36 years I have been flying this airplane, I assumed the
struts were parallel. So did everyone else. The wing has been moved fore
and aft a couple of times and there never was a problem in doing so.
Cheers,
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: rolling on the water
Date: Aug 27, 2006
I have rolled the tires of airplanes on water while flying, but not in the
Piet (yet). First time, I was along for the ride in a Citabria Scout that
was being flown for some movie footage. The airplane had been painted to
look like a Border Patrol aircraft and was supposed to be patrolling the Rio
Grande river and doing some chase scenes. So we flew right down on the
deck, following the meander of the river, and the pilot put the tires down
on the river a couple of times. Felt just like pavement. I don't think the
brakes were applied.
There is a nifty little grass strip on a bend in the Rogue River in Oregon,
wild and scenic section, called Paradise Lodge. It is said that the
owner/builder of the lodge and airstrip used to skip his airplane in on the
river's surface; I think he had a Super Cub or something similar that he
flew in and out of the strip. I have not flown into the strip but rafted
the river down to the lodge (there are no roads in; you have to get in by
horse, foot, raft, or airplane) and walked the airstrip on foot. It is
supposed to be a pretty exciting approach into Paradise Lodge, with a steep
and dogleg approach. The winds in the river gorge can get real whippy
anytime after mid-morning most days.
I think there is a big difference between putting 6.00x6's (or similar) onto
the water, and putting motorcycle-style tires down onto the water.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 27, 2006
From: Jim Ash <ashcan(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: rolling on the water
I'm with you on the tires thing. The only people I've ever seen do it had pretty
fat tires, specifically tundra tires. The whole idea is to hydroplane, not penetrate
the surface of the water. Between the style of tire and the speed of
the aircraft, I don't think the Piet had much of a chance.
Jim Ash
-----Original Message-----
>From: Oscar Zuniga <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
>Sent: Aug 27, 2006 6:12 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: rolling on the water
>
>
>I have rolled the tires of airplanes on water while flying, but not in the
>Piet (yet). First time, I was along for the ride in a Citabria Scout that
>was being flown for some movie footage. The airplane had been painted to
>look like a Border Patrol aircraft and was supposed to be patrolling the Rio
>Grande river and doing some chase scenes. So we flew right down on the
>deck, following the meander of the river, and the pilot put the tires down
>on the river a couple of times. Felt just like pavement. I don't think the
>brakes were applied.
>
>There is a nifty little grass strip on a bend in the Rogue River in Oregon,
>wild and scenic section, called Paradise Lodge. It is said that the
>owner/builder of the lodge and airstrip used to skip his airplane in on the
>river's surface; I think he had a Super Cub or something similar that he
>flew in and out of the strip. I have not flown into the strip but rafted
>the river down to the lodge (there are no roads in; you have to get in by
>horse, foot, raft, or airplane) and walked the airstrip on foot. It is
>supposed to be a pretty exciting approach into Paradise Lodge, with a steep
>and dogleg approach. The winds in the river gorge can get real whippy
>anytime after mid-morning most days.
>
>I think there is a big difference between putting 6.00x6's (or similar) onto
>the water, and putting motorcycle-style tires down onto the water.
>
>Oscar Zuniga
>San Antonio, TX
>mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
>website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: electric tachs
I plan to install an electric tachometer (UMA 3-1/8", 19-806-10).
These tachs have either a P-lead that goes right to the magneto or
they have a sparkplug lead that goes to a plug.
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
One of the reasons I want to go this route is that I'm tired of the
old style cables snapping or instruments breaking. However, I'm open
to other suggestions. The engine is a C-75 and the mags are Slick.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: electric tachs
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
In my case if you shut the left mag off the tach goes to zero and if you
shut the right one off then it just drops accordingly to a lower rpm
which is what it should do.The left one may be wired wrong or that may
just be the nature of the beast.I didn't wire it so I'm not sure if it's
right but my AME didn't seem to be too concerned about it so I didn't
get all bent out of shape over it.I figure if he ain't excited and he
knows better than me then I'm just fine with that.Actually when I shut
off left mags there isn't even a noticible drop in rpm from the noise
level you can hear if there was a drop.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Jeff
Boatright
Sent: August 28, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: electric tachs
I plan to install an electric tachometer (UMA 3-1/8", 19-806-10).
These tachs have either a P-lead that goes right to the magneto or
they have a sparkplug lead that goes to a plug.
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
One of the reasons I want to go this route is that I'm tired of the
old style cables snapping or instruments breaking. However, I'm open
to other suggestions. The engine is a C-75 and the mags are Slick.
Thanks,
Jeff
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
After reading through all the recent postings regarding the dimensions
of the landing gear attach points vs the lift strut attach points (at
the spars), I dug out my copies of the plans (1933-34 improved and 1932
F&G) and looked them over.
The F&G plans DO show the lower cross pieces (1" x 3/4" spruce, not 2" x
3/4" ash) aligned with the clusters on the fuselage sides - at 28 3/4"
between centers. BUT... nowhere in the F&G plans was I able to find the
spacing for the wing spars. (How the heck does anyone manage to build a
plane solely from these plans and feel secure enough to get in it and
fly? Hats off to them.)
And if you look closely at the F&G plans (fig. 6A), the landing gear
attach points do not actually appear to align exactly with the 28 3/4"
centers on the fuselage. The rear attach point looks fine, but the
forward attach point appears to be about a half inch back of center (say
28 1/4").
Since the dimensions are much clearer (relatively speaking) on the
1933-34 improved plans, and they indicate 2" wide ash cross-pieces at 27
1/2" centers, it looks like they would be okay to use as-drawn with
either the split gear of the 33-34 plans (27 1/2") or the straight axle
gear of the 32 F&G plans (28 3/4"... or is that 28 1/4" as it appears
from fig. 6A). Being an engineer, my line of reasoning is always that
one does not change a design without a reason. And it is clear that
certain changes were made between the F&G plans and the "improved"
plans, one of which was to change the size, material and location of
these lower cross pieces. I make the assumption that there was a
reason(s) for these changes, and, based on the successful history of the
revised design, I also make the assumption that the changes were
successful.
My plan is to build my fuselage to the plans and not worry too much
whether the struts are exactly parallel or not. The amount of wash-out
(or wash-in) that the "out of parallelism" would incur is really
inconsequential. I will likely incorporate some method of allowing for
adjustment in the length of the lift struts.
Now, here's a new wrinkle to throw into the discussion:
When adding brakes to the aircraft, it has been suggested to shift the
wheels forward a couple of inches. Without really thinking about this,
the landing gear attach points will no longer line up with the clusters,
or the ash cross pieces. I assume that the attach points remain as
drawn, and the landing gear is modified to move the WHEELS forward by
2". Otherwise the lower attach points for the struts move forward, and
the upper attach points (at the wing spars) move back, for W&B
adjustment, making things even more interesting. So what did those of
you who have completed this stage do?
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu>
I adjusted the geometry of the gear legs and left the attach points as
designed.
Steve E (out of parallel and didn't even know it)
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Bill
Church
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
After reading through all the recent postings regarding the dimensions
of the landing gear attach points vs the lift strut attach points (at
the spars), I dug out my copies of the plans (1933-34 improved and 1932
F&G) and looked them over.
The F&G plans DO show the lower cross pieces (1" x 3/4" spruce, not 2" x
3/4" ash) aligned with the clusters on the fuselage sides - at 28 3/4"
between centers. BUT... nowhere in the F&G plans was I able to find the
spacing for the wing spars. (How the heck does anyone manage to build a
plane solely from these plans and feel secure enough to get in it and
fly? Hats off to them.)
And if you look closely at the F&G plans (fig. 6A), the landing gear
attach points do not actually appear to align exactly with the 28 3/4"
centers on the fuselage. The rear attach point looks fine, but the
forward attach point appears to be about a half inch back of center (say
28 1/4").
Since the dimensions are much clearer (relatively speaking) on the
1933-34 improved plans, and they indicate 2" wide ash cross-pieces at 27
1/2" centers, it looks like they would be okay to use as-drawn with
either the split gear of the 33-34 plans (27 1/2") or the straight axle
gear of the 32 F&G plans (28 3/4"... or is that 28 1/4" as it appears
from fig. 6A). Being an engineer, my line of reasoning is always that
one does not change a design without a reason. And it is clear that
certain changes were made between the F&G plans and the "improved"
plans, one of which was to change the size, material and location of
these lower cross pieces. I make the assumption that there was a
reason(s) for these changes, and, based on the successful history of the
revised design, I also make the assumption that the changes were
successful.
My plan is to build my fuselage to the plans and not worry too much
whether the struts are exactly parallel or not. The amount of wash-out
(or wash-in) that the "out of parallelism" would incur is really
inconsequential. I will likely incorporate some method of allowing for
adjustment in the length of the lift struts.
Now, here's a new wrinkle to throw into the discussion:
When adding brakes to the aircraft, it has been suggested to shift the
wheels forward a couple of inches. Without really thinking about this,
the landing gear attach points will no longer line up with the clusters,
or the ash cross pieces. I assume that the attach points remain as
drawn, and the landing gear is modified to move the WHEELS forward by
2". Otherwise the lower attach points for the struts move forward, and
the upper attach points (at the wing spars) move back, for W&B
adjustment, making things even more interesting. So what did those of
you who have completed this stage do?
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: HelsperSew(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 28, 2006
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Bill,
In reference to your final question, I did not move my wheels forward at all
because I don't think it is really necessary for a couple of reasons. In my
case I will be going with large diameter wheels (21"), and my brake design
is such that it will not have enough stopping power to worry about nose-overs.
I am going with the "drum/band/cable" type brakes that Larry Williams used
on his Aircamper and Dennis Hall used on his Skyscout. I like these because
they look "Pietish" and old fashioned. BTW my struts will be out of parallel
also.
Dan Helsper
Poplar Grove, IL.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Electric tach
Jeff (members of the list serve):
This question is in relationship to the mag output on the A-65 Continental
engine. I am very much interested in running a rear strobe and a "few" other
instruments in my Piet. Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon
start-up and running. I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running
off a mag which in turns provides a nice trickle charge back to a small motorcycle
12V battery. I am aware of the minimal drain on the battery however, I also
plan on using ring gear and starter to fire up the engine. So any information
as to the output is greatly appreciated. I was under the impression the mag
puts out a lot of charge when starting up and then maintains a 12 volt current.
Right or wrong?
KM Heide
Fargo, ND
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Graham Hansen" <grhans@cable-lynx.net>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
Bill Church,
I moved my wheels forward a couple of inches, but retained the landing
gear attachment points at the fuselage truss clusters. Somewhere I read
that one should do this when adding brakes, but that was so long ago I
cannot remember the source. My a/c has 6.00 x 6 tires/tubes and very
lightweight Shinn wheels/brakes from a Taylorcraft.This setup has been
entirely satisfactory.
As I told Gene Rambo, my lift struts are not parallel to each other and
nobody (including myself) ever noticed. I'll have to dig out the 1933
plans I used to build mine and take a look at the dimensions. I don't
recall having any difficulty with the plans when I built mine, although
I did make some small changes in several places (eg. the landing gear).
And, if I were to build another Pietenpol, I'd make some more---mainly
to save weight.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
Just let me jump in one more time in my defense . . . I never have
suggested that I was worried about appearance, or that the struts not
being parallel would have ANY effect on the wing placement, wash in,
wash out, etc. Several people on here have noted that the '33 plans do
indeed add the ash cross pieces (not in the F&G plans) and that the rear
one is forward of the old (F&G) gear rear attach point. The statement
was made that there must have been a reason for the change. I would
agree IF, IF, the location of the cluster of side braces moved along
with it. The '33 plans still show the spruce wedge filler blocks inside
that cluster which are for the purpose of bolting the fitting on,
because the bolts go through the filler blocks. If Bernie intended to
move the rear gear attach point, why not move the cluster location as
well?
I have received the answer to one part of my original question. It does
not appear to make a bit of difference whether the struts are parallel,
as there are, apparently, plenty of airplanes out there with struts that
are not parallel whether the builders were conscious of it during
construction or not.
I would still like to know whether this was a mistake on someone's part
in the drafting, or it was intentional. I am starting to lean toward it
being an error in light of the placement of the cluster and the filler
blocks.
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Graham Hansen<mailto:grhans@cable-lynx.net>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 3:25 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Bill Church,
I moved my wheels forward a couple of inches, but retained the landing
gear attachment points at the fuselage truss clusters. Somewhere I read
that one should do this when adding brakes, but that was so long ago I
cannot remember the source. My a/c has 6.00 x 6 tires/tubes and very
lightweight Shinn wheels/brakes from a Taylorcraft.This setup has been
entirely satisfactory.
As I told Gene Rambo, my lift struts are not parallel to each other
and nobody (including myself) ever noticed. I'll have to dig out the
1933 plans I used to build mine and take a look at the dimensions. I
don't recall having any difficulty with the plans when I built mine,
although I did make some small changes in several places (eg. the
landing gear). And, if I were to build another Pietenpol, I'd make some
more---mainly to save weight.
Graham Hansen (Pietenpol CF-AUN)
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
m/Navigator?Pietenpol-List>
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
on>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Gene,
No need to defend yourself. I don't think anyone is attacking.
I think we were all puzzled by your question.
Personally, I think it must have been intentional, since if you look at
drawing No. 3 of the 33-34 drawing set (improved air camper) on the left
hand side, just below the detail of the drilled lugs for the landing
gear (small photo attached) you will clearly see the rear ash cross
piece sitting to the forward side of the cluster. And the front seat
back nailed to the trailing edge of the ash piece (with a note
clarifying that point). The 27 1/2" dimension for the landing gear
mounting points is also clearly defined in this detail. As I understand
it, these plans were drawn in 1933 by 16 year-old Orrin Hoopman, and
based on measurements taken from an actual Improved Air Camper, as
built. As a draftsman, it would be highly unlikely that anyone would
draw a detail such as that without reason. Based on that, the drawings
most likely show the way it was.
As for a DEFINITIVE answer to whether this was a mistake on someone's
part in the drafting, or it was intentional ... anyone got a Ouija
board?
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: New Pietenpol book
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Hi all,
Just looking at William Wynne's FlyCorvair website
http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html , and see that William mentions
that in addition to Doc Mosher becoming the new editor of the Brodhead
Pietenpol Association Newsletter (put my money order in the mail today),
there is also a new book about Pietenpols just completed by author Chet
Peek. Anyone out there know any more details, such as when and where it
will be available?
Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Here's a mistake on my part... I forgot to attach the small photo.
Doh!
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: Steve Ruse <steve(at)wotelectronics.com>
Subject: Re: New Pietenpol book
Last I heard, Chet's book will be off the presses in about a month.
I'm not sure how long it will take for it to be distributed, ordering
processes set up, etc., but I believe it should be available well
before Christmas.
I managed to make it in Chet's book in a couple of pictures. I'm not
sure how much information Chet wants out there about the book, so I
won't say anymore, except that everyone on this list will want a copy.
I can't wait to get one.
Steve Ruse
Norman, OK
Quoting Bill Church :
> Hi all,
>
> Just looking at William Wynne's FlyCorvair website
> http://www.flycorvair.com/hangar.html , and see that William mentions
> that in addition to Doc Mosher becoming the new editor of the Brodhead
> Pietenpol Association Newsletter (put my money order in the mail today),
> there is also a new book about Pietenpols just completed by author Chet
> Peek. Anyone out there know any more details, such as when and where it
> will be available?
>
> Bill C.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene Rambo" <GeneRambo(at)msn.com>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 28, 2006
Awright Homer, 'splain why the spruce filler blocks are still there!!
Gene
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Church<mailto:eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Here's a mistake on my part... I forgot to attach the small photo.
Doh!
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: fuel
Date: Aug 28, 2006
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of
fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: TomTravis(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 28, 2006
Subject: Re: fuel
I've run auto fuel in several airplanes from an L-19 to a Bonanza and
couldn't tell any difference in power.
Tom
Travis
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: fuel
Date: Aug 28, 2006
I've noticed no difference between 100LL and premium auto fuel in the
A-65.
Greg C.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal.
of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 28, 2006
From: Mark Blackwell <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Well so many other factors would affect that performance that it would
be very difficult to tell. Unless you were absolutely certain the
throttle was opened to the exact same spot both times, it could easily
just be a position different in the throttle.
MMO if I recall correctly does lower the octane rating a bit, but don't
recall how much. We know the 100LL is 100 octane. If you are curious,
run a tank of 93 oct auto fuel through it and see what happens. See if
it improves the performance, but also document the temp, pressure and
density altitude ect to compare later if you want to do more tests. At
that point you have the data from which to work should you choose to
investigate further.
Dick Navratil wrote:
> A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
> auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
> didn't see much difference.
> However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
> opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may
> be a 10% difference in power.
> I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
> getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
> smooth, mag check before and after was good.
> I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal.
> of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
> Any comments?
> Dick N.
> *
>
>
> *
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Date: Aug 28, 2006
The debate re Mogas vs AVgas is often hot with the other usergroups. Some
love it, some hate it. Bottomline-----Mogas is variable by region and by
season. Mogas is in a state of change with the addition of alcohol. AVgas
has yet to have this potential problem. Probably will in the future with
the addition of alcohol. Alcohol in fuel can affect gaskets and seals in
the fuel system. Winter formulas have different vapor pressures in Mogas.
Test for yourself, if the Mogas you elect to use doesn't evaporate clean (no
greasy residue) in clear glass dish, you may want to try this test with your
local AVgas supply. Here in AK, AVgas is about $4.40/gallon. Even flying a
lot of hours like ie. 200hrs/year at 7 gal/hr, that about $1400/yr pricing
vs Mogas. Most of us have 10+ times that amount in our planes, most
aircraft accidents are result of fuel problems, not an issue of plus or
minus 10% power.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Blackwell" <markb1958(at)verizon.net>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
>
>
> Well so many other factors would affect that performance that it would be
> very difficult to tell. Unless you were absolutely certain the throttle
> was opened to the exact same spot both times, it could easily just be a
> position different in the throttle.
>
> MMO if I recall correctly does lower the octane rating a bit, but don't
> recall how much. We know the 100LL is 100 octane. If you are curious,
> run a tank of 93 oct auto fuel through it and see what happens. See if it
> improves the performance, but also document the temp, pressure and density
> altitude ect to compare later if you want to do more tests. At that point
> you have the data from which to work should you choose to investigate
> further.
>
> Dick Navratil wrote:
>> A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
>> auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
>> didn't see much difference.
>> However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
>> opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
>> a 10% difference in power.
>> I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
>> getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
>> smooth, mag check before and after was good.
>> I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of
>> fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
>> Any comments?
>> Dick N.
>> *
>>
>>
>> *
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: fuel
Date: Aug 28, 2006
I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used does
not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might not be
the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain might
require a bit more takeoff run.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Subject: Re: electric tachs
In a message dated 8/28/2006 10:17:49 AM Central Standard Time,
jboatri(at)emory.edu writes:
How can these be installed so that a mag check can be done? That is,
in one of the positions when the mag switch is turned to "Left" or
"Right", won't the tach just go to zero because it's mag has been
turned off?
Jeff,
IMHO I wouldn't want ANYTHING to be attached to the mags, simply because
they are the life line of the engine. If the tach would short out, or something
would short the wiring, it would probably cause the mag to fail. Just simply
not worth the risk.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Electric tach
In a message dated 8/28/2006 1:56:10 PM Central Standard Time,
kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com writes:
Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon start-up and running.
I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running off a mag which in turns
provides a nice trickle charge back to a small motorcycle 12V battery. I am
aware of the minimal drain on the battery however, I also plan on using ring
gear and starter to fire up the engine. So any information as to the output is
greatly appreciated. I was under the impression the mag puts out a lot of charge
when starting up and then maintains a 12 volt current. Right or wrong?
Keep the mags totally independent of any other portion of the electrical
system. Voltage is different than current. Mags put out a very high voltage,
which causes the spark to jump across the electrodes of the spark plugs.
However, the current is very low. You need current to charge a battery, and if
you
rob the mags of their limited current, you are asking for trouble.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Electric tach
Date: Aug 29, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Because the mags are replacing the coil and battery;I may be wrong in
this but I believe the mag puts out about 200v at start up.I have not
checked this but it seems like something I've heard someone say along
the way.I don't have the spec on the mags in front of me at this time so
I'm only guessing.But it makes sence for start up it would have to be
somewhere around the same as what a coil would put out.
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: August 29, 2006 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Electric tach
In a message dated 8/28/2006 1:56:10 PM Central Standard Time,
kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com writes:
Can you tell me the electrical output of the mags upon start-up
and running. I am interested in using a voltage rectifier running off a
mag which in turns provides a nice trickle charge back to a small
motorcycle 12V battery. I am aware of the minimal drain on the battery
however, I also plan on using ring gear and starter to fire up the
engine. So any information as to the output is greatly appreciated. I
was under the impression the mag puts out a lot of charge when starting
up and then maintains a 12 volt current. Right or wrong?
Keep the mags totally independent of any other portion of the
electrical system. Voltage is different than current. Mags put out a
very high voltage, which causes the spark to jump across the electrodes
of the spark plugs. However, the current is very low. You need current
to charge a battery, and if you rob the mags of their limited current,
you are asking for trouble.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: lshutks(at)webtv.net (Leon Stefan)
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Subject: Elect tach
I am using a Westach electric tach that I ordered from Wicks. It has a
small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self contained
and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power. I don't have the
catalog in front of me now, but I think it was around $120 back
then-kind of expensive, but I felt it was worth it for not having to buy
and mess with a drive cable and one or two 90d angle drives. Chet
Peek was featured in the last news letter, so I'll bet he will be at
Brodhead next year selling and signing his book. I have 3 or 4 of his
books, I think I will bring all of them and have him sign them all. Mo
gas vs. av gas....I haven't flown for 4 years, but the only difference I
ever noticed ( beside cost ) in an 0-300 engine was after about 10 hours
with 100LL, the plugs begin to led fowl. Leon S.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Date: Aug 29, 2006
For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their
position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was.
"The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no
fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for
those that fly standard
catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse
power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC.
Gene----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used
does not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might
not be the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain
might require a bit more takeoff run.
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying time
per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a lot). 500
gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal. vs AVgas at
$4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more like $100/yr savings
for most of us due to limited flying season north of the Rio Grande.
Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal droppings. Known to have
squandered that much in spilled liquid refreshments at the Down East
Saloon as the Seahawks are getting worked over by the Steelers. Have
hid at least 5 times that much in new airplane toys from sceptical
tightwad Wifey.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene & Tammy
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
For what it's worth. I contacted EAA today and asked what their
position is on using auto fuel in a Continental A65. Their reply was.
"The FAA has approved the use of auto fuel in the C 65 and we find no
fault in using auto fuel. In fact, we have the STC for auto fuel for
those that fly standard
catagory aircraft. The STC for each airplane costs $1.00 per horse
power." Being an experimental it does not need the STC.
Gene----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
I should have also added to my post that the auto fuel I have used
does not have ethanol. I also realize that possibly an old tach might
not be the most accurate. Also, the sod runway after a few days of rain
might require a bit more takeoff run.
Dick N.
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2006
From: hvandervoo(at)aol.com
Subject: Re: fuel
Dick,
Here is a table with energy densities of different fuels.
Auto gas holds more energy by volume than Avgas ( but less by weight )
If everything is equal, OAT, humidity & altitude.
If you set for a lean mixture on Avgas, when switching from Avgas to Auto gas you
will run slightly richer on Auto gas and perhaps see a drop in RPM (mixture
being a fuction of volume)
If you run and tune the mixture on auto gas and than switch to Avgas you might
run too lean.
Since we run with relatively (too) rich mixtures I doubt you will notice a real
difference.
Pound for pound there is a 9 % difference.
Liquid Fuel MJ/litreLitre/TonneGJ/tonne
LPGpropane25.3196049.6
LPGbutane27.7175049.1
LPGmixture25.7192849.6
Gasolineaviation33.0141249.6
Gasolineautomotive34.2136046.4
Kerosenepower37.5123046.1
Keroseneturbine fuel36.8126146.4
Kerosenelighting36.6127046.5
Heating Oil 37.3123846.2
Diesel Oilautomotive38.6118245.6
Diesel Oilindustrial39.6113544.9
Fuel Oillow sulphur39.7111044.1
Fuel Oilhigh sulphur40.8105042.9
Refinery Fuel 40.9105042.9
Naphtha 31.41534481
Lubricants 38.8112043.4
Bitumen 44.098142.7
Solvents 34.4122944.0
Waxes 38.8118045.8
Crude Oil 38.7116044.9
Ethanol 23.4126629.6
LNG-160C & 300kPa25.0217454.4
Hans
-----Original Message-----
From: horzpool(at)goldengate.net
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 7:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of auto fuel
vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others opinions.
I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be a 10% difference
in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only getting about
1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running smooth, mag check before
and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal. of fuel.
I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: fuel
A consideration is that it's a real problem getting avgas out to our
gas strip and there are NO airports with avgas AND turf runways
nearby. The local gas station is 1 block from the runway. Do the
math. ;)
>Hmmm. Let's do the math. C-65 at max. 5 gal/hr. Average flying
>time per year 100 hrs (thats 2 hrs/week year around, and that's a
>lot). 500 gals fuel per year. Average savings Mogas at $3.00/gal.
>vs AVgas at $4.00/gal. $1.00/gal. $500/year. Probably more
>like $100/yr savings for most of us due to limited flying season
>north of the Rio Grande. Heck, I waste almost that much in Skoal
>droppings. Known to have squandered that much in spilled liquid
>refreshments at the Down East Saloon as the Seahawks are getting
>worked over by the Steelers. Have hid at least 5 times that much in
>new airplane toys from sceptical tightwad Wifey.
>Gordon
>
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 29, 2006
From: "Bill Church" <eng(at)canadianrogers.com>
Well, Gene,
It looks to me like the attach bolts for the rear landing gear/lift
struts will still pass through the 1/8" ply gusset plates and the spruce
filler blocks. Granted, they will be at the forward end of the gusset,
which looks "unusual", but there, nonetheless. I agree that this looks
like it may have been an afterthought. We do know that Bernard kept
trying different things with this old design, so that might be the case.
***Just speculation on my part here, but MAYBE in the development of the
split gear, Bernard found that it was somehow "better" with the rear
attach points at 27 1/2" instead of 28 3/4" (for whatever reason), but
found that it worked fine with the fuselage sides left as-is, and just
beefed-up, widened and shifted the bottom cross piece.***
As one more piece of evidence that the 27 1/2" dimension was not just a
slip of the pencil, look at drawing No. 1, on the right hand side, more
than half way down. The detail is labelled is the "constructional view
of the front cockpit", and it clearly shows the "white ash cross strut"
at the forward end of the gusset plate. (small drawing attached)
IF the 27 1/2" is a mistake, it's a mistake that got repeated in at
least four places on the drawings. I believe that the 27 1/2" dimension
was most likely the way Bernard built the first (or second, or whatever)
Improved Air Camper, and the drawings were made to reflect the details
of that plane. But that's just my opinion - nobody needs to agree with
me - I won't be offended. And if anyone has a more compelling argument
(or even some facts), I might change my opinion.
"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's
even remotely true!" - Homer Simpson
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 29, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower
octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to
run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to
the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air
mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio
of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue.
At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was fun
to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a gallon
or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over the
winter in the garage.
In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the
bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and
kind of gooey.
If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my
rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology.
For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas.
To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put
about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is
dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance of
auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10 gal.
of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: fuel
Date: Aug 29, 2006
I can answer partially the swollen gaskets question. Mogas has been
using aromatic hydrocarbons like xylene and napthalene since they
dropped tetraethyl lead as the antiknock additive. These high mol.
weight aromatics change the partial pressures needed to vaporize the
fuel compared to the normal fuel C-8 aliphatic hydrocarbon (heptane's
first cousin), thus antiknock. These aromatics are added at diff rates
depending on the region of the country and the season of the year.
That's why the refineries are complaining about the EPA and State rules
on Mogas formulas and why refineries are overloaded. Too many formulas
for Mogas. Old leaded fuels didn't have these aromatics. Even
100LowLead AVgas doesn't. Problem is these aromatic hydrocarbons are
dandy solvents for rubber gaskets of various flavors. Modern cars have
modern plastics like teflon or viton seals in their fuel systems. Thus
the puffy rubber gaskets in your old C-85. Old low and slow aeroplanes
have to think twice about putting Mogas in an older fuel system.
Alcohol and other ketones that are derived from corn/grain fermentation
added to Mogas will only make the stuff a better solvent, thus future
problems on down the road for all airplanes when they allow alcohol in
the 100LL.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: walt evans
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: fuel
Not sure if this was brought up on this thread. But higher or lower
octane gas has the same power. Only reason for the higher octane is to
run in higher compression engines. So the fuel won't pre ignite due to
the diesel effect of heat being caused by compressing the fuel/air
mixture. I'm flying an A-65 which has a relitively low Compression Ratio
of 6.3. So to me the octane is not the issue.
At the point that I had the engine on the plane and on the gear, was
fun to run the engine in the yard and blow the leaves around. Had a
gallon or two of auto fuel in the tank. This sat in the system over
the winter in the garage.
In the spring, for whatever reason, I shut off the fuel and took the
bowl off the gascollator. The top rubber gasket was all puffed up and
kind of gooey.
If it did this with a certified gascollator, what's it doing to my
rubber tipped float needle from 1940's technology.
For the little difference in price per gallon, I'll stick with avgas.
To much volitile stuff in auto gas. Take two shallow bowls and put
about 1/2 cup of each gas in different bowls. Next day the auto gas is
dry,,,the avgas is still there. Go figure.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Navratil
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 8:26 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: fuel
A couple of months ago, someone asked a question about performance
of auto fuel vs. 100LL. At that time I responded that I used both and
didn't see much difference.
However, I am now asking myself that question and looking for others
opinions. I asked an A&P on the field today and he thought there may be
a 10% difference in power.
I noticed on a takeoff yesterday that on initial climb, I was only
getting about 1980 rpm, I am used to seeing 2050. Engine was running
smooth, mag check before and after was good.
I should also add that I added 4 oz. of Marvel Mystery Oil to 10
gal. of fuel. I don't do that with every fill.
Any comments?
Dick N.
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: electrical tachs
Date: Aug 29, 2006
I'm using an electrical tach running off one mag. Tony Bingelis says
it's okay as long as you install a fuse (can't remember the size) in
line so that if the instrument should ever short out, it couldn't affect
your mag.
I'm running a Ford with two mags, and there is no observable difference
in rpms between one mag and both. I think the plugs are so close
together that the combustion is identical either way.
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/29/2006 9:05:40 AM Central Standard Time,
lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:
It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is self
contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power.
I like this method Much better than something that robs power from the
mags...however, I still preferr the old tach cable / driven tachs - just don
't use
any 90=BA angle drives...keep the cable straight, and very little bends, to
the
tach.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
From: "Don Emch" <EmchAir(at)aol.com>
Date: Aug 29, 2006
I know this has been said many times before, but...if you try to follow the plans
as closely as you can, you really will build a good airplane. Mine is to the
plans with the exception of the A-65, nose tank, moving the wheels forward
1" (geometry in the gear only) and the wing back 4". If I were to build another,
(the thought has crossed my mind) I think the only changes I would make would
be to try to build one with a Model A straight off of the plans. I would
never try to force my opinion on someone else, it is just that I really like the
airplane and how it flies. Sorry...I know it's been said many times.
Don E.
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58357#58357
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
I measured the distance between the struts on my plane this evening. The
measurements I made were between the centers of the attach bolts. At the lower
end, where the gear lugs are, they are 27 7/8" on center. At the upper end
they are 28 7/8" on center. They are One Inch out of Parallel. I have never
realized they were not parallel. It seems Gene has come up with an anomaly in
the plans that very few folks were aware of. Congrats, Gene !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 30, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
The really great thing about the Piet is that it is like humans;they all
look somewhat the same but different,not all the same ,if you know what
I mean.In all the pics I've seen and all the Piets I've seen,I've never
seen two exactly alike.Great plane!
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don Emch
Sent: August 29, 2006 9:28 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
I know this has been said many times before, but...if you try to follow
the plans as closely as you can, you really will build a good airplane.
Mine is to the plans with the exception of the A-65, nose tank, moving
the wheels forward 1" (geometry in the gear only) and the wing back 4".
If I were to build another, (the thought has crossed my mind) I think
the only changes I would make would be to try to build one with a Model
A straight off of the plans. I would never try to force my opinion on
someone else, it is just that I really like the airplane and how it
flies. Sorry...I know it's been said many times.
Don E.
NX899DE
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=58357#58357
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: Elect tach
Date: Aug 29, 2006
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/29/2006 9:05:40 AM Central Standard Time,
lshutks(at)webtv.net writes:
It has a small generator that mounts on the tach drive pad. It is
self contained and doesn't depend on a mag or spark plug for power.
I like this method Much better than something that robs power from the
mags...however, I still preferr the old tach cable / driven tachs - just
don't use any 90=BA angle drives...keep the cable straight, and very
little bends, to the tach.
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Andimaxd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Subject: gap seals
I used the plans barn door hinges, and sealed the aileron gaps with
a strip of 3" fabric tape, centering it over the gap, before painting.
Chuck
Good morning one and all,
I'm going to seal the gaps, the tail is in the silver stage and we are
getting ready to mount the tail permanently to the fuse and install our gap seals.
I read through most of the archives on the subject.
Do I need to pre-shrink the 3" fabric strip before I use the method that
Chuck used. We did not put little triangle strips to fair in the gaps closer.
It seems like the sun would shrink the fabric 10% over time.
As usual, all advice and dumb looks are welcome, thanks in advance.
Wanna-be low and slow flyer,
Max Davis
NX101XW (Reserved)
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 30, 2006
I did a Google on 800 x 4 tires. Dresser has cub tires for $290 ea
Barry Davis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2006 12:06 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: Re: 800 4 tires
>
>
> Thanks Don,
> I have been looking in Trade-a-Plane and will start checking ebay. I agree
> the best thing would be to put 6 inch wheels on the thing, but that would
> be a project and I bought the thing so I could fly not build. I will not
> fly it with unsafe tires so am still looking.
> My tires may be servicable, but one has a crack so deep you can see air
> ;<)
> Skip
>
>
>> [
>> Skip,
>> Although they aren't real easy to find I'm pretty sure I recently saw a
> dealer in Trade-a-Plane that had them at a much better price. Can't
> remember who though. I'd keep an eye on ebay too. I've seen serviceable
> ones go on there at a decent price. Heck at that price you might be able
> to find some 800-6 tires and wheels, maybe even 850-6!
>> Don E.
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Thanks Barry,
I was following a set on ebay which sold Monday for $266. That was more
than I wanted to spend for old tires I couldn't see in person first.
I ordered a set from Desser yesterday paid $194. each. I will check my
tubes when I change the tires and if not servicable will order them, they
cost $129. each.
I think the $290 cub tires are bald, Desser having scrubbed the ribs off.
Skip
>
> I did a Google on 800 x 4 tires. Dresser has cub tires for $290 ea
> Barry Davis
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Gene's question
Gene,
Finally got to the airport.
Bole centerline to centerline.
fuse 27 7/8
wing 29
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Barry Davis" <bed(at)mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 30, 2006
that's correct
bed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Re: 800 4 tires
>
>
> Thanks Barry,
> I was following a set on ebay which sold Monday for $266. That was more
> than I wanted to spend for old tires I couldn't see in person first.
> I ordered a set from Desser yesterday paid $194. each. I will check my
> tubes when I change the tires and if not servicable will order them, they
> cost $129. each.
> I think the $290 cub tires are bald, Desser having scrubbed the ribs off.
> Skip
>
>
>>
>> I did a Google on 800 x 4 tires. Dresser has cub tires for $290 ea
>> Barry Davis
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2006
From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Information on tires
Can you list the site for the tires from Dresser. Never heard of them nor can I
find their site.
KM Heide
Fargo
---------------------------------
Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/30/2006 8:18:45 AM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
More moving parts means there is something else to break. If it ain't there,
it can't break !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Elect tach
Date: Aug 30, 2006
From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu>
Does that go for a fixed pitch wooden prop?
Stevee
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/30/2006 8:18:45 AM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
More moving parts means there is something else to break. If it ain't
there, it can't break !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Subject: Re: gap seals
In a message dated 8/30/2006 9:02:41 AM Central Standard Time,
Andimaxd(at)aol.com writes:
I used the plans barn door hinges, and sealed the aileron gaps with
a strip of 3" fabric tape, centering it over the gap, before painting.
Chuck
Good morning one and all,
I'm going to seal the gaps, the tail is in the silver stage and we are
getting ready to mount the tail permanently to the fuse and install our gap seals.
I read through most of the archives on the subject.
Do I need to pre-shrink the 3" fabric strip before I use the method that
Chuck used. We did not put little triangle strips to fair in the gaps closer.
It
seems like the sun would shrink the fabric 10% over time.
As usual, all advice and dumb looks are welcome, thanks in advance.
Wanna-be low and slow flyer,
Max Davis
NX101XW (Reserved)
Hey Mad Dawg !!
Great to hear you are making progress !!
I did my ailerons just like you did. For the Empenage, I used Hard Balsa
triangle strips, between the Vi Kapler hinges - before covering. These triangles
were glued on the Trailing Edge of the Horizontal Stab, and the Leading Edge
of the Flippers. Then cover all the surfaces in the conventional manner.
Then assemble the control surface hinges (after they have been test fitted, and
cleared of all fouling conditions), and then apply the gap seal. This kept the
gap at a uniform 1/4", and this is the only place the fabric actually bends.
A strip of fabric down one side, across the gap, and up the other side of the
triangle. Do this on the Top and the Bottom. Trim the fabric at the top, so
none of the fabric actually is in the slipstream. Don't pre- shrink the
fabric bridging the gap. Wait till it is installed on the top and bottom, then
shrink it with a hot detail iron. The sun will never heat the fabric up enough
to shrink it. Kind of hard to describe. I have details of how I did this on
my web site : http://nx770cg.com/Unique.html
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Subject: Re: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/30/2006 5:15:02 PM Central Standard Time, steve(at)byu.edu
writes:
Does that go for a fixed pitch wooden prop?
Stevee
In a message dated 8/30/2006 8:18:45 AM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
More moving parts means there is something else to break. If it ain't there,
it can't break !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
That's right, Stevee...If the prop ain't there, you can't break it !! :)
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Michael Conkling" <hpvs(at)southwind.net>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Does this mean that if your struts are parallel, you must be flying a GN-1??
;-)
Mike C.
Pretty Prairie, KS
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Information on tires
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Hi KM,
Google desser tire.
They always have a big add in Trade-a-Plane.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
Can you list the site for the tires from Dresser. Never heard of them nor can I
find their site.
KM Heide
Fargo
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Parallel struts and Gene's question
Date: Aug 30, 2006
Hi Mike,
No, lift struts on my GN-1 are not parallel, they measure 31" at the wing
end and 31 1/2" at the fuse or lower end.
Skip
>
> Does this mean that if your struts are parallel, you must be flying a
GN-1??
> ;-)
> Mike C.
> Pretty Prairie, KS
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 30, 2006
From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Elect tach
How often do they break? Looking at my beast I don't
see how to get away without at least one. Also the
tighter any bends are in the cable to avoid the use of a
ninety the greater the chance of a fatigue break. I've
had this problem with my expensive Foredom tool.
Running it with a tight bend heats up the cable quite
warm. Having had to replace the cable because of this
I now go out of my way to keep any bends wide.
Clif
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
More moving parts means there is something else to break. If it ain't
there, it can't break !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Elect tach
Date: Aug 31, 2006
From: "Steve Eldredge" <steve(at)byu.edu>
Sweet! I'll try removing it next time to prevent breakage...
Stevee
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of
Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Elect tach
In a message dated 8/30/2006 5:15:02 PM Central Standard Time,
steve(at)byu.edu writes:
Does that go for a fixed pitch wooden prop?
Stevee
________________________________
In a message dated 8/30/2006 8:18:45 AM Central Standard Time,
horzpool(at)goldengate.net writes:
Chuck
What is the issue with 90 deg angle drives?
Dick N.
More moving parts means there is something else to break. If it
ain't there, it can't break !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
That's right, Stevee...If the prop ain't there, you can't break it !!
:)
Chuck G.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Franklin 90 hp
Pieters,
Does anyone have any experience with the combination of a Franklin 90
hp on an a Piet, and if so, was the experience good, bad, or
indifferent?
Thanks,
Jeff
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: "Ronnie Wagner" <wlrdlr(at)starband.net>
Subject: Re: Franklin 90 hp
Date: Aug 31, 2006
I have one on my piet but not far enough along to give any advice on it,
would be interested to know more about them myself.
Ronnie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 2:54 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Franklin 90 hp
>
> Pieters,
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the combination of a Franklin 90 hp
> on an a Piet, and if so, was the experience good, bad, or indifferent?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
> --
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Aug 31, 2006
From: KMHeide <kmheidecpo(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Skip,
Did you see the Kitfox tires on the Dresser site? They are Tundra Tires that
look very good and offer lots of tire for $79.00 dollars. Bigger and much cheaper
than the 8.00x4.00 tires.
Ken
Skip-Cinda Gadd wrote:
Thanks Barry,
I was following a set on ebay which sold Monday for $266. That was more
than I wanted to spend for old tires I couldn't see in person first.
I ordered a set from Desser yesterday paid $194. each. I will check my
tubes when I change the tires and if not servicable will order them, they
cost $129. each.
I think the $290 cub tires are bald, Desser having scrubbed the ribs off.
Skip
>
> I did a Google on 800 x 4 tires. Dresser has cub tires for $290 ea
> Barry Davis
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: 800 4 tires
Date: Aug 31, 2006
Hi Ken,
Yes, I looked at those tires the trouble is they are not 4" wheel size so I would
have to change the wheels, brakes and maybe axles. I would probably go that
way if I was going to keep the GN-1 forever. I plan to have my Piet complete
in 5 or 6 years and sell the Grega. The main thing I want to do is fly this plane
not work on it. Having said that I want to install new wing and lift strut
bolts, reinstall the front stick and rudder pedals which means I have to remove
the smoke tank or move it somewhere not in the front pit foot well. I also
want to reinstall a fuel shutoff. I hope to be flying in a couple weeks;)
Skip
Did you see the Kitfox tires on the Dresser site? They are Tundra Tires that look
very good and offer lots of tire for $79.00 dollars. Bigger and much cheaper
than the 8.00x4.00 tires.
Ken
Skip
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: Re: Franklin 90 hp
I remember back when Grant ran the newsletter there were a lot of
Piet projects for sale with Franklin 90s. I wonder if those projects
ever got built, and if so, how the planes performed with those
engines.
Does anyone have a source for specs on this engine, especially in
comparison to Continental C85s, etc? I havent' found much on the web.
>
>I have one on my piet but not far enough along to give any advice on
>it, would be interested to know more about them myself.
>Ronnie
--
_____________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Corvair Caution!
Hello group, Shad here just trying to get the word out to corvair users about getting
your crankshafts profesionally checked (magna fluxed). Dad had his break
in flight and was forced to shut the engine off before it decintagraded the
airframe. The engine kept running after the break and thankfully the prop sayed
on. He was fortunate enough to have a newly cut wheat field in gliding distance
and the only damage was a tear in the fabric on the rudder from a rock
that was kicked up by the tire. I think he plans to try another corvair but we
are trying to find the cause and reason for the fracture, hopefullly this will
help keep some of you from having the same misfortune. It may cost $300-$400
to get the crank magna-fluxed and nitrided but it is a cheap alternative to
building a new engine.
Fly safe
Shad Bell (Pietenpol Recovery Specialist) ha ha
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 01, 2006
Subject: Re: Corvair Caution!
Sorry to hear of problems, sounds like he's OK though thank goodness. Is
this the first failure of a Corvair crank on a Piet? All I've ever heard of were
from guys running the prop extensions...
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Corvair Caution!
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Sep 01, 2006
Shad,
Good to see you keep your sense of humor through all this.
What was the time you had on the engine?
And where did it break?
I hope you knew that William Wynne did have a "AD" out, on broken Corvair
cranks.
I am still flying my non-nitrated crank (45 hours now) but have a upgraded
crank in the works.
William told me to inspect before each flight the starter flywheel (flex
plate) on my front starter engine.
The flywheel will develop a crack before the crankshaft does, all his
investigated cases confirms this.
Flywheel inspection is part of my preflight now until my new nitrated crank
is installed, And a habit I will continue afterwards
Hans,
shad bell
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Pietenpol-List: Corvair Caution!
09/01/2006 10:51
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Hello group, Shad here just trying to get the word out to corvair users
about getting your crankshafts profesionally checked (magna fluxed). Dad
had his break in flight and was forced to shut the engine off before it
decintagraded the airframe. The engine kept running after the break and
thankfully the prop sayed on. He was fortunate enough to have a newly cut
wheat field in gliding distance and the only damage was a tear in the
fabric on the rudder from a rock that was kicked up by the tire. I think
he plans to try another corvair but we are trying to find the cause and
reason for the fracture, hopefullly this will help keep some of you from
having the same misfortune. It may cost $300-$400 to get the crank
magna-fluxed and nitrided but it is a cheap alternative to building a new
engine.
Fly safe
Shad Bell (Pietenpol Recovery Specialist) ha ha
rates.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "MICHAEL SILVIUS" <M.Silvius(at)worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Corvair Caution!
Date: Sep 01, 2006
Shad:
Please elaborate on the details.
was this the 8409 crank?,
new crank? reground? nitrided?
was it a WW specs conversion? OT-10 cam, forged pistons etc?
front or rear starter?
wood, composite or metal prop? size??
was the prop properly indexed?
was it a Bernard Pitenpol hub or a WW hub?
how much time on the engine?
thanks:
michael silvius
scarborough, maine
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
Hello group, Shad here just trying to get the word out to corvair
users about getting your crankshafts profesionally checked (magna
fluxed). Dad had his break in flight and was forced to shut the engine
off before it decintagraded the airframe. The engine kept running after
the break and thankfully the prop sayed on.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2006
From: " jbfjr" <jbfjr(at)ev1.net>
Subject: Re: Franklin 90 hp
Jeff,
I don't have any experience with Franklin engines but while at the
EAA SW Regional Fly-In last spring I met a lady who reps Franklin
engines. I think they are now being built in eastern Europe but
she indicated they want to support the legacy engines. Her
website is: www.franklinparts.com and her name is Susan Prall.
I was jokingly trying to get a discount on Franklin Engine T-
Shirts because my last name is Franklin (didn't work!). She told
me they were trying to locate the original family descendants to
try and by the naming rights from them. Unfortunately that isn't
me...
Good Luck,
John Franklin
GN-1 Aircamper
Corvair 164cid
Richmond, TX
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:35:33 -0400
>
>I remember back when Grant ran the newsletter there were a lot of
>Piet projects for sale with Franklin 90s. I wonder if those
projects
>ever got built, and if so, how the planes performed with those
>engines.
>
>Does anyone have a source for specs on this engine, especially in
>comparison to Continental C85s, etc? I havent' found much on the
web.
>
>>
>>I have one on my piet but not far enough along to give any
advice on
>>it, would be interested to know more about them myself.
>>Ronnie
>
>--
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Franklin 90 hp
Date: Sep 01, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
At the moment I am using an 85 hp Franklin.She seems to running OK and I
have lots of power.I've yet to do a circuit.Can't seem to get the time
to get back down to the field.Wify things getting in the way too much.I
have done 4 hops so far and she performs great.I'll let the web know
though as soon as I've completed a circuit.Thanks for the web site.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of jbfjr
Sent: September 1, 2006 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Franklin 90 hp
Jeff,
I don't have any experience with Franklin engines but while at the
EAA SW Regional Fly-In last spring I met a lady who reps Franklin
engines. I think they are now being built in eastern Europe but
she indicated they want to support the legacy engines. Her
website is: www.franklinparts.com and her name is Susan Prall.
I was jokingly trying to get a discount on Franklin Engine T-
Shirts because my last name is Franklin (didn't work!). She told
me they were trying to locate the original family descendants to
try and by the naming rights from them. Unfortunately that isn't
me...
Good Luck,
John Franklin
GN-1 Aircamper
Corvair 164cid
Richmond, TX
---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2006 10:35:33 -0400
>
>I remember back when Grant ran the newsletter there were a lot of
>Piet projects for sale with Franklin 90s. I wonder if those
projects
>ever got built, and if so, how the planes performed with those
>engines.
>
>Does anyone have a source for specs on this engine, especially in
>comparison to Continental C85s, etc? I havent' found much on the
web.
>
>>
>>I have one on my piet but not far enough along to give any
advice on
>>it, would be interested to know more about them myself.
>>Ronnie
>
>--
>
>_____________________________________________________________
>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
>
>
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 01, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Crank
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Hardware question
Date: Sep 02, 2006
A question about hardware,
Question: What length bolt to use.
Hypothetical situation, say we have a -inch thick structural member and we
need to bolt a 1/8th-inch thick fitting to one side. This would make the
through hole length 1 1/8th-inches long. I am guessing the bolt should be
based on the grip length, so in this case I would choose a bolt with a grip
length of 1 1/8th-inch. According to the charts there are no bolts with a
grip length of 1 1/8-inch. So I would choose a dash 16 (AN4-16 for
instance) which has a length of 1 5/16. I would choose this so the threaded
portion of the bolt is longer then the through hole length. I would take up
the extra length with a washer. This works fine until you try to use a
safety wire nut on a drilled bolt, the nut seems to be below the hole in the
shank, and thus the safety wire will not hold the nut.
Follow on question, is it ok to have the threads in the fitting hole? I
would assume if you had threads in the wood part of the hole it would be ok.
Also, is everyone using the large diameter wood washers under the side of
the bolt against wood (head or nut)?
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware question
Date: Sep 02, 2006
Tracy,
The best place for a short course on min. bolt length/type etc. is
Sacramento Sky Ranch's Tech Book and FAA's Advisory Circulars AC 43.13-1B
and AC 43.13-2A "Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices-----Aircraft
Inspection and Repair",, both are available via Jeppesen, AirSpruce or
direct from SkyRanch. These two tech books should be on every homebuilders
bookshelf for reference. Every AP I've known has a dog-eared copy of the
FAA AC's, they use it for reference as a bible. I like SkyRanch's tech
explanations and pictures of failed bolts and such to help understand the
science of materials and materials selection for homebuilts. You listen to
a bunch of homebuilders, you'll get as many answers to your technical
questions as you will the number of people you ask. I've known some guys,
who's only source of technical information was the front of the ASpruce
catalog and talking on the phone with a ASpruce telephone rep, who's
probably only seen a homebuilt in pictures. You should go right to the
source documents for your answers.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
>
>
> A question about hardware,
>
> Question: What length bolt to use.
>
> Hypothetical situation, say we have a -inch thick structural member and we
> need to bolt a 1/8th-inch thick fitting to one side. This would make the
> through hole length 1 1/8th-inches long. I am guessing the bolt should be
> based on the grip length, so in this case I would choose a bolt with a
> grip length of 1 1/8th-inch. According to the charts there are no bolts
> with a grip length of 1 1/8-inch. So I would choose a dash 16 (AN4-16 for
> instance) which has a length of 1 5/16. I would choose this so the
> threaded portion of the bolt is longer then the through hole length. I
> would take up the extra length with a washer. This works fine until you
> try to use a safety wire nut on a drilled bolt, the nut seems to be below
> the hole in the shank, and thus the safety wire will not hold the nut.
>
> Follow on question, is it ok to have the threads in the fitting hole? I
> would assume if you had threads in the wood part of the hole it would be
> ok.
>
> Also, is everyone using the large diameter wood washers under the side of
> the bolt against wood (head or nut)?
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: VAHOWDY(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 02, 2006
Subject: Re: fuel
In some areas alcohol is added to auto gas. It is the alcohol that will turn
seals to mush.
I ran alcohol in my go-kart and had to rebuild my carb every weekend.
Howdy
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Hardware question
Date: Sep 02, 2006
Gordon,
Dang! I was just at Skyranch yesterday buying the bolts and it never
occurred to me to ask if they knew the answer to this. I thought they only
did engine books. Guess I will wander over at lunch on Tuesday. I already
have 43.13-1B and 2A. I will look again in there to see if its in there.
All I remember is the 3 treads showing above the nut.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
>
>
> Tracy,
> The best place for a short course on min. bolt length/type etc. is
> Sacramento Sky Ranch's Tech Book and FAA's Advisory Circulars AC 43.13-1B
> and AC 43.13-2A "Acceptable Methods, Techniques and
> Practices-----Aircraft Inspection and Repair",, both are available via
> Jeppesen, AirSpruce or direct from SkyRanch. These two tech books should
> be on every homebuilders bookshelf for reference. Every AP I've known has
> a dog-eared copy of the FAA AC's, they use it for reference as a bible. I
> like SkyRanch's tech explanations and pictures of failed bolts and such to
> help understand the science of materials and materials selection for
> homebuilts. You listen to a bunch of homebuilders, you'll get as many
> answers to your technical questions as you will the number of people you
> ask. I've known some guys, who's only source of technical information was
> the front of the ASpruce catalog and talking on the phone with a ASpruce
> telephone rep, who's probably only seen a homebuilt in pictures. You
> should go right to the source documents for your answers.
> Gordon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 7:49 AM
> Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
>
>
>>
>>
>> A question about hardware,
>>
>> Question: What length bolt to use.
>>
>> Hypothetical situation, say we have a -inch thick structural member and
>> we need to bolt a 1/8th-inch thick fitting to one side. This would make
>> the through hole length 1 1/8th-inches long. I am guessing the bolt
>> should be based on the grip length, so in this case I would choose a bolt
>> with a grip length of 1 1/8th-inch. According to the charts there are no
>> bolts with a grip length of 1 1/8-inch. So I would choose a dash 16
>> (AN4-16 for instance) which has a length of 1 5/16. I would choose this
>> so the threaded portion of the bolt is longer then the through hole
>> length. I would take up the extra length with a washer. This works fine
>> until you try to use a safety wire nut on a drilled bolt, the nut seems
>> to be below the hole in the shank, and thus the safety wire will not hold
>> the nut.
>>
>> Follow on question, is it ok to have the threads in the fitting hole? I
>> would assume if you had threads in the wood part of the hole it would be
>> ok.
>>
>> Also, is everyone using the large diameter wood washers under the side of
>> the bolt against wood (head or nut)?
>>
>> Chris Tracy
>> Sacramento, Ca
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Rob Stapleton" <foto(at)alaska.net>
Subject: Hardware question
Date: Sep 02, 2006
I believe the best advice is than posted by Gordon Bowen, but remember the
FAA has thread standards for every bolt and they have to have at least three
threds showing behind each nut.
I think the bolts with shafts and threads on the ends are better for wood
than a completely threaded bolt. Check the FAA Advisory Circular ASA
AS43.13B everything is there.
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon Bowen
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
Tracy,
The best place for a short course on min. bolt length/type etc. is
Sacramento Sky Ranch's Tech Book and FAA's Advisory Circulars AC 43.13-1B
and AC 43.13-2A "Acceptable Methods, Techniques and Practices-----Aircraft
Inspection and Repair",, both are available via Jeppesen, AirSpruce or
direct from SkyRanch. These two tech books should be on every homebuilders
bookshelf for reference. Every AP I've known has a dog-eared copy of the
FAA AC's, they use it for reference as a bible. I like SkyRanch's tech
explanations and pictures of failed bolts and such to help understand the
science of materials and materials selection for homebuilts. You listen to
a bunch of homebuilders, you'll get as many answers to your technical
questions as you will the number of people you ask. I've known some guys,
who's only source of technical information was the front of the ASpruce
catalog and talking on the phone with a ASpruce telephone rep, who's
probably only seen a homebuilt in pictures. You should go right to the
source documents for your answers.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 7:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
>
>
> A question about hardware,
>
> Question: What length bolt to use.
>
> Hypothetical situation, say we have a -inch thick structural member and we
> need to bolt a 1/8th-inch thick fitting to one side. This would make the
> through hole length 1 1/8th-inches long. I am guessing the bolt should be
> based on the grip length, so in this case I would choose a bolt with a
> grip length of 1 1/8th-inch. According to the charts there are no bolts
> with a grip length of 1 1/8-inch. So I would choose a dash 16 (AN4-16 for
> instance) which has a length of 1 5/16. I would choose this so the
> threaded portion of the bolt is longer then the through hole length. I
> would take up the extra length with a washer. This works fine until you
> try to use a safety wire nut on a drilled bolt, the nut seems to be below
> the hole in the shank, and thus the safety wire will not hold the nut.
>
> Follow on question, is it ok to have the threads in the fitting hole? I
> would assume if you had threads in the wood part of the hole it would be
> ok.
>
> Also, is everyone using the large diameter wood washers under the side of
> the bolt against wood (head or nut)?
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Corvair Caution!
Date: Sep 02, 2006
Shad,
A couple of questions:
1. Where did the crank break?
2. What is the "clock" position of the prop in relation to the crank
throws? Was the prop parallel or perpindicular to the crank throws?
Some people on the corvair list believe this is critical.
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: shad bell
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 10:51 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Corvair Caution!
Hello group, Shad here just trying to get the word out to corvair
users about getting your crankshafts profesionally checked (magna
fluxed). Dad had his break in flight and was forced to shut the engine
off before it decintagraded the airframe. The engine kept running after
the break and thankfully the prop sayed on. He was fortunate enough to
have a newly cut wheat field in gliding distance and the only damage was
a tear in the fabric on the rudder from a rock that was kicked up by the
tire. I think he plans to try another corvair but we are trying to find
the cause and reason for the fracture, hopefullly this will help keep
some of you from having the same misfortune. It may cost $300-$400 to
get the crank magna-fluxed and nitrided but it is a cheap alternative to
building a new engine.
Fly safe
Shad Bell (Pietenpol Recovery Specialist) ha ha
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
rates.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Crank
Hello list, The last post I tried to send didn't go through so I'll try again:
The crank broke on the rear cheek of the #6 rod journal, about 1/2 inch below
(toward the main bearings) the rod journal. The set-up we ran is a combonation
Wynne, pietenpol style. The prop hub is Wynne , front ring gear starter, OT-10
cam, forged pistons, no blower fan, dual point distributer, dual coil, single
plug, one system at a time. The intake is Piet style bought from Vi Kapler
( I believe) with oil bath around intake manifold. we run a marvel schebler
ma3spa carb 100LL, Heggy 66-30 wood prop, and believe prop was indexed 90 deg
to #6 journal. We were getting 3100- 3300 rpm full power ambiant temp at about
80-85 degree F. We have been having engine problems since our atempt to go
to Brodhead, about the last 10-15 hrs. We were inspecting the engine last
Thursday and found some cracks in the intake manifold at the braized joint where
the intake mounts to the r/h head. We leak
checked it and confirmed an induction lek at that point, which would have caused
our symtoms of leaning out at full throtle. We also found our timing was either
mis -adjusted or creaped forward about 4 degrees advanced. The engine would
itermitantly run rough at high power, and some times lose about 50% of full
power,(causing me a partial power loss forced landing in ILL) with out a considerable
rise in CHT. I believe it may have been detonating when it leaned
out (due to induction leak) and may have caused or contributed to the crank failure.
The crank may have had a crack from the start, as I don't think it ever
got a magna flux inspection. We will be taking the engine off the airplane
next weekend so I will try to post some pictures of the crank. We will also
foward this info to William Wynne to help with his research and safty data. My
only advise to all using corvairs is dont be afraid to spend the extra money
for profesional specialty magna flux inspection.
$300-$400 (if it's that much) dollars is cheap compared to building another engine,
and the sorrow of seeing your airplane sitting ground bound while you get
the time and money to fix and rebuild it. Luckly this all turnned out well all
things considered, if it would have failed at dad's home airport on take off
we would have been fising it out of a limestone quary.
Shad
---------------------------------
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: Franklin 90 hp
Date: Sep 02, 2006
I only know enough about these engines to be dangerous. For example,
looking at the earlier engines from 65-85 hp (basically all 176 cubic inches
and listed as Franklin 4AC 176 B2 through F3 models), they seem to be at
least 20 lbs. heavier than their Continental engine counterparts with the
same magnetos and carbs, but in a Piet that isn't really a handicap.
Not sure how the 90 hp version shapes up against the Continental C90
(Franklin 4AC 199 B2-H3 series, 199 cu. in.), but again- even if it's a bit
heavier that isn't a drawback necessarily. Parts availability seems to be
the big issue with these engines.
Note the 65 HP Franklin that was used on Ernie Moreno's Piet, at
http://www.flysquirrel.net/piets/piets.html and you'll see that the engine
mount is quite long on this airplane. The 90HP may make a better
installation with a shorter nose.
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 02, 2006
From: Clif Dawson <CDAWSON5854(at)shaw.ca>
Subject: Re: Hardware question
Why is everyone ignoring the AN4-15??
This is the next longer grip at 1 3/16. This
is the one to use. You're allowed two washers
and you have a choice of thick or thin. Also,
as mentioned you should be using a fender
washer next to the wood which will take up
some of that extra 1/16".
Clif
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2006 8:49 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Hardware question
>
>
> A question about hardware,
>
> Question: What length bolt to use.
>
> Hypothetical situation, say we have a -inch thick structural member and we
> need to bolt a 1/8th-inch thick fitting to one side. This would make the
> through hole length 1 1/8th-inches long. I am guessing the bolt should be
> based on the grip length, so in this case I would choose a bolt with a
> grip length of 1 1/8th-inch. According to the charts there are no bolts
> with a grip length of 1 1/8-inch. So I would choose a dash 16 (AN4-16 for
> instance) which has a length of 1 5/16. I would choose this so the
> threaded portion of the bolt is longer then the through hole length. I
> would take up the extra length with a washer. This works fine until you
> try to use a safety wire nut on a drilled bolt, the nut seems to be below
> the hole in the shank, and thus the safety wire will not hold the nut.
>
> Follow on question, is it ok to have the threads in the fitting hole? I
> would assume if you had threads in the wood part of the hole it would be
> ok.
>
> Also, is everyone using the large diameter wood washers under the side of
> the bolt against wood (head or nut)?
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: sheetmetal question
Date: Sep 03, 2006
From: "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com>
Hi all,
Bought some sheetmetal at Blakesburg, not sure what it is, it is
stamped...
SRD 106 707 080 also 8018
SRD 106 706 051
The 080 and 051 appear to be the thickness
Can anyone tell me what this "super buy" is???
Thanks!
Jack Textor
www.textors.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Gordon Bowen" <gbowen(at)ptialaska.net>
Subject: Re: sheetmetal question
Date: Sep 03, 2006
Jack,
FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1B, page 4-1, indicates 1067, means high
carbon steel with no alloys, carbon content about .6%, if I'm
interpreting your numbering correctly. I looked up (googled) SAE
standards on steel alloys, 86 and 87 are digits indicating
chromium/nickel/steel alloy but 8018 doesn't show up and doesn't make
sense due to the second digit being a "0".. FAA and SAE metal standards
indicate------first digit of "1" is plain carbon steel, second digit of
"0" means no alloy or sulfur added, last two digits of the four means
the approx. carbon content. With the new ISO, worldwide standards on
all stuff, USA based SAE digits must be cross referenced with world
databases to see if numbers make sense. Since most of the steel
available in USA is made in some foreign country with cheaper labor,
think the SRD might mean the manufacturer. So...........this is my best
guess. IF you decide to try welding this stuff, you may want to insure
you use a really really non-oxidizing flame so you don't burn out the
carbon.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack T. Textor
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 6:28 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: sheetmetal question
Hi all,
Bought some sheetmetal at Blakesburg, not sure what it is, it is
stamped...
SRD 106 707 080 also 8018
SRD 106 706 051
The 080 and 051 appear to be the thickness
Can anyone tell me what this "super buy" is???
Thanks!
Jack Textor
www.textors.com
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: motorcycle car tires
Date: Sep 04, 2006
Hey guys,
a bit off subject, but not really.
I"m wanting to build a motorcycle powered, lightweight three wheeler as
a fun project one day.
I'm wanting to use motorcycle wheels with disc brakes up front. How do
you guys get a motorcycle hub to mount with a spindle type axle, since
most are designed for a through axle supported on each side.?
I need to get a steering/suspension assembly designed or purchased and
then get some motorcycle wheels and brakes for it.
Any thoughts appreciated!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: motorcycle car tires
Date: Sep 04, 2006
Hi Douwe
Your e mail address didn't appear with your post. If you send it off
group, I will send you a file on how to do it, with pics.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:39 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: motorcycle car tires
Hey guys,
a bit off subject, but not really.
I"m wanting to build a motorcycle powered, lightweight three wheeler
as a fun project one day.
I'm wanting to use motorcycle wheels with disc brakes up front. How
do you guys get a motorcycle hub to mount with a spindle type axle,
since most are designed for a through axle supported on each side.?
I need to get a steering/suspension assembly designed or purchased and
then get some motorcycle wheels and brakes for it.
Any thoughts appreciated!
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: sheetmetal question
Date: Sep 04, 2006
From: "Jack T. Textor" <jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com>
Thanks Gordon, I'm still confused naturally. I did find a reference to
8018 as high tensile strength tool steel, but sill searching.
Thanks again!
Jack
www.textors.com <http://www.textors.com/>
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Gordon
Bowen
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Pietenpol-List: sheetmetal question
Jack,
FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1B, page 4-1, indicates 1067, means high
carbon steel with no alloys, carbon content about .6%, if I'm
interpreting your numbering correctly. I looked up (googled) SAE
standards on steel alloys, 86 and 87 are digits indicating
chromium/nickel/steel alloy but 8018 doesn't show up and doesn't make
sense due to the second digit being a "0".. FAA and SAE metal standards
indicate------first digit of "1" is plain carbon steel, second digit of
"0" means no alloy or sulfur added, last two digits of the four means
the approx. carbon content. With the new ISO, worldwide standards on
all stuff, USA based SAE digits must be cross referenced with world
databases to see if numbers make sense. Since most of the steel
available in USA is made in some foreign country with cheaper labor,
think the SRD might mean the manufacturer. So...........this is my best
guess. IF you decide to try welding this stuff, you may want to insure
you use a really really non-oxidizing flame so you don't burn out the
carbon.
Gordon
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack T. Textor <mailto:jtextor(at)thepalmergroup.com>
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 6:28 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: sheetmetal question
Hi all,
Bought some sheetmetal at Blakesburg, not sure what it is, it is
stamped...
SRD 106 707 080 also 8018
SRD 106 706 051
The 080 and 051 appear to be the thickness
Can anyone tell me what this "super buy" is???
Thanks!
Jack Textor
www.textors.com
ronics.com/Navigator?Pietenpol-List
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: J-3 Cub Engine Eyebrows on ebay
Date: Sep 05, 2006
From: "Phillips, Jack" <Jack.Phillips(at)cardinal.com>
OK Pieters,
Here is an auction item on ebay - a set of cooling shorud eyebrows for a
Continental A65
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Piper-Cub-Eyebrows_W0QQitemZ320022523804Q
QihZ011QQcategoryZ26439QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Jack Phillips
NX899JP
_________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Subject: Tailwheel
Date: Sep 06, 2006
Well the list is very quiet today so I figure I will show you my recently
completed tailwheel. I used the stock "A"-arm with the compression spring.
I then ran a 1" tubing through the bottom of the arm inside the spring cup
to act as a bearing for 7/8" tubing with the wheel fork on it. The fork is
0.063 u-channel I bent on my bench vice mounted bending brake (see
http://westcoastpiet.com/bench-top_bender.htm for details on this
contraption that works amazingly well). The wheel is a 4" job from ACS. I
had to put in a bushing to bring the axel diameter from 5/8 to 3/8. 3/8"
bolt was chosen because it's head fit inside the u-channel. As soon as I
get it finished I will weigh it and compare it to a leaf spring setup. I
will have large pictures posted on my website soon @
http://westcoastpiet.com/chris_tracy.htm
Thanks to everyone on this list who sent me pictures of their tailwheel
and helped with advice. Unfortunately it will be a long time before I know
if this works or not.
Chris Tracy
Sacramento, Ca
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 07, 2006
From: "walt evans" <waltdak(at)verizon.net>
Subject: Re: Tailwheel
Chris,
Looks like a nice job. Nice and clean.
walt evans
NX140DL
"Put your wealth in knowledge, and no one can ever take it from you"
Ben Franklin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Catdesigns" <catdesigns(at)comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:20 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Tailwheel
> Well the list is very quiet today so I figure I will show you my recently
> completed tailwheel. I used the stock "A"-arm with the compression spring.
> I then ran a 1" tubing through the bottom of the arm inside the spring cup
> to act as a bearing for 7/8" tubing with the wheel fork on it. The fork
> is
> 0.063 u-channel I bent on my bench vice mounted bending brake (see
> http://westcoastpiet.com/bench-top_bender.htm for details on this
> contraption that works amazingly well). The wheel is a 4" job from ACS.
> I
> had to put in a bushing to bring the axel diameter from 5/8 to 3/8. 3/8"
> bolt was chosen because it's head fit inside the u-channel. As soon as I
> get it finished I will weigh it and compare it to a leaf spring setup. I
> will have large pictures posted on my website soon @
> http://westcoastpiet.com/chris_tracy.htm
>
> Thanks to everyone on this list who sent me pictures of their tailwheel
> and helped with advice. Unfortunately it will be a long time before I
> know
> if this works or not.
>
> Chris Tracy
> Sacramento, Ca
>
>
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Bad Fuel
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Sep 08, 2006
Well it's awfully quiet on the list for the last few days
Here is something to get things started:
I went out flying yesterday in the Piet, another hot afternoon but humidity
was for a change below 50%
I took of to the North and made a wide circle around the home field
climbing up to 1200 feet.
Dove hunting season has started in Texas, so low and slow is asking for
trouble. (FLAK)
10 minutes in to the flight my Corvair engine CHT climbed up to 475 F, that
never happened before thus I set up for a landing.
On final temperature dropped again (engine idling), while on the ground I
did another run up, everything checked out OK
Decided to take her up again. During climb out at 500 feet the engine
became erratic and dropped a good 500 RPM.
I decided to land right away, engine ran fine again when power was reduced.
I strongly suspect that my recent fill-up with Mogas was not the octane
level as was advertised, every thing indicated detonation.
It is hard to hear in a open cockpit but I did hear a unusual
pinging/ticking sound coming from the engine.
The three months 10% ethanol is mandatory in Mogas in Texas, this was my
first fresh batch of fuel that would have had Ethanol.
Ethanol would increase the octane level.
But ethanol will also dissolve water.
If it is saturated with water would it lean out a engine enough (water
displacing fuel) to cause detonation ?
Then again water would cool the combustion process.
I will be using Avgas from now on.
Hans
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "glich7(at)juno.com" <glich7(at)juno.com>
Date: Sep 09, 2006
Subject: flyin fyi
Hey everybody,
As has been mentioned it has been quiet, so I decided to post
something everyone might be interested in. Awhile back, I came across
an airport website for Lee Bottom Flying Field while searching for
info on grass airports. What I found was a far from your ordinary
grass airfield, meant to preserve the look and feel of a vintage
airfield of the 1930s. They have a well groomed grass runway(4100' x
100' I think), old fashioned hangers, and are hard at work on a
vintage aircraft museum. The owners Rich and Ginger work hard to keep
the place looking good (with mostly their own money and a few
donations, along with that of dedicated volunteers). Anyway, what I
wanted to tell the list about is their yearly fly-in, "The Wood,
Fabric, and Tailwheels Fly-in 2006" on September 30th. I think the
Pietenpol would definitely qualify, and I'm sure you would have a
great time. Lee Bottom is in Hanover, Indiana near the Ohio River, so
those living in the Midwest have the shortest trip. All the
information for camping, arrival, and the airport is available on
their website below. I'm doubtful I'll be able to make it but check
it out if you like. Sorry this was long,
http://www.leebottom.com
http://www.airnav.com/airport/64I
Blue Skies,
Tim Hansen in Orient, OH
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
From: kmordecai001(at)comcast.net
Subject: Back in the Air Again! (A-75 bottom overhaul)
Date: Sep 09, 2006
Hi Folks,
Well, after about 2 months of downtime we're back in the air again :-) I had
torn down the A-75 back in July to investigate low oil pressure. Found very worn
main and rod bearings and a .010" / .010" under crank with mild scoring and
typical wear. The crank failed magnaflux due to a crack in the front main journal
that would not grind out at .020" under, but I located a good standard
dimension flanged and yellow-tagged crank to replace it. The top end w/ chrome
cylinders was new about 65 hours ago, and all was well up there and within new
assembly tolerances. Likewise for the oil pump. New gears had been installed
with the top end, and they were in excellent shape with good tip clearance.
While looking for a crank I used the extra time to balance the pistons and rods.
Found a total of 10 grams difference between the lightest & heaviest piston
(spec is 13 max), but the two heaviest were within 1 gram of each other, while
the two lightest were within 5. Rods were all within 4 grams, and I was able
to swap cylinders #1 and #4 to achieve less than 1.5 grams total imbalance between
the rear pair of pistons/rods, with about 4 grams total between the front
pair after mixing/matching rods.
I finished the assembly last Friday before the holiday weekend. Used Hylomar along
with the Continental thread to seal the case. If you haven't used Hylomar
before, it's a non-hardening 100% polymer material developed by Rolls years ago
for jet engine applications. Now used by Porsche, BMW, and more recently GM
and Ford for metal to metal non-gasketed joints. I've never had a leak due to
Hylomar on quite a few VW's, BMW motorcycles, a few Porsches, etc.
Completed the ground testing Saturday, no leaks & a clean oil screen, & drained
the oil thru a paint filter with no surprises.
First flight was Sunday, about 1/2 hour above the field, followed by another oil
screen inspection with no "findings".
Now have about 1.5 hours on the engine, not a trace of oil on the exterior, oil
pressure is back in the normal range and oil consumption seems to be low (too
soon to really tell yet) It also looks like the balancing paid off, as it is
much smoother than before.
I think the worn bottom end was allowing too much oil flow thru the main & rod
bearings, resulting in much windage and oil loss thru the breather. I had added
the breather extension tube last year, but it didn't help much. Still lost about
1/2 quart/hour of operation, despite never filling the sump over 3 quarts.
Now the oil level has not visibly changed in the one hour of operation since
the first oil change :-) Oil temperature is running 155-160F, about 20-25F
higher than before. I think this is due to increased oil circulation to the heads
brought about with the higher oil pressure. All indications are good :-)
Looking forward to some good flying this fall with renewed confidence in the old
Continental :-)
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
NX520SF
Hi Folks,
Well, after about 2 months of downtime we're back in the air again :-)
I had torn down the A-75 back in July to investigate low oil pressure.
Found very worn main and rod bearings and a .010" / .010" under
crank with mild scoring and typical wear. The crank failed magnaflux due
to a crack in the front main journal that would not grind out at .020" under, but
I located a good standard dimension flanged and yellow-tagged crank
to replace it. The top end w/ chrome cylinders was new about 65 hours
ago, and all was well up there and within new assembly tolerances.
Likewise for the oil pump. New gears had been installed with the top end, and
they were in excellent shape with good tip clearance.
While looking for a crank I used the extra time to balance the pistons and rods.
Found a total of 10 grams difference between the lightest & heaviest
piston (spec is 13 max), but the two heaviest were within 1 gram of each
other, while the two lightest were within 5. Rods were all within 4 grams, and
I was able to swap cylinders #1 and #4 to achieve less than 1.5 grams total
imbalance between the rear pair of pistons/rods, with about 4 grams total between
the front pair after mixing/matching rods.
I finished the assembly last Friday before the holiday weekend. Used Hylomar
along with the Continental thread to seal the case. If you haven't used Hylomar
before, it's a non-hardening 100% polymer material developed by Rolls years
ago for jet engine applications. Now used by Porsche, BMW, and more recently
GM and Ford for metal to metal non-gasketed joints. I've never
had a leak due to Hylomar on quite a few VW's, BMW motorcycles, a few Porsches,
etc.
Completed the ground testing Saturday, no leaks & a clean oil
screen, & drained the oil thru a paint filter with no surprises.
First flight was Sunday, about 1/2 hour above the field, followed by another
oil screen inspection with no "findings".
Now have about 1.5 hours on the engine, not a trace of oil on the exterior,
oil pressure is back in the normal range and oil consumption seems to be low (too
soon to really tell yet) It also looks like the balancing paid off,
as it is much smoother than before.
I think the worn bottom end was allowing too much oil flow thru the main &
rod bearings, resulting in much windage and oil loss thru the breather. I had
added the breather extension tube last year, but it didn't help much. Still
lost about 1/2 quart/hour of operation, despite never filling the sump over 3
quarts. Now the oil level has not visibly changed in the one hour of operation
since the first oil change :-) Oil temperature is running 155-160F,
about 20-25F higher than before. I think this is due to increased oil circulation
to the heads brought about with the higher oil pressure. All indications
are good :-)
Looking forward to some good flying this fall with renewed confidence in the
old Continental :-)
Dave Mordecai
Panacea, FL
NX520SF
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 08, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Bad Fuel
Man! that sounds all too famillar. We ran only 100LL in our corvair but that sounds
like similar symtoms. Eventually our crank broke and luckly we did not
tear up the airplane. I'm by far no expert on corvairs but what is your static
rpm, climb-out rpm and what prop are you using. We are grounded, probobly untill
next spring when we rebuild another engine. We are using a Heggy 66-30
(I believe) wodden prop and we were getting 3150-3300 static. I'm just currious
about others performance with the corvairs.
Shad
Hans Vander Voort wrote:
Well it's awfully quiet on the list for the last few days
Here is something to get things started:
I went out flying yesterday in the Piet, another hot afternoon but humidity
was for a change below 50%
I took of to the North and made a wide circle around the home field
climbing up to 1200 feet.
Dove hunting season has started in Texas, so low and slow is asking for
trouble. (FLAK)
10 minutes in to the flight my Corvair engine CHT climbed up to 475 F, that
never happened before thus I set up for a landing.
On final temperature dropped again (engine idling), while on the ground I
did another run up, everything checked out OK
Decided to take her up again. During climb out at 500 feet the engine
became erratic and dropped a good 500 RPM.
I decided to land right away, engine ran fine again when power was reduced.
I strongly suspect that my recent fill-up with Mogas was not the octane
level as was advertised, every thing indicated detonation.
It is hard to hear in a open cockpit but I did hear a unusual
pinging/ticking sound coming from the engine.
The three months 10% ethanol is mandatory in Mogas in Texas, this was my
first fresh batch of fuel that would have had Ethanol.
Ethanol would increase the octane level.
But ethanol will also dissolve water.
If it is saturated with water would it lean out a engine enough (water
displacing fuel) to cause detonation ?
Then again water would cool the combustion process.
I will be using Avgas from now on.
Hans
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: flyin fyi
Date: Sep 09, 2006
From: n925wb1(at)aol.com
I visited Lee Bottom last month by car (I know...) for their last "Sinful Sunday"
of the season. The sinfulness was the delicous ice cream they served! No
evil doing, I promise! Anyway, as Tim pointed out, this is a really neat field,
with tons of charm. I was told that they normally have about 300 aircraft
fly in for their annual gathering, so it should be a great event.
I have some pictures from the Sinful Suday on my website, just in case anybody
was wondering what the place looked like from the ground.
http://www.taildraggersinc.com/Gallery/Lee_Bottom_SS_08132006.htm
-Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: glich7(at)juno.com
Sent: Fri, 8 Sep 2006 8:05 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: flyin fyi
Hey everybody,
As has been mentioned it has been quiet, so I decided to post
something everyone might be interested in. Awhile back, I came across
an airport website for Lee Bottom Flying Field while searching for
info on grass airports. What I found was a far from your ordinary
grass airfield, meant to preserve the look and feel of a vintage
airfield of the 1930s. They have a well groomed grass runway(4100' x
100' I think), old fashioned hangers, and are hard at work on a
vintage aircraft museum. The owners Rich and Ginger work hard to keep
the place looking good (with mostly their own money and a few
donations, along with that of dedicated volunteers). Anyway, what I
wanted to tell the list about is their yearly fly-in, "The Wood,
Fabric, and Tailwheels Fly-in 2006" on September 30th. I think the
Pietenpol would definitely qualify, and I'm sure you would have a
great time. Lee Bottom is in Hanover, Indiana near the Ohio River, so
those living in the Midwest have the shortest trip. All the
information for camping, arrival, and the airport is available on
their website below. I'm doubtful I'll be able to make it but check
it out if you like. Sorry this was long,
http://www.leebottom.com
http://www.airnav.com/airport/64I
Blue Skies,
Tim Hansen in Orient, OH
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools,
free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL
Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "William Rives Young" <wry22(at)drexel.edu>
Subject: Re: flyin fyi
Date: Sep 09, 2006
For those of us in PA the Golden Age Air Mueseum at Grimes Field(8N1) is a
pretty cool place too. They even have a Piet.
www.goldenageair.org
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: flyin fyi
Date: Sep 09, 2006
From: n925wb1(at)AOL.COM
I made a stop in at Grimes back in 2002. We flew up in a friend's Skybolt. Grimes
is a nice field, and their fly-in is very well attended. Lots of neat planes.
I have a gallery on my site with pics from Grimes, too. Sorry to post so many
gallery links in one day, but it's always nice to share photos!
http://www.taildraggersinc.com/Gallery/Grimes2002.htm
-Wayne
-----Original Message-----
From: wry22(at)drexel.edu
Sent: Sat, 9 Sep 2006 1:30 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Re: flyin fyi
For those of us in PA the Golden Age Air Mueseum at Grimes Field(8N1) is a pretty
cool place too. They even have a Piet.
www.goldenageair.org
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools,
free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL
Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Oscar Zuniga" <taildrags(at)hotmail.com>
Subject: slow news day
Date: Sep 11, 2006
Well, I couldn't believe things were so slow in the low 'n' slow Pietenpol
world that there were zero messages in the digest from yesterday. Nothing.
So here's my 9-11 report on NX41CC. My hangar mate and I are being evicted
from our hangar. It was sold so we are having to move. The bad part is
that I'm leaving on vacation for two weeks starting Wednesday, so I won't be
here to help my buddy with the heavy lifting. I did work all day Saturday
boxing things up, sweeping, and moving excess materials out of the hangar.
What I didn't mention is that we are only moving to a hangar behind us here
at San Geronimo Airpark, not across town or anything, so it isn't a huge
distance but it's just as much effort as moving across town, it seems.
The airplane is ready for the wings. Everything is complete on the
fuselage, the engine has been run tested and is ready for prime time. I do
have a new carb gasket and venturi to change out to see if I can help the
rich running condition, and I don't have my smoke system fully worked out
yet, but those are not essential items at this time.
When I get back from the Mediterranean the end of this month, the wings will
go back on the airplane, new W&B will be done, and we'll see if she can get
air under her wings again. Shoot, maybe I'll help out the Minutemen
patrolling the border down here once the airplane is flying again... I think
it flies slow enough to give border crossers plenty of advance warning that
they are about to be surveilled. And by golly, I'll be able to hit 'em with
a blanket of smoke for good effect!
See y'all in two weeks, and don't have too much fun Pietenpoling without me!
Oscar Zuniga
San Antonio, TX
mailto: taildrags(at)hotmail.com
website at http://www.flysquirrel.net
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2006
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Crankshafts
So much for the rumor that only Corvair engines have crankshaft problems:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/717-full.html#193160
You would think that when you fork over $25,000 to $40,000 for a stinkin
engine they could verify that the crankshaft is good.
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Crankshafts
Date: Sep 11, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
That's the fun of being in the home builders business,you just never
really know what your going to get and you really have to know your
stuff or at least have someone around that knows their stuff.I got stung
on an engine that I bought off ebay.It was only 720$ Cnd but still ,we
had to literally rebuild that sucker.I might as well have bought a new
one from a manufacturerby the time I got finished it cost me around the
same amount of money.Crazy baby!
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Rick
Holland
Sent: September 11, 2006 11:18 AM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: Crankshafts
So much for the rumor that only Corvair engines have crankshaft
problems:
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/717-full.html#193160
You would think that when you fork over $25,000 to $40,000 for a stinkin
engine they could verify that the crankshaft is good.
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2006
From: Michael D Cuy <Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Smoke readiness
Oscar--- great to hear of your progress but Chuck Gantzer and I beg to
differ on your stance that smoke might not be essential for
flight. Technically you're right but to be able to say for a FUN flight,
you must have a full container of smoke oil on takeoff. Puff once before
takeoff just before you put out the leading edge slats and 20 degrees of
flaps, okay ? :)))
Mike C.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2006
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Crankshafts
Yes but these are bad cranks coming with brand new Lycomings, not cheap eBay
junk.
On 9/11/06, harvey.rule(at)bell.ca wrote:
>
> That's the fun of being in the home builders business,you just never
> really know what your going to get and you really have to know your stuff or
> at least have someone around that knows their stuff.I got stung on an
> engine that I bought off ebay.It was only 720$ Cnd but still ,we had to
> literally rebuild that sucker.I might as well have bought a new one from a
> manufacturerby the time I got finished it cost me around the same amount of
> money.Crazy baby!
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:
> owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] *On Behalf Of *Rick Holland
> *Sent:* September 11, 2006 11:18 AM
> *To:* pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
> *Subject:* Pietenpol-List: Crankshafts
>
>
> So much for the rumor that only Corvair engines have crankshaft problems:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/717-full.html#193160
>
> You would think that when you fork over $25,000 to $40,000 for a stinkin
> engine they could verify that the crankshaft is good.
>
> --
> Rick Holland
>
> "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
>
> * *
>
> * *
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> **
>
> * *
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 2006
Subject: Re: Crankshafts
In a message dated 9/11/2006 10:20:26 AM Central Standard Time,
at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
So much for the rumor that only Corvair engines have crankshaft problems:
Rick,
I couldn't find what engines are effected. I have an O-320-E2D sitting out
in my garage, to be bolted to the nose of my Wittman Tailwind W10. It's out of
a '67 Cessna 172. Do you know what engines are effected ?
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 2006
Subject: Re: Smoke readiness
In a message dated 9/11/2006 12:38:57 PM Central Standard Time,
Michael.D.Cuy(at)grc.nasa.gov writes:
Oscar--- great to hear of your progress but Chuck Gantzer and I beg to differ
on your stance that smoke might not be essential for flight. Technically
you're right but to be able to say for a FUN flight, you must have a full
container of smoke oil on takeoff. Puff once before takeoff just before you put
out
the leading edge slats and 20 degrees of flaps, okay ? :)))
Mike C.
Yep, and for safety sake, I always give a few puffs when entering the
pattern, or crossing over any thresholds of any airport, or in the vicinity, or
when
I see other planes in the sky. However, the Smokin' Take Off always looks
cool when I turn around to see the vorticies curling up !! I think Smoke oil in
the tank rates up close there to Fuel in the tank !!
Hey Oscar, that Boarder Patrol sounds like a Great idea !!
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
From: Rcaprd(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 11, 2006
Subject: Re: Smoke readiness
In a message dated 9/11/2006 4:00:20 PM Central Standard Time,
Catdesign(at)intergate.com writes:
So Chuck, been around Sacramento lately? If so, my son says it looks like
you miss again.
LOL !!
Well, you can let him know that it was NOT me !! I haven't been to the
Sacramento area !! I've been getting better on the cuts, and with a little more
practice, I'll be leaving nothing but bits & pieces !! A couple of times I got
Two cuts on the same roll...gotta climb way up to initiate that one.
Chuck G.
NX770CG
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 11, 2006
From: "Rick Holland" <at7000ft(at)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Crankshafts
Sorry I don't now Chuck, probably have to contact Lycoming.
Rick
On 9/11/06, Rcaprd(at)aol.com wrote:
>
> In a message dated 9/11/2006 10:20:26 AM Central Standard Time,
> at7000ft(at)gmail.com writes:
>
> So much for the rumor that only Corvair engines have crankshaft problems:
>
> Rick,
> I couldn't find what engines are effected. I have an O-320-E2D sitting
> out in my garage, to be bolted to the nose of my Wittman Tailwind W10. It's
> out of a '67 Cessna 172. Do you know what engines are effected ?
>
> Chuck G.
> NX770CG
>
> *
>
>
> *
>
>
--
Rick Holland
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers, that smell bad"
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chet's Mail" <Chethartley1(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 12, 2006
Hello to all:
I'm the new owner of N920Y built by Don Hicks in Alabama. And I have a
question to all that have Model A engines. What is your starting
procedure, for I'm having a little problem when it comes to starting
this engine. I do thank you for your time.
Chet Hartley
Holts Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 12, 2006
Congratulations Chet! I never saw the plane but did work with Don at Sun N Fun,
he did good work.
Sorry I Can't help you with starting the Model A, I'm still in the learning curve
starting the A 65 on my GN-1. The bendix mags are non impulse.
Skip
----- Original Message -----
I'm the new owner of N920Y built by Don Hicks in Alabama. And I have a question
to all that have Model A engines.
Chet Hartley
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Dick Navratil" <horzpool(at)goldengate.net>
Subject: Re: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 12, 2006
Welcome Chet
Congradulations! I also worked with Don at Sun n Fun, he was a great
guy and meticulous in his building. The next time you watch the movie
"PT109" look for him as one of the PT boat crew in the movie. I don't
know which one, but I've heard the stories more than once. He also
served on a PT boat in WWII.
Sorry, I can't help with the Ford question though.
Dick N.
----- Original Message -----
From: Chet's Mail
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:35 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Piet owner
Hello to all:
I'm the new owner of N920Y built by Don Hicks in Alabama. And I have a
question to all that have Model A engines. What is your starting
procedure, for I'm having a little problem when it comes to starting
this engine. I do thank you for your time.
Chet Hartley
Holts Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 13, 2006
From: <harvey.rule(at)bell.ca>
Congrats on becoming a new member,welcome aboard,you won't find a better
bunch of people anywhere!If you have one with the modal A engine then
you really look and feel like one of the originals and as one member
mentioned earlier ,your going to have people coming over to look at your
aircraft that are flying much more costly and sophisticated
stuff.Enjoy.I flew a circuit for the first time last night and I got to
tell ya your gonna love this aircraft and the people involved with it!
________________________________
From: owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com
[mailto:owner-pietenpol-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Chet's
Mail
Sent: September 12, 2006 7:36 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Piet owner
Hello to all:
I'm the new owner of N920Y built by Don Hicks in Alabama. And I have a
question to all that have Model A engines. What is your starting
procedure, for I'm having a little problem when it comes to starting
this engine. I do thank you for your time.
Chet Hartley
Holts Summit, MO
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 2006
From: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: New Piet owner
Skip, My GN-1, Corvair powered, is, as they say, "about 80% finished with 80% to
go" to being flight ready.
I have attached a shot of mine, do you one you can share of yours?
Gene in Springfield, IL
-----Original Message-----
>From: Skip-Cinda Gadd <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Sep 12, 2006 8:07 PM
>To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
>Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: New Piet owner
>
>Congratulations Chet! I never saw the plane but did work with Don at Sun N Fun,
he did good work.
>Sorry I Can't help you with starting the Model A, I'm still in the learning curve
starting the A 65 on my GN-1. The bendix mags are non impulse.
>Skip
>
>----- Original Message -----
>I'm the new owner of N920Y built by Don Hicks in Alabama. And I have a question
to all that have Model A engines.
>Chet Hartley
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 13, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Crankshafts
I believe the cranks affected were manufactured from 1997 on, According to the
website that was posted about the class action lawsuit. I believe they changed
the alloy used to make the cranks to save $$$.
Shad
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: RAMPEYBOY(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 13, 2006
Subject: Re: New Piet owner
Gene, what's the difference in a GN-1 and a regular old air camper? That's
awesome work by the way! Did you have to steam those lower longerons in the
aft part of fuselage to get the bend in them? Thanks!
Boyce
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Douwe Blumberg" <douweblumberg(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: starting a Ford
Date: Sep 13, 2006
Hello,
I've talked to other Ford flyers and have been running mine on the test
stand for a year now. Make sure your mag, or one of your mags has an
impulse coupling, which I'm sure it does.
My Ford has a weber carb, which I found NEEDs to be choked to start when
it's cold, either by using the choke or covering the intake to limit the
air coming in. I"ve seen guys put a priming line in, but this shouldn't
be necessary. like most engines, pull the prop through after verifying
the mags are off, and using extreme caution before trying it hot, this
will bring some mixture into the cylinders. I've read about guys
pulling the prop through backwards to bring it in but i can't see what
the difference would be.
Good luck
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Chet's Mail" <Chethartley1(at)mchsi.com>
Subject: Re: starting a Ford
Date: Sep 13, 2006
Thanks for the info I only have the one mag, do you have two and how is
that rigged??????
Chet
----- Original Message -----
From: Douwe Blumberg
To: pietenpolgroup
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:44 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: starting a Ford
Hello,
I've talked to other Ford flyers and have been running mine on the
test stand for a year now. Make sure your mag, or one of your mags has
an impulse coupling, which I'm sure it does.
My Ford has a weber carb, which I found NEEDs to be choked to start
when it's cold, either by using the choke or covering the intake to
limit the air coming in. I"ve seen guys put a priming line in, but this
shouldn't be necessary. like most engines, pull the prop through after
verifying the mags are off, and using extreme caution before trying it
hot, this will bring some mixture into the cylinders. I've read about
guys pulling the prop through backwards to bring it in but i can't see
what the difference would be.
Good luck
Douwe
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 14, 2006
Hi Gene,
Your GN-1 looks great. Are you going to add the long gussets on the side and bottom
of the lower longerons aft of the pilot pit? They were not on the Flyer and
glider plans but are on the 34 improved plans.
Here is a picture of my GN-1, we call it Felix.
Skip Gadd
csfog(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "gcardinal" <gcardinal(at)mn.rr.com>
Subject: Re: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 14, 2006
Very nice, Skip.
We are awaiting a flight report......
Greg Cardinal
----- Original Message -----
From: Skip-Cinda Gadd
To: pietenpol-list
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 8:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Piet owner
Hi Gene,
Your GN-1 looks great. Are you going to add the long gussets on the
side and bottom of the lower longerons aft of the pilot pit? They were
not on the Flyer and glider plans but are on the 34 improved plans.
Here is a picture of my GN-1, we call it Felix.
Skip Gadd
csfog(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Skip-Cinda Gadd" <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: New Piet owner
Date: Sep 15, 2006
Thanks Greg,
I will let you know when I fly it. I have to reinstall the front rudder peddles
and stick, and aileron gap seals, also want to install a fuel shutoff. There
is a CFI at the field with a cub and allot of tail dragger time. The plan is for
him to fly it after I get everything right. Then he will check me out in it.
I get to work on it about an hour a day, after working on the house all day,
so the progress is slow.
Skip
-----
Very nice, Skip.
We are awaiting a flight report......
Greg Cardinal
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 15, 2006
From: Gene Beenenga <kgbunltd(at)earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: New Piet owner
Skip, I got the photo, looks great!
Gene
-----Original Message-----
>From: Skip-Cinda Gadd <csfog(at)earthlink.net>
>Sent: Sep 14, 2006 8:19 PM
>To: pietenpol-list
>Subject: Pietenpol-List: New Piet owner
>
>Hi Gene,
>
>Your GN-1 looks great. Are you going to add the long gussets on the side and bottom
of the lower longerons aft of the pilot pit? They were not on the Flyer
and glider plans but are on the 34 improved plans.
>
>Here is a picture of my GN-1, we call it Felix.
>
>Skip Gadd
>csfog(at)earthlink.net
________________________________________________________________________________
From: TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
Date: Sep 17, 2006
Subject: props on corvair motors
I am curious as to the props used on Corvair engines on the Pietenpol. The
composite props do not look right on the 70 + year old design. what length and
pitch are most of you using and what Prop company manufactured it or did you
make your own?
Ted Stone
I have quite aways to go before I need a prop.
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 17, 2006
From: shad bell <aviatorbell(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: props on corvair motors
Hello Ted my dad uses a Heggy 66in diameter with a 30 in pitch. This prop made
more than enough thrust. We were getting 3200-3300 rpm with a marvel schebler
ma3spa carb. Unfortunatly we had a crank failure about 4 weeks ago so we have
to build another engine. Prop stayed on but engine will be mostly trashed.
We took the engine off yesterday and took it back to Dad's garage to rebuild.
We are waiting to hear from William Wynne to see what input he might have
as to reason for the failure. I'm told it is imperitive with the Corvair to have
your prop indexed 90 degrees to the front rod (#6) journal. I am not sure
but believe ours was, It may not have been. Talking to a guy who used to build
racing airplane engines, he said where our crank broke sounded like prop vibration
caused it. I dont meen to scare you with this info, just precautionary
and I dont want the same to happen to anyone else. Feel free to email me off
the list I will try to keep list updated on what,
if anything we find out about the crank failure.
Sincerly
Shad
TGSTONE236(at)aol.com wrote:
I am curious as to the props used on Corvair engines on the Pietenpol. The
composite props do not look right on the 70 + year old design. what length and
pitch are most of you using and what Prop company manufactured it or did you
make your own?
Ted Stone
I have quite aways to go before I need a prop.
---------------------------------
________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Roman Bukolt" <conceptmodels(at)tds.net>
Subject: Re: props on corvair motors
Date: Sep 17, 2006
Hi!
I just received my prop yesterday which I purchased through William
Wynne.
At his request, I sent him a check for $700 in May. He, then, ordered
the prop from Sensenich.
It's a beautiful piece of woodwork with somewhat of a scimitar shape.
Diameter is 64 " and the pitch is 52 ".
----- Original Message -----
From: TGSTONE236(at)aol.com
To: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:19 PM
Subject: Pietenpol-List: props on corvair motors
I am curious as to the props used on Corvair engines on the Pietenpol.
The composite props do not look right on the 70 + year old design. what
length and pitch are most of you using and what Prop company
manufactured it or did you make your own?
Ted Stone
I have quite aways to go before I need a prop.
________________________________________________________________________________
Subject: Re: Bad Fuel
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Sep 14, 2006
Shad
I run a Tennessee prop 64 x 34
Static is about 2900 RPM
Hans
shad bell
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
Re: Pietenpol-List: Bad Fuel
09/09/2006 12:05
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
Man! that sounds all too famillar. We ran only 100LL in our corvair but
that sounds like similar symtoms. Eventually our crank broke and luckly we
did not tear up the airplane. I'm by far no expert on corvairs but what is
your static rpm, climb-out rpm and what prop are you using. We are
grounded, probobly untill next spring when we rebuild another engine. We
are using a Heggy 66-30 (I believe) wodden prop and we were getting
3150-3300 static. I'm just currious about others performance with the
corvairs.
Shad
Hans Vander Voort wrote:
Well it's awfully quiet on the list for the last few days
Here is something to get things started:
I went out flying yesterday in the Piet, another hot afternoon but
humidity
was for a change below 50%
I took of to the North and made a wide circle around the home field
climbing up to 1200 feet.
Dove hunting season has started in Texas, so low and slow is asking for
trouble. (FLAK)
10 minutes in to the flight my Corvair engine CHT climbed up to 475 F,
that
never happened before thus I set up for a landing.
On final temperature dropped again (engine idling), while on the ground I
did another run up, everything checked out OK
Decided to take her up again. During climb out at 500 feet the engine
became erratic and dropped a good 500 RPM.
I decided to land right away, engine ran fine again when power was
reduced.
I strongly suspect that my recent fill-up with Mogas was not the octane
level as was advertised, every thing indicated detonation.
It is hard to hear in a open cockpit but I did hear a
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2006
From: Jeff Boatright <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Subject: First flight..
If you're well above stall speed, what is the problem with a steep climb-out?
>
>Take off was much better today but according to observers I was still
>doing the ultralight thing by bringing the nose of the plane up too far
>and taking off at too sharpe an angle.Old habits are hard to correct.I
>thought I did it a lot better.I'll have to improve more on the next
>flight.
--
_____________________________________________________________
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: "Gene & Tammy" <zharvey(at)bellsouth.net>
Subject: Re: First flight..
Date: Sep 18, 2006
Jeff,
I'd like to throw my two cents in on the question "what's wrong with a steep
climb out?".
I come from a back ground of both general avation and two stroke airplanes
and I'm familiar with both. I currently own and fly a Piet (N502R) with a
Continental A 65 and my plane before it was an Avid with a 75 HP 2 stroke.
Plus I've owned and flown a number of others. Loved them all.
The problem with a steep climb out on take off is if your engine quites you
won't have time to get the nose down into a glide (flying speed) before you
return to earth. Not good on airframes or human anatomy. I've spent most
of my life in Alaska and it has never stopped amazing me how many Alaskan
pilots manage to kill themselves and others with a steep climb out. One
friend of mine (and a very experienced pilot) took off from his home field
in his Super Cub with his small son and his father-in-law on board. His
wife and mother-in-law were watching from their living room window. Steep
climb out, engine died and so did all three on board (with wife and
mother-in-law still watching.). That next winter another pilot that we had
both known was killed doing the same thing from a frozen lake. He had put
his cub into a steep takeoff climb, showing off to his friends on the
ground. He died because he had neglected to turn on his fuel switch and in
a steep climbout he just didn't have the speed or altitude to keep from
stalling out.
Try this. Go up to about 2500 or higher, put your plane into a steep climb
just above stall speed, note your altitude and turn the engine off. Once
you have your plane back under control and your flying again note your
altitude and restart your engine. It'll make a believer out of you.
The way I look at it, is that I do enough dumb things while flying that I
don't need to do the dumb things that I know will get me killed.
Gene
riginal Message -----
From: "Jeff Boatright" <jboatri(at)emory.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 9:44 AM
Subject: RE: Pietenpol-List: First flight..
>
> If you're well above stall speed, what is the problem with a steep
> climb-out?
>
>
>>
>>Take off was much better today but according to observers I was still
>>doing the ultralight thing by bringing the nose of the plane up too far
>>and taking off at too sharpe an angle.Old habits are hard to correct.I
>>thought I did it a lot better.I'll have to improve more on the next
>>flight.
>
> --
>
> _____________________________________________________________
> 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: First flight..
From: Hans Vander Voort <hans.vander.voort(at)alfalaval.com>
Date: Sep 18, 2006
The problem is Angle Of Attack, not the steep climb.
With a high AOA you can have a stall well above stall speed.
All this is not very likely with a Pietenpol as the speed range is not all
that large.
I suggest you make a number of test flights at different climb speeds and
log the climb rate for each speed.
You are looking for the best climb rate for normal operation.
My Piet best initial climb rate is 750 ft/min at 55 Mph. (achieved on a
cool winter day)
This is measured over one minute beginning when lined up on the runway,
(push stopwatch, push full throttle, count of one minute and log altitude)
while speed never exceeds 55 Mph.
Do this at 40 Mph and your have a higher AOA (steep attitude) but not a
higher altitude at the end of the minute.
Before you do all this check your stall speed first at safe altitude,
Calibrate your ASI and practice, practice and practice slow speed fleet
first.
Typical stall speed of a Piet is around 30 Mph.
And the above intial climb procedure should not be done below 40 Mph.
If you want to test climb speeds at around 30 Mph than get some altitude
first!
Be safe!
Hans
Jeff Boatright
To
Sent by: pietenpol-list(at)matronics.com
owner-pietenpol-l cc
ist-server@matron
ics.com Subject
RE: Pietenpol-List: First flight..
09/18/2006 09:44
AM
Please respond to
pietenpol-list@ma
tronics.com
If you're well above stall speed, what is the problem with a steep
climb-out?
>
>Take off was much better today but according to observers I was still
>doing the ultralight thing by bringing the nose of the plane up too far
>and taking off at too sharpe an angle.Old habits are hard to correct.I
>thought I did it a lot better.I'll have to improve more on the next
>flight.
--
_____________________________________________________________
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
________________________________________________________________________________
Date: Sep 18, 2006
From: Gary Gower <ggower_99(at)yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: First flight..
Hello Jeff,
One very important note: The 2,500 ft that Gene is talking about in this test
have to be above ground level, or ASL if you do the test over the ocean...
3 friends from our club have died from take off stall (in 15 years)...
Is the worse thing to happen... all the friends are watching the pilot get killed.
Very sad, one has to notify the family... Worse. Also explain to our
families and friends that aviation is safe, at every reunion for years Too
much work, Lets all fly safe please.
Saludos
Gary Gower.
Flying from Chapala, Mexico.
Jeff,
I'd like to throw my two cents in on the question "what's wrong with a steep
climb out?".
I come from a back ground of both general avation and two stroke airplanes
and I'm familiar with both. I currently own and fly a Piet (N502R) with a
Continental A 65 and my plane before it was an Avid with a 75 HP 2 stroke.
Plus I've owned and flown a number of others. Loved them all.
The problem with a steep climb out on take off is if your engine quites you
won't have time to get the nose down into a glide (flying speed) before you
return to earth. Not good on airframes or human anatomy. I've spent most
of my life in Alaska and it has never stopped amazing me how many Alaskan
pilots manage to kill themselves and others with a steep climb out. One
friend of mine (and a very experienced pilot) took off from his home field
in his Super Cub with his small son and his father-in-law on board. His
wife and mother-in-law were watching from their living room window. Steep
climb out, engine died and so did all three on board (with wife and
mother-in-law still watching.). That next winter another pilot that we had
both known was killed doing the same thing from a frozen lake. He had put
his cub into a steep takeoff climb, showing off to his friends on the
ground. He died because he had neglected to turn on his fuel switch and in
a steep climbout he just didn't have the speed or altitude to keep from
stalling out.
Try this. Go up to about 2500 or higher, put your plane into a steep climb
just above stall speed, note your altitude and turn the engine off. Once
you have your plane back under control and your flying again note your
altitude and restart your engine. It'll make a believer out of you.
The way I look at it, is that I do enough dumb things while flying that I
don't need to do the dumb things that I know will get me killed.
Gene